Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 5 May 2020

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

1RR Moratorium on addition/removal of drug prices

1) I got no particular dog in this fight, but if everyone's freaking out over COVID (and understandably so), maybe this should be considered to calm passions in the meantime. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The community placed a the kind of injunction Thryduulf is talking about pending an RfC. It basically worked. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already had such an injunction, for months. It just kicked the can down the road, and put us right into the middle of COVID-19, because even with an RFC, the behavior continued as soon as the RFC closed. For now, no one is editing drug prices anyway. The evidence is voluminous, but may reveal that drug price topic bans for several editors might be more effective,[1] particularly if you look at who inserted the prices and who is keeping them there. The disputed prices stayed between November and now April, while an RFC was formulated; how long do we leave inaccurate and outdated data in articles, full of original research, while we engage dispute resolution? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I doubt that would work, as it would need to be so hedged around with exceptions that it would be easily gameable; there are always some cases like Pyrimethamine where the fluctuations in price are such an important part of the story that it would be perverse not to mention it, and we can't predict when or where those cases are going to arise. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a temporary injunction is warranted (I have no opinion on that) what might work would be a complete prohibition on the addition or removal of drug prices to/from any article (i.e. the status quo as of the time the injunction passes is retained for the duration of the case). For any article that currently has a price, that price may not be changed without explicit consensus on the talk page for a specific new value and a requirement that all such discussions be linked from this this arbitration case (maybe on the main case talk page?). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

0RR for DocJames, broadly encompassing all issues before arbs

2) 0RR proposed for DocJames, broadly encompassing all matters currently before ArbCom, including drug prices, videos, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:MEDRS, at least until the conclusion of the arbcase.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With:

a) a long history of edit warring dating to 2009 [2][3] [4] [5](unabated since then-- complete diffs of annual editwarring history to be presented in the current arbcase as time allows), and
b) in the midst of an arbcase that specifically relates to these behaviors and issues surrounding WP:MOSLEAD and WP:MEDLEAD, and
c) with an inconclusive resolution to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles, and followup RFCs deferred while Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices was ongoing (with many comments throughout this period similar to this one advocating for deferring RFCs until the drug pricing RFC concluded),

James escalated this conflict by

removing the disputed tag from MEDLEAD,
which I reinstated, reminding that the issue was at Arbcom
which James reverted, with an edit summary of "Yup seriously!"
while I was starting a talk section, with edit conflict. [6]

Unless an admin wants to enforce something stronger to de-escalate these conflicts, I suggest a broad 0RR is needed here. @Barkeep49: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For at least as long as this case is pending I don't think it's appropriate for me to act as a sysop in relation to this conflict. I am a party and my actions will be scrutinized as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG added a disputed tag at 01:17 Apr 13th[7] despite there being no talk page discussion. The tag specifically says "Please see the relevant talk page discussion for further information." I raised this point at 01:21.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc James, how many minutes do you usually wait, before deciding that the discussion promised in the tag will not be forthcoming? (There's no rule that a discussion must be posted before a tag is added; such a rule has been discussed repeatedly in the past and rejected every time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almaty, you say that James often starts a discussion after a revert. If by "a revert" you mean James's, then I have found this to only occasionally be the case, not often, and only when James is on the more solid ground of requiring a better source of the other editor, rather than on the shaky ground of promoting his agenda or preferences. But the question is also: who's revert do you mean? I will explore this in another FOF, but in these contentious edits James makes, it is in fact James's initial edit that got reverted (perhaps after considerable delay) and the WP:ONUS is on James to discuss and establish policy-compliance and agreement to restore his text. This, as far as I can see, never happens. James always, without fail, goes to war with the other editor, and reverts back his text. -- Colin°^Talk 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Almaty, the proposed sanction read "encompassing all matters currently before ArbCom, including drug prices, videos, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:MEDRS"; that is, unrelated to routine removal of poorly sourced or inaccurate medical text. Although James does, too frequently, introduce inaccurate medical text (see my evidence on Dementia with Lewy bodies and Tourette syndrome), or introduces POV based on his preferred sources (see my prostate cancer evidence), and he does exempt his Wikifriend Ozzie from MEDRS (see my evidence on Dyslexia), the larger problems occur when James is defending his personal preferences with respect to MEDMOS, MEDRS and drug pricing (see all drug pricing evidence, Down syndrome sample, and others). He has also, in all of these examples and others, demonstrated that he does not always have a firm grasp on source-to-text integrity; most often when editing outside of MEDRS and applying general RS to drug pricing, where there were issues of V, OR, WEIGHT or NPOV in every sample.

These examples have nothing to do with this "thin blue line", and in fact, discourage other thin blue line editors (like myself) from participating to keep out the woo; arguing over an apostrophe takes valuable editor time away from anti-woo editing. On your "thin blue line", James is often incorrect or fails to engage adequately on talk (see my evidence on Prostatis). James has already been sternly warned, indeed arbcom-blocked, for edit warring, and yet his editwarring has never abated, and it is frequently with his equally knowledgeable peers (see my evidence on Schizophrenia), and frequently related to his interpretation of MEDMOS to further WPMEDF projects and applications, so I am unclear why you refer to "inexperienced users".

I initially proposed this after James removed a clear dispute tag (see my evidence on Wikilawyering 2), but a remedy similar to this will be needed to resolve the overall problem of James treating MEDMOS as a policy for installing his personal preferences, and letting others know afterwards in a fait accompli. Past warnings about editwarring have not worked, and if something is not done to get James to slow down, read, engage, digest, understand, correctly reflect what the most recent sources say—and to end the coordinated editing from Ozzie—we will have solved nothing here. Typical discretionary sanctions, or 1RR, will not address the problems affecting WP:MED, in an environment of one editor who has demonstrated on multiple occasions that they don't really understand what they are reverting or supporting, being an enabler for James to edit too much, too fast, and not engage in sincere discussion and dispute resolution. Any remedies that do not address these problems—specifically, James editing too much, too fast, with bot-like mass changes to hundreds of articles, undetected by others because of missing edit summaries, editwarring to install personal preferences, enabled by Ozzie—will leave us nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I strongly disagree with this. Doc James is a thin blue line as commented by others that ensures that pseudoscientific content is not added. Having said that, he can also edit war to support his own opinion. He should be just sternly warned about edit warring. --Almaty (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps after revert, it's mandatory to start a discussion, as he often does. Sometimes, depending on his workload, watchlist, or ability to concentrate that day, he is an edit ninja. But usually, when I get his attention or its an important topic and the article needs improvement, I get there in the end. It is hard for inexperienced users to understand what is going on. --Almaty (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:S Marshall

Proposed principles

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think this is necessary, as there is not a content dispute. The dispute was misframed in the ANI as a content dispute, when in fact, it is and always was a conduct dispute. There has never been evidence of a widespread content dispute in drug pricing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think this is needed as it appropriately sets the scope of what will and will not be decided in this case. Proposed principles often state the obvious. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; agreed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus

2) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Necessary and unhelpful, particularly because we have not seen full and appropriate engagement in established dispute resolution processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the root of the matter, "...involving the wider community..." --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This needs to include somehow "attempts to manipulate/subvert consensus" as allegations have been made along these lines that need to be examined and the ruled out or confirmed. i.e. the case is subtler than some and some alleged behaviour might not be interpreted as conflictual as such yet problematic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and disruption

3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes or suffer occasional lapses of judgment. Editors are neither required nor expected to be perfect. However, inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Repeated disruption to process, and failure to heed sound advice when given may become disruptive even when done in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring

4) Edit warring is undesirable as it disrupts the editing process and inflames rather than resolves content disputes. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content are still edit warring even if they do not breach the three revert rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Helpful and necessary, because many times the reverts do not run to three, but every revert is the equivalent of "polite POV pushing", where an editor who is not uncivil nonetheless leaves other editors with the perception that their edits are invalid and unworthy of even discussion even when grounded in policy (examples to come). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Requests for Comment

5) Content decisions on Wikipedia are made via bold editing and talk page discussion. Where these fail because editors are unable to agree, Requests for comment ("RfCs") are a way to invite input from the wider community. RfC closes can be reviewed and consensus can change, but otherwise the outcome of an RfC is binding. An editor who knowingly disregards or subverts an RfC is behaving disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think medical requests for comment should follow the following process:

1. 48 hours of talk page discussion +/- third opinion sought formally (but not from editors known to collaborate, perhaps from the teahouse?)
2. The dispute needs to be clearly elucidated from both parties by the third opinion, and then the RfC is written by the third opinion.
The reasons for this is because they are far too quickly used by certain parties, often who may have more time to edit, be more familiar with wikipolitics as opposed to policy, may have followers as outlined by others who will agree almost blindly with their trusted username. They should not be binary, should aim to develop consensus, rather than being a !vote, as some parties treat them. --Almaty (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the committee's role to dictate how RfC is used, but otherwise it is important to note that RfC is a key community process to determine consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting Requests for Comment

6) RfC closes should be worded as unambiguously as possible. Nevertheless there will sometimes be good faith disagreement about how an RfC outcome applies to a particular case. In this case editors should seek clarification. An editor who wilfully or recklessly misinterprets an RfC is behaving disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

User:S Marshall: Do you think there has been an issue on the part of the RfC closes resulting in the current disputes? If editors have disagreements on interpretation of RfC closes, what would be the venue to take said disagreements to? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

User:David Fuchs, I think that's been a major problem. Specifically, I think one of the main points of contention is whether "no consensus" should be primarily understood as "Take it out, because there's no consensus *for* including it" or "Keep it, because there's no consensus *against* including it". This is the same difference of opinion that became evidence in the mid-2016 RFC on the general subject of drug prices. The order of events was basically:

Doc James added content in 2015.
Others disputed its inclusion, which resulted in Doc James creating the 2016 RFC. The RFC concluded with "no consensus" to include that content.
Doc James continued adding that content (post-RFC example).
Others disputed its inclusion, which resulted in ANI ordering the 2020 RFC. The RFC concluded with "no consensus" to include the disputed content.
Most editors understood the RFC conclusion as meaning that the content was not permitted, and some removed it (example from the same article)
Doc James still seems to believe that the content is permitted, so he reverted it back in (example)

I think that if the RFCs had concluded "There is a consensus against this" or "There is no consensus for this disputed content, and per the WP:ONUS policy, it must be removed", then I cannot imagine that Doc James would believe that the content is permitted. He may interpret RFC results differently, but when they are crystal-clear, he does abide by them.

Sometimes the state of the conversation is really neither consensus-for nor consensus-against; in that case, we need to have a clearer notion of what policy defines as the default. In this situation, WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS would both apply, and there may need to be some adjustments to NOCONSENSUS, partly because the situation might be seen as a WP:PGCONFLICT, and partly because editors have different views on which edit is "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" (Doc James' 2016 edit that arguably conflicts with the 2016 RFC? Or Colin's 2020 edit that was intended to implement the 2020 RFC? Editors do sometimes think that if you've managed to keep content on the page for three and a half years, then it's the "status quo version", even when that specific content has been extensively discussed and even ridiculed for its errors).

That said, I really don't like putting the burden on RFC closers. Empowering them to be explicit, to implement the closing results themselves, or to give unambiguous advice (like "That edit is consistent with the RFC outcome; this edit is not") could be good. Telling them that they can't say "there's no consensus" is not so great. The softer approach has almost always worked in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wording can certainly be improved. This is my first draft of a principle that I think it's important for Arbcom to establish (and see also WhatamIdoing's statement on the main case page). My intent here is to disallow the strategic "failure to understand" an RfC close.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Fuchs, I would avoid the phrase "resulting in" as too simplistic; there is not one cause of this dispute. I would say that the matter of whether to include drug prices was the last straw on a donkey that was already carrying several bales. I certainly feel that the varying interpretations of this close have contributed to the dispute.

Editors wishing to query the interpretation of a close would normally visit the talk page of the closer (and see my own talk page for recent examples). If they weren't confident the closer had got it right, they could review/appeal an RfC close on the administrator's noticeboard, and an archive of these reviews is kept here. However, in this case no such action was taken. I understand this to mean that nobody formally disagreed with the closer, but people interpreted the close differently depending on their position on drug prices.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Overview

1) WikiProject Medicine is one of Wikipedia's oldest and largest WikiProjects. It covers nearly 50,000 articles, and its most popular articles have very high visibility and reach (for example sexual intercourse, which has 10,000 views per day). In theory, there are about 750 editors involved (counting the number of badge transclusions) but in practice most of these 750 are inactive. In practice, a lot of the heavy lifting in WikiProject Medicine is done by a few highly active editors, who maintain very large watchlists. These editors form a thin blue line.

The thin blue line holds back edits ranging from well-intentioned but poorly-informed or clinically inappropriate changes by members of the general public, through some persistent pseudoscience and crackpottery, to attempts by COI actors to use Wikipedia to promote various products, treatments and remedies. This necessitates high-frequency editing to maintain order and NPOV. Owing to the high frequency of editing required, even editors who show good judgment and a low error rate can still make several mistakes in a short time.

Editors active in WikiProject Medicine are mutually supportive. The topic area is attractive to editors such as Jytdog or QuackGuru who display a high degree of self-confidence and willingness to engage in dispute. More conflict-averse editors often prefer to edit elsewhere.—S Marshall T/C 14:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am unsure how you are using the term "mutually supportive". Mutually supportive in backing each other in edit wars? Mutually supportive in actually building quality content? Mutually supportive relative to other large and well functioning WikiProjects? This may be better examined once all the evidence is submitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, I think if your case is that these are "we are all human" mistakes under pressure, then I'd expect to see a willingness to correct mistakes and to apologise for stepping on toes. Happy to see you provide evidence of that, but not finding it myself so far: rather the opposite in fact. Wrt a willingness to engage in dispute (i.e. revert and edit war), I'd like you to consider if the editors being fought in battle are the enemies of Wikipedia, or in fact their peers who are also in good faith trying to make this a great encyclopaedia. Are these editors seeking to mediate, calm, seek consensus and respect policy in areas where conflict is brought by others to Wikipedia from outside (e.g. alternative medicine, 5G conspiracy theories and the like). Or are these editors themselves bringing conflict to Wikipedia through their own advocacy and strong opinions, and seeking to win-by-numbers and tag-team reverting? For example, I'd expect to find conflict at an electronic cigarette article, but not at an obscure epilepsy drug, say. -- Colin°^Talk 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how any of this is relevant; the main problems are not occurring at this "thin blue line" (except to the extent of the unnecessary bullying that I mention in evidence, which is unnecessary and a deterrent to editor recruitment and detention). The main problems are in drug pricing, and in applying MEDMOS as if it were policy; neither have any relation to normal "thin blue line" editing (except for discouraging other editors to help defend that line). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SG, I mean specifically that they very often agree with each other in discussions and disputes. For me, the benefit of writing this before I write the evidence is to find what's controversial so I can focus diffs on those points.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, that is not my case.—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ditch the third para as it comes across as an overgeneralization. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent summary. May be worth tweaking the 3rd para per Cas Liber. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context

2) The behaviours that ~~precipitated~~ immediately preceded this dispute took place during a global pandemic that led to unprecedented government decisions and extraordinary measures on a global scale. Public interest in the pandemic was extremely high and members of the public had unusually large amounts of time to read and edit. Meanwhile practicing medics and clinicians were distracted by the pressures of their day jobs.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actually, only one very small piece of the behaviors boiled over during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the issues have existed for at least five years. (That will be covered when I put up my evidence, so I suggest that this workshop proposal may be premature.) It appears that "practicing medics and clinicians" may not have been so "distracted by the pressures of their day jobs" as to not edit war over relatively minor issues, while a broader solution was still being discussed at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually unhelpful to put people into boxes, such as "members of the public" vs "practising medics and clinicians". Us vs them never ends well. The contribs of some self-declared practising medics do not suggest a shortage of free time to edit Wikipedia. That this dispute is due to being distracted by pressure of a medical job in unusual times, rather than being totally predictable based on long-term conduct issues, is mere speculation. Let's stick with on-wiki evidence; covid-19 is a red-herring. We really don't know the pressures going on in other people's lives at any time. In my experience, if you think someone leads a charmed care-free life, you just don't know them very well. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes and no. The immediate causal behaviour occurred during the pandemic, but the underlying dispute and attitudes have been ongoing far longer than that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG: Changed "precipitated" to "immediately preceded".—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The community's decisions

3) The community has decided (see Barkeep49's evidence) that Wikipedia articles should not normally contain information about drug prices in the lead or infobox. The community has decided that drug prices may be included where they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Some editors have displayed reluctance to accept and implement this decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is a good FoF but "some editors" should be named whether in this FoF or one target towards that user in this dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Barkeep.

Also, "are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources" needs better clarity --> are the subject of significant coverage in mainstream media sources (not just product reviews or databases) that provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It would be better to design an FoF about specific editors in terms of what they did, rather than what they thought (reluctance). I also think that there is a problem here with respect to, in effect, which closing statement is the one that was not accepted or implemented. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Discretionary sanctions

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for edits relating to drug prices, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I support enactment of this remedy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support as well. Everyone should be treading with care as we progress. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify what these might be? I have read WP:AC/DS and am none the wiser. In particular, I think it is well worth reading WhatAmIdoing's comments in her evidence, about the frustration of being paralysed, as a community, from fixing obvious errors, or removing text where it is clearly in breach of policy and consensus. If we are not careful, we shall merely fossilise all 530+ drug prices in our leads for fear that each and every one of them requires a talk page RFC with the same advocacy arguments being repeated. I think we need to clarify that (a) James's original text insertions of prices were done without gaining community consensus and thus very much a BOLD move (to put it mildly). (b) that removing such text (prices that lack evidence of exceptional notability in secondary sources), without prior discussion, is perfectly in keeping with policy and practices such as the essay WP:BRD. (c) That the WP:ONUS and D part of BRD, requires James et al, to explain why this article has sufficient commentary in mainstream media sources that both justify the mention of price/cost and also provide a source of the actual price or adjective used. That they must achieve consensus to include the text, not merely a majority of votes. and (d) that such sources are contemporary (i.e. not 15 years old) and geographic-economic factors are considered (i.e. an American brain surgeon's idea of affordable drugs may not be relatable to the whole audience of International English Wikipedia). There's probably more, but I think this needs some critical thinking to get us beyond the impasse, and more than just "Don't edit war, play nice, or we'll block you!". If doing that much is beyond Arbcom's remit, then they need to describe some forum/mediation where an agreement on "next steps" can be formed. I am sceptical that those whose insistence to include routine prices is sourced in American consumer advocacy, and who have found basic policies to be inconvenient to their cause, have demonstrated the signs of self-control necessary to permit such a forum to be anything other than an exercise in frustration: I think there are two or three editors here who have already earned a topic ban for advocacy editing.

Some clarification of uninvolved admin may also be necessary. Clearly it should exclude those admins who have brought shame to their role by edit warring, some even as this arbcom has been going on, but does it also extend, say, to Barkeep and the two closing admins of the recent RFC?

Btw, I think "broadly construed" amply covers prices as numbers, adjectives, ratios. Possibly "price/cost" would be clearer, but it isn't vital. -- Colin°^Talk 20:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that if the parties responsible for non-policy-compliant text in over 500 articles are not topic banned broadly from drug prices, no discretionary sanction will solve the underlying problems (we've seen enough evidence of the IDHT problem); and conversely, if they are banned from editing or commenting on drug price text, no discretionary sanctions will be needed, as the rest of the community can go about editing according to policy as normal. Discretionary sanctions are not the solution here; there are very few editors causing a five-year-long problem that has consumed now six months of time for all of us. This seems to be a case of "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and applying the normal discretionary sanctions to an entire topic area, when the problem is confined to, at most, three editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS would give an uninvolved administrator broad latitude to impose restrictions to either articles or editors within the dispute area. For instance there could be a requirement to only WP:1RR. As for uninvolved admin, the two sysops who closed the RfC are definitely uninvolved. We can see what ArbCom says, if anything, about whether I am involved. Though sometimes an uninvolved sysop is still not the right person to handle certain disputes, which is something I would weigh carefully even if I remain uninvolved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a WP:1RR would demonstrate a very obvious failure to understand the editing patterns that have brought us here, not only on drug prices, but other contentious editing by James, QuackGuru, etc. The first revert restores their text and declares war. Once war has been declared, no editor can remove the text again without being accused of edit warring, and most editors in fact are not the warrior-reverty type anyway. So they back down, or get stuck arguing with someone who doesn't listen and can outnumber you if required. That's the pattern we see over five years and many articles/editors in the price edits: the contentious text is always restored swiftly by James without discussion.

I don't disagree on your view wrt uninvolved admins, I would just like clarity. It seems to me, currently, that DS doesn't resolve the heart of the problem, may have unintended consequences, and shifts the problem of passing sanctions onto the shoulders of some future sole admin. -- Colin°^Talk 07:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It empowers a sysop to solve problems that have not yet arisen today. The imposition of DS is completely compatible with sanctions/restrictions against specific editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I also think that this is very much needed, regardless of any other remedies. But I think there needs to be a bit of wordsmithing for precision: change "drug prices" to "pharmaceutical drug prices" or perhaps "pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing" (I somewhat prefer the latter). It's important here to distinguish drugs used for medical purposes, which are the focus of the dispute, from drugs used for recreation (if your crystal meth dealer charges too much, please take it up elsewhere

). "Prices", even broadly construed, will be wikilawyered to mean only the numerical figures, whereas "pricing" makes clear that the topic also includes issues of how the pharmaceutical and medical insurance industries influence the pricing structure, which typically also comes up in these disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this probably helps - especially if parties need high-volume editing to keep up with the page upkeep as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions: Administrators encouraged

2) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the WP:MED topic area and consider as they do so:

Including prices on Wikipedia may only be done in specific circumstances which are set out in WP:NOTDIR, point #5. All price data entered into Wikipedia must be supported by an inline citation to a secondary source.
Wikipedia is a resource for the general public, and not primarily a resource for medical practitioners, who ought to have their own literature. Local price data are an example of information that may constitute too much detail.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The problem with phrasing this as "supported by a secondary source" is that many issues have occurred: a) the sources are dated, hence inapplicable to current prices; b) the sources are misinterpreted as applying broadly when in fact they apply to one tiny country, that is not representative; c) there are WP:WEIGHT issues as to whether the material belongs in the article at all; d) there are WP:LEAD issues vis-a-vis WEIGHT as to whether it belongs in the lead; e) there are WP:OR problems in developing the data from the source; and finally, f) when trying to sort all of that out via a collaborative process to develop consensus, what appears to be coordinated editing comes in to play, where multiple parties appear to have not read or understood the issues or discussion. In other words, I don't think this will address the problem, as there are at least six issues impacting the inappropriate use of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall I'm a newb to this so please folks correct me if I'm wrong. But I understood this process was to look at user conduct problems, not a place to post our interpretation of community consensus, of policy or of an RFC conclusion and ask Arbcom to rubber stamp this and send out the admins to enforce it. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Expertise. Wrt evidence, I'll be posting some shortly. -- Colin°^Talk 10:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, re "because the editors wouldn't be replaced by others of equal knowledge and vigilance," I assert that precisely the opposite is the case. The editors inserting these prices have demonstrated little knowledge of how to use sources correctly, in terms of WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and source-to-text integrity, which are basic skills that most editors have. Further, the statement fails to account for the issue that many of Wikipedia's most knowledgeable and experienced medical editors have been alienated by the tactics employed in implementing off-en.Wikipedia projects, and hence those editors of equal knowledge and vigilance have already been lost to medical editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sandy, I agree that those behaviours are evident in the topic area, but I don't know how to draft a remedy that will manage them. We're dealing with knowledgeable, long-term Wikipedians who have a good faith belief that it's right to display drug prices. We have consensuses and policies, but it's editors who have to apply them, and if these editors are showing up en bloc to subvert the consensus on drug prices or misapply our rules on weight, then our articles will display drug price information, irrespective of the RfC or anything else. I won't propose restricting all these editors from making edits about drugs, because the editors wouldn't be replaced by others of equal knowledge and vigilance, so that road leads very rapidly and decisively off a cliff. And I won't propose restricting individual editors because it's actually the herd behaviour that's the problem; and besides, I don't yet see any smoking-gun diffs that say "topic ban" on the evidence page. So all I can think of is "administrators encouraged", and I can see why that's a bit milquetoast but I don't have anything else to offer.—S Marshall T/C 01:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, this page is theoretically for suggesting remedies to the Committee. They might go with one of these suggestions or a modified version of them. What we're asking Arbcom to do is to enforce the decisions the community has already made, so they need to decide if they agree with my analysis of what the community has decided. If they do, they might run with a modified version of my proposals.

In practice the workshop page serves as a container for the overexcited parties while Arbcom thinks, of course.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special measures in the WP:MED topic area

3) The following special measures apply to articles about medical drugs and medical treatments.

RfCs are an appropriate tool for resolving intractable content disputes but should not be used as the first resort. Uninvolved administrators are authorized, and requested, to summarily close and delist content-related RfCs where either (a) alternative content dispute resolution mechanisms have not been exhausted or (b) there are too many RfCs running in this one topic area.
RfC outcomes should not be determined by counting votes. Uninvolved administrators are authorized, and requested, to consider striking votes or even summarily overturning closes where this appears to be happening.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I want to go in order so I want to finish my evidence before I start drafting remedies, but in my mind had been playing around with the concept of local vs global when it comes to consensus through RfC. As this is a very unfinished thought I just throw it out here for consideration right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin I respectfully disagree that a single agree/disagree position, followed by an immediate take one way or another, is a problem. At our info page for RfC it says Keep the RfC statement short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". The example question can indeed be answered yes/no (support/oppose). The essay that it links to on writing the statement offers more nuanced advice. However it again says The opening comment should contain a straightforward question which is as specific as possible. The more specific the question, and the more specific the possible outcomes are, the more likely that the RfC will be able to produce a useful outcome. (emphasis added). It does later note Some RfCs do not work because the requester oversimplifies a specific issue to arrive at a question that is so general that answering it is not only difficult, but useless. but again in the example it goes on to use, the choice remains binary.

Now just because the question is posed as a binary doesn't mean the consensus has to be. And an RfC should absolutely be a discussion not just a voting exercise. This discussion is what would allow a skilled closer to find a consensus that isn't just yes/no but more nuanced. But the idea that a simple question is inherently going to lead to bad outcomes just isn't reflective of my experience as an RfC closer or launcher and also isn't reflective of the advice the community puts out on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Colin I definitely agree with you (and S Marshall) that RfCs are a problem in this case. It was the rush to open the two RfCs as much as anything than the edit warring that pushed me to file the case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful for you to collect evidence of excess and inappropriate RFCs. Wrt them being a mere vote, I'm not sure the problem is with administrators misguidedly closing RFCs based on a simple vote count (though perhaps there is evidence that is happening?) but with the RFC creator proposing a single agree/disagree position, or a limited-option RFC and immediately slapping a support vote as their first step. We have plenty wiki lore to guide us that is not a consensus-forming approach. I have seen a number of pleas by WhatamIdoing in particular that editors take a different approach. I'm not sure whether to solve this with education or legislation, or whether it is a localised problem with a few editors who need specific admonishment, a WP:MED-specific problem, or an area where Wikipedia has gone awry and needs a realignment. -- Colin°^Talk 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, thanks for the diff and I'm in agreement with you. I'm a bit of a newb wrt Arbcom but what I was hoping to encourage you to do is put diffs on the Evidence page. -- Colin°^Talk 18:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I don't want to get drawn into a "how to formulate an RFC" debate at arbcom. And I agree that some questions can indeed be binary and some may in fact warrant a simple vote. I agree with S Marshall's point about RFC not always being the appropriate tool. It seems I've not expressed my point as well as it could be. I'm just trying to say that the way someone phrases their RFC and opens it (with a support vote, say) can lead the RFC in a way that is not helpful to consensus-forming, and may in fact indicate an editor who doesn't understand consensus vs just trying to get folk to agree with them in a poll. Anyway, on this area I'm likely out of my depth compared to you and WhatamIdoing, but problematic RFCs do seem to be an issue (see also coronavirus articles), and I think it would be good to explore if editors are abusing the process to circumvent community consensus-forming/existing-consensus. -- Colin°^Talk 18:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, I agree with you that the problem is "a feature of the culture at WP:MED". I, too, put up a disastrous RFC during all of this (because I didn't know better) and have since learned a lot from Colin and WhatamIdoing about the rights and wrongs of RFCs. I think the path to discovering remedies here is to contemplate why this is part of the culture of WP:MED. I assert that when something works, people keep doing it, and for a long time, it worked. When there is the appearance of coordinated editing, used to "win" rather than resolve differences, the predictable outcome of "winning" is the tail that is wagging this dog. Yes, QG may have learned the RFC behavior, just as other have modeled their anti-woo approach on QG's behaviors. In both examples, there has been a downward cultural spiral at WP:MED that has many old-timers exasperated, which paradoxically has meant ... less knowledgeable editors to deal with woo and COVID articles. Just as we need to deal with the WPMED bully brigade, we need to deal with the source of this "RFC to win" issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of an excessively large number of RFCs (which are often, but not always, premature as well), see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#We need some limits, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 5#RfC overload, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 3#RfC on mentioning incidents of racism/xenophobia. We've been talking (off and on for years – we're not a "move fast and break things" kind of group) about trying some sort of pre-launch review/advice system for RFCs or adding some small, new restrictions (e.g., on the number of RFCs any individual editor can start per month) to increase the likelihood that RFCs are successful in getting useful comments from previously uninvolved editors.

On the subject of what uninvolved administrators can do, "the regulars" at WT:RFC these days are User:Giraffedata, User:Redrose64, User:SmokeyJoe, and myself. We are the people most likely to provide advice to editors who have questions about RFCs. Only Redrose64 is an admin. So (as originally written by S Marshall) this proposal would mean that most of the people who know the most about RFCs, and who are most likely to intervene (either directly or indirectly) in an RFC that isn't working out, wouldn't be permitted to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ S Marshall, regarding ideas to make this workable, I am concerned that in several places on this Workshop page, respondents are getting ahead of the evidence, as there is more to come. I suggest that ideas are better expressed once the Evidence phase closes. I suspect that WhatamIdoing will be able to propose some workable ideas. I am remembering the old RFC/U process, where you needed confirmation from other editors before proceeding. That would need to be adjusted in WPMED case to be sure those were independent confirmers. But I hold off here until all evidence is in, because generally, if the coordinated editing is ended, some of the RFC problem ends with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Loathsome though this measure is, I think it's possible that the circumstances warrant it.—S Marshall T/C 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, in this diff, WhatamIdoing says that at one point last summer there were ten RfCs open at the same time, all relating to electronic cigarettes, and all started by the same user (QuackGuru). And she says so with an amount of text emphasis that I've never seen from her. You could argue that it's a problem specific to QG, but I don't think that's fair: this heavy overuse of RfCs is a behaviour QG has learned from others active in the same topic area. In other words, it's a feature of the culture at WP:MED.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas and suggestions to make this more workable would be very welcome at this point.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SandyGeorgia

Proposed principles SG

RexxS drew his proposals mainly from the Infobox case, as he found it the most similar. I have drawn most of my proposed principles and remedies from the Omnibus case of 2008, as I believe this situation most closely parallels that case, of coordinated editing formed around a WikiProject, where regard for policy was cast aside in the great goal to "right great wrongs". With alliances formed around the WikiProject Intelligent Design (ID), members were saving the Wikipedia from the quacks of creationism, and holding that "thin blue line" to keep intelligent design quackery out of Wikipedia. In this case, the alliances formed around WPMED are defending even greater good-- the poor in lower and middle income countries, the "thin blue line" of medical misinformation, fighting the good battle to keep POV and quacks out of Wikipedia, helping people in developing countries by giving them the retail price of a drug twenty years ago in Italy. And setting aside core policy in their drive to this, while deterring and demotivating other editors from improving content. It all sounds so familiar. While the ID Wikiproject formed a coordinated editing group to fight creationists (people who held opposite views), the WPMED group proposes to banish editors who hold the same beliefs about the quacks, woo, and the importance of accuracy in medical information, but have held firm in their disagreement with the non-policy-compliant methods employed.

The main dissimilarity between the cases is that the WP ID group was rife with uncivil behaviors, while those in the WPMED group are generally quite civil, with rare and heated exceptions. They are more of a failure to AGF crowd, with accusations of being overwhelmed by text they don't appear to read. But let's not fool ourselves about the uncivil effect similar to "polite POV pushers"; every time one reverts a peer, over and over again, with a polite smile and a kind word, it is no less uncivil than the outright hostility coming from the members admonished in the ID Wikiproject. Another defining aspect of that case, as in this case, was "coordinated editing"; you have my back, I have yours. Quid pro quo. I'll defend you at AN3, you defend me at ANI. I'll repay your kindness by exempting your GA nomination from MEDRS-- although we will swiftly banish any random quack who dares to defy our MEDRS!

And the simple consequence of this coordinated editing, is that FA writers can no longer write FAs because they have to have the permission of editors who don't know the literature, don't know the topic, don't always even know what they are reverting or why, what they are supporting or why, but will show up swiftly in any dispute to "agree w/Doc James", even if they've never been near the topic before, often with indications that they didn't even read to understand the dispute. The drug pricing issue is one small symptom of a deeper problem; if we don't address the coordinated editing, we will have accomplished nothing here, except to throw a bigger problem back on to Arbitration Enforcement via Discretionary Sanctions. Hence, my proposals and findings are largely taken from the Omnibus case of 2008, which I think is exactly the situation here, but replace the incivility in that case with editwarring in this case. Yes, it's a lot of evidence to read; demonstrating coordinated editing over many years requires a lot of diffs and evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fait accompli

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, per video insertions, drug prices, lead restructuring, and MEDMOS re-ordering of sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Expected of all editors really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily divisive behavior

2) Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful. Examples of such behavior may include interfering with the consensus process through inappropriate canvassing, undue off-wiki coordination, coordinated "meatpuppetry", or factional voting; "ownership" of articles by self-appointed individuals or groups; warnings given for inappropriate reasons; threats; and misuse of administrator or other privileges granted by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, with some trimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Can be combined with any principle about subverting of consensus, which is what this case is about IMHO. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

3) Using edit summaries is not compulsory, but is considered good practice, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors and to help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit. Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note is helpful even then. Supplying edit summaries on edits that are known to be contentious is considerate, and misleading edit summaries can invite conflict. Supplying edit summaries when one has repeatedly been asked to do so is considerate, and expected of users with advanced permissions or senior standing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Condensed from WP:EDITSUMMARY, last two sentences added by me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikilawyering and stonewalling

4) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies, dispute resolution conclusions and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and resolutions and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an advocacy agenda, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals with adjustments to fit this case. Per excessive RFCs within days of a community-wide RFC closing, with wikilawyering of the terms of the community close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Anyone can edit

5) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that "anyone can edit" and that by the collaboration of editors of all backgrounds, the best possible encyclopedia can be created. Semi-protecting articles without cause excludes IPs from improving articles. Lengthy narrated videos (installed in leads of articles) that substantially cover the article topic, but cannot be edited, do not allow for collaborative improvements to content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied first sentence from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung, added rest per Osmosis video issue [to de diffed] and excessive semi-protection that occurs when contested edits are made.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "but cannot be edited" has been nitpicked endlessly before. It depends upon whether "can be edited" means "I can trim out this outdated bit, and that counts as video editing" or "I can change the outdated sentence that says '100 cases in 2019' to say 'at least 200 cases by 2020', and get a result that is otherwise substantially the same", which is not possible in the case of the early Osmosis videos (they used professional voiceovers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or "I can replace the onscreen "marker-pen" text that says "suffer from tics" with the correct language. I have no idea what this "early Osmosis video" phrase means. All 300+ Osmosis videos were the same and had the same problems. James, when presenting VideoWiki, did take an existing Osmosis video and chop it up and give it an alternative robot narration, but that still didn't solve the problem that the video-bit of the videos couldn't be expanded or modified by anyone on Wikipedia. Nor did it give us the tools to "create" video content: it is just a narrated slideshow or sequence of pre-existing videos.

I think "nitpicked" is unfair. The "can these be edited" dispute mattered because it comes to the fundamentals of what Wikipedia is. We aren't just free content and we aren't just educational content, but we are content made by a community working together and editing together and with the freedom to add, delete and modify any aspect of that content quite freely and easily: that's what wiki means after all. The videos could be cropped, that's all. It is frustrating to see RexxS continue to repeat his claim they are editable, when even James admitted they weren't when he proposed VideoWiki. It really is time to drop that argument and accept they were not aligned with our community editing values. -- Colin°^Talk 09:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrators

6) Administrators are trusted members of the community. The work of administrators who deal with complex situations and troublesome problems should be particularly appreciated. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions; in particular, administrators who have been criticized or admonished in decisions of the Arbitration Committee are expected not to repeat the conduct in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV per excessive semi-protection that occurs when contested edits are made,[10] and long history of edit warring in spite of previous Arbcom restriction.[11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Standard really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrator tools in disputes

7) Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute or, except in emergency circumstances or cases of blatant bad-faith harassment, in other disputes or in situations where a conflict of interest exists. Except for administrators' ability to use their tools to enforce policies on matters such as BLP or copyright violations, administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Expanded from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, per excessive semi-protection that occurs when contested edits are made, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Conflicts of interest have impacted James' use of tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety

8) All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor's repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with another editor under circumstances giving rise to persistent and reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, even if the allegations are disputed or untrue.

This principle is not based on any idea that "where there is smoke there is fire" or that "perception is reality" (such that every allegation is presumed true). Such assumptions would fail to assume good faith, which should not be disregarded until there is clear reason to do so. As well, some administrators will always be more controversial than others because they are more active, or because they deal in more contentious areas. Rather, if an editor is repeatedly and in good faith accused of persistent policy violations, then he or she has a responsibility to assess whether his or her behavior is unnecessarily creating or contributing to that perception. If so, the behavior should be changed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

9) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Casting aspersions SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources

11) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact SG

Coordinated editing

1) At times, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, QuackGuru, Flyer22 Reborn, and several officers and members of the WikiProject Med Foundation including but not limited to CFCF and Bluerasberry, have edited certain articles or discussions in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. SG evidence at Down syndrome, Ozzie–James intersecting contribs, Drive-by commentary, and Evidence presented by User:Some1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Literaturegeek, in normal editing circumstances surrounding a WP Project, I would agree that the explanation would be as you describe. I think if you will carefully examine the specific evidence I put up, we are not seeing "normal editing circumstances surrounding a WP Project", rather one—or at times two—specific editors following all of James edits, sometimes not even knowing what they are agreeing with, sometimes not knowing what they are reverting, and almost never actually engaging the issue or understanding the full history of the article. (For example, the apostrophe in Down's for its entire Wiki history, until James wanted to eliminate it.) If medical editors need to follow James to an article to argue over an apostrophe, does that not indicate something amiss at WP:MED? And why do we not see this behavior from RexxS or WAID?

Please, look at the specific evidence; often they are topics that Ozzie has demonstrated he doesn't even understand, yet he endorses "per James" immediately, so that James can say "two-to-one" you have no consensus, and not have to take more time in discussion of the issues.

And finally, you have expressed the culture of eliticism that has taken over WPMED. Someone is not "right" on Wikipedia in the kinds of issues in evidence more or less often because they are a physician; they are "right" if they know how to correctly use sources in respect of V, WEIGHT, OR, NOT and NPOV. Being a physician does not make one more or less better at that skillset than any other editor. Indeed, I have presented many examples in the area of urology, neurology and psychiatry where James did not understand the topics, or the sources, in addition to the entire drug price debate where every piece of data inserted was shown to have basic text-to-source integrity problems of V, OR, WEIGHT or NPOV. These are not medical skills; these are WP101 editing skills. All voices are equal, and it is Wikipedia policy we should hold up, not one's credentials.

The first step on the path to encourage James to slow down, spend more time engaging in discussion, understanding sources, actually digesting what other editors say, collaborating with other editors is ... to remove the "per James" Ozzie factor. That, which began in 2015, is what has enabled all of the fait accompli to occur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not convinced by this because this is what a WP Project is meant to be about; these editors are regulars at WP MED Project and the “coordinated editing” you are claiming originates via Doc James posting a neutral short request at WP MED project asking for second opinions and then regular editors follow his link. This is how the WP dispute resolution process is meant to work. Doc James is a physician who edits medical topics and thus you would expect these editors at WP MED to agree with him the majority of the time, at least on medical matters/edits. Basically, in practice, this proposed finding of fact would mean that editors posting for second opinions on notice boards and project pages is coordinated editing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Literaturegeek. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James history of edit warring

2) In 2009, Doc James was sanctioned for edit warring by Arbcom and blocked per Arbcom reinforcement; that edit warring has not abated, yet Doc James is rarely blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Open to wording improvement per other similar cases. Per SandyGeorgia evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Doc James and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Statement by Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SG: Locus of dispute

3) There has been long-standing conflict involving interpretation of and changes to the Medicine WikiProject Manual of style guidelines vis-a-vis implementation on the English Wikipedia of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) applications and projects. The latest conflict erupted over inclusion of pharmaceutical drug prices in articles. The scope of the case included examination of behaviors and the effect on content and editor retention dating to at least 2015, and possibly 2012.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies SG

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

Bluerasberry topic banned from drug pricing

1) Bluerasberry is topic banned from editing or commenting on drug pricing, broadly construed, indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per SG Evidence and Some1 evidence; the years-long disruption has been extreme, and with a willingness to follow each other to disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin has already proposed below a topic ban for Doc James, but Bluerasberry has been a driving force in drug pricing advocacy, even creating misleading redirects, and advocating that policy does not apply to drug pricing. As this problem has existed for at least five years, the topic ban proposal is indefinite, subject to appeal to ArbCom. Per Some1's evidence, and SandyGeorgia's evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, have you looked at Lane's contributions? He's made 22 edits in the mainspace during the last month. The number of edits in WPMED-tagged articles was six, and all of them were about COVID-19. AFAICT he tells editors that he'd like to see much more price content, and he makes the occasional proposal for changes to policies and guidelines, but he does not edit any of it himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; my concern wrt Blue is the insertion of a deceptive statement into an essay, and altered redirects, which could have misled many other editors over the period of five years. To me, that was one of the most serious issues uncovered during the formulation of the RFC-- more serious than the OR, WEIGHT, and V issues. I thought it so shocking that I wonder if Blue is able to set aside his advocacy in the drug price issue, and think it best to remove him from that area, particularly as he is advocating a position that puts him in a COI wrt his employer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the iPHone11 issue until Some1 posted it to evidence yesterday. This evidence reinforces my concern that there is no other solution to this issue; I don't see anything else that will work, considering the extent to which these price advocacy efforts have extended. Given that the iPhone RFC closed well before the drug pricing RFC was even launched, it is astounding that the same editors still did not acknowledge that broad consensus on pricing is not with them. Problematic editing does not have to be confined to article space; in this case, Bluerasberry's article talk contributions, and essay, contributed significantly to a dispute carried to another content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, there is no mention of edit warring in this section or proposal. (But on that topic, he did edit war to alter other editors' posts in the Simvastatin RFC, in evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BR as I understand it has been arguing that the general policy on inclusion of prices is obsolete. That is a separate and valid question, and not disruptive, nor is it edit-warring. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, Bluerasberry, Ozzie10aaaa, CFCF, Flyer22 Reborn and QuackGuru combined revert restriction

2) Doc James, Bluerasberry, Ozzie10aaaa, CFCF, Flyer22 Reborn and QuackGuru are restricted in combination to one revert per week on any medical article or talk page discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Evidence from Some1, and SG evidence at Edit warring, Down syndrome, Intersecting contribs, and Drug pricing dispute

Wikipedia can ill afford to lose any medical editor, yet a means of addressing coordinated editing in reverting and controlling the talk page narrative in discussions is needed. A combined editing restriction allows each to continue editing, while reducing the possibility of coordinated editing. Any sort of editing restriction on Doc James for edit warring will not be effective, as it is demonstrated that others will step up to reinforce his positions; hence, a combined restriction. While Bluerasberry, CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn have not editwarred on articles (to my knowledge), they frequently show in discussions where they have never before appeared to support positions taken by James, and Blue and CFCF edit war to alter talk page discussions. This preventative measure is to stop these disputes from escalating and spreading; an editing restriction on James alone will not address that issue because of the appearance of coordinated editing evidenced (more evidence to come).

This is a preferable solution to more broad restrictions, when we can ill afford to lose medical editors. I am not sure, though, if the "one week" time period is sufficient, because there are many instances of slow edit wars.

I should mention that I have left RexxS off of this proposed restriction because, while he is an officer of the WPMED Foundation, and he frequently supports their positions, he is more engaged with day-to-day medical editing, less apt to appear only in disputes where he has never before appeared, typically uses policy-based reasoning for his edits and talk page discussions, more inclined to engage in discussion to meet others halfway (eg, the MEDLEAD RFC) and does not edit war to my knowledge. That is, the WPMEDF problem does not extend to all WPMEDF editors, and I doubt that RexxS will start proxy reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the most the most prolific medical editors. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Top_medical_editors_2019_(all) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to feedback, see 2.1 below. (@DGG, presumably you have had a chance to read the evidence?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, if we are looking for a solution to a non-existent problem, that would be a perfect fit. It is my understanding that findings are usually based on evidence; have you seen evidence of Colin following me to a dispute, or me following Colin to a dispute? We are both long-time members of WP:MED, and taking the same position on important Project guidelines is not "coordinated editing". I know the evidence is lengthy, but I hope you've had time to examine the quid-pro-quo that is going around WP:MED. And it is revealing that whenever these issues have been viewed outside of WP:MED (Osmosis videos and drug prices), the community has opined in the same direction as Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sandy, would it make sense to have a similar restriction involving combined reverts by you and Colin? DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want this remedy to pass because it will significantly impair most of the core active WP MED editors in combating errors, fringe, poor quality edits, etc. I don’t want the medical content to deteriorate as I fear this remedy would do. And anyway, I seriously doubt ArbCom would pass such a measure — for such a measure to pass you would need to show that these editors’s overall reverts are a net negative.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its very clear that Wikipedia medicine will deterorate with this remody. We just need these people to start recruiting so their watchlists arent so long, and they can give each decision the attention it deserves. --Almaty (talk)

I agree with all three editors above. And Flyer is not a named party to this case (there have been past cases with findings about editors who only discovered that they were the subjects of the findings when the PD was posted, and it did not end well). I think there is clear evidence for findings about QuackGuru, and sufficient evidence for some carefully delimited findings about Doc James, but nothing I've seen on the evidence page rises to the level of findings for any of the other listed editors. My comment here also applies to the proposed finding for Bluerasberry just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify what I said just above, in that I'm taking into account (others of course might disagree) what editors have been saying on case pages, and in particular, whether or not editors have demonstrated self-awareness and taken responsibility for past mistakes. I pay attention to that because it tends to predict whether or not it is necessary for there to be findings that will prevent future disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely with the comments above. The vast majority of the articles that these editors watch and work on have not had any of the issues this case is about. This restriction, and any other excessive restrictions like it proposed elsewhere, would grossly inhibit Wikipedia's ability to combat WP:PROFRINGE and WP:POV editing in the broad and highly important medical area, and would nevertheless effectively drive away some of our best editors. This whole case makes me uneasy; any proposed remedy that causes collateral damage and is not squarely focused on the specific issues should be avoided. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC) updates Crossroads ^-talk- 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, Bluerasberry, Ozzie10aaaa, CFCF, and QuackGuru combined revert restriction on drug pricing and MEDMOS issues

2.1) Doc James, Bluerasberry, Ozzie10aaaa, CFCF, and QuackGuru are restricted in combination to one revert per week on any medical article or talk page discussion relating to drug prices or interpretation of WP:MEDMOS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Removed Flyer Reborn for commentary above, and specified scope. Tryptofish, if you don't see evidence for CFCF as well, please re-read the evidence (eg, Down syndrome and others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I asked in the question above, since you and Colin seem to take the same position on these issues, would it not be equally justified (or , altternatively, equally unjustified) to have the similar restriction on SG + Colin? DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa is instructed to use edit summaries

3) Ozzie10aaaa is instructed to make every attempt to use edit summaries, particularly when making controversial edits or reverting another editor, and by adjusting user preferences to include a reminder to use edit summaries

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per SG edit summary evidence, lack of edit summaries have been a real factor in every fait accompli dispute. Wording needs to include some enforcement method ... like setting a reminder in preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Doc James is instructed to use edit summaries

4) Doc James is instructed to make every attempt to use edit summaries, particularly when making controversial edits or reverting another editor, and by adjusting user preferences to include a reminder to use edit summaries

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per SG edit summary evidence, lack of edit summaries have been a real factor in every fait accompli dispute. Wording needs to include some enforcement method ... like setting a reminder in preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, I'm left wondering again if you've read all the evidence (I realize it is lengthy). A big problem with the "stealth" installation of personal preferences is that they are invariably done without edit summaries, making it hard for others to detect. Reverts are also done by James without edit summaries. These are only some of the problems, but I repeat myself, as they are detailed in evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Though edit summaries are gneerally a good idea, I do not se how having them would solve the basic problem of a disagreement about content? The nature of the changes seems usually obvious for the people in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This simply isn't true. While the changes made recently were highly visible because many eyes were watching James edit warring, his edit summaries were in fact dishonest ("adjusted") rather than absent. The problem is with the mass changes installed by stealth. If James uses a random variety of nothing/"adjusted"/"added" when doing his work, nobody has the slightest clue what changes he's made, and in fact finding those changes required writing a computer program to download thousands of file history snapshots. Then some folk here try to claim that because this text, added by stealth, is only now being questioned, that it has consensus to remain, as though text that breaks our core policies grows policy-compliance by age. -- Colin°^Talk 08:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James is reminded to review use of semi-protection

5) Doc James is reminded to review use of semi-protection

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per SG evidence.

Because we can ill afford to lose medical admins, I am stopping short of abuse of tools here, but hope that James and his fellow medical admins will undertake a thorough review of all medical semi-protected content (I suspect that RexxS could be helpful in this endeavour). James needs to be reminded that he has, however, not used semi-protection in the best interest of "anyone can edit". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your last diff of "concern" is from more than 7 years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an encouraging observation, and I think this concern can be addressed with an audit, and no further findings needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An audit of what? Semi protection of all articles by all admins? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at only a few at User:West.andrew.g/Popular medical pages (which is a dated list); I suspect that an effort by RexxS and a few others could look over the rest of the medical protected articles, without too much effort, and address anything amiss (if there are others). That is, I hope this is an easily solveable issue. As an example, I would even suggest unprotecting Tourette syndrome to see if the world has progressed to a point that the old coprolalia-related vandalism is passé. Let's recruit more medical editors with less semi-protection; win–win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a pandemic and school being out for almost all students, I am not sure now reflects how things usually are and this applies to vandalism as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is true; an article like Tourette syndrome (and possibly others) could get more vandalism now. What I am suggesting is that we can avoid a finding in this area by seeing some commitment to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, James;[12] further evidence that we can get along, and do have shared overall goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, in this case, we can only deal with the evidence before us, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

the over-use of semiprotection may equally well apply to articles in other fields, so maybe DJ's mention of "all articles by all admins" actually makes sense. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James is reminded about policy v. guideline and bot-like edits without edit summaries

6) Doc James is reminded that guidelines are not policy, and installing personal preferences in a bot-like fashion (often without edit summaries) is discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa are reminded that WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, and that neither is the order of article suggestions mandatory, nor is the order of the narrative in the lead. Both of these personal preferences have been installed-- often without edit summaries, and even in Featured articles, where the narrative is degraded or disrupted-- across basically the entire suite of medical editors, in another example of fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, surely you are aware the WP:NOTPRICE is a policy, not a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

SG, it seems that in the question of whether to include drug prices you are arguing that there isa guideline and that people must follow it, and that here about sequence of sections you are arguing that although there is a guideline, people need not follow it. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG actually, it would be great if, on the point of order of article sections, James and Ozzie had ever once followed the guideline. It explicitly warns not to do what they did: The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The guideline has always said that. And it has always used the words "suggested sections" -- they have never been mandatory nor has their order been required by the guideline. -- Colin°^Talk 08:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa is reminded about policy v. guideline and bot-like edits without edit summaries

7) Ozzie10aaaa is reminded that guidelines are not policy, and installing personal preferences in a bot-like fashion (often without edit summaries) is discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa are reminded that WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, and that neither is the order of article suggestions mandatory, nor is the order of the narrative in the lead. Both of these personal preferences have been installed-- often without edit summaries, and even in Featured articles, where the narrative is degraded or disrupted-- across basically the entire suite of medical editors, in another example of fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, the dispute here is whether the outline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections, which uses words like suggested and encouraged and a warning against "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines", should be rigidly implemented with all sections in the same order on all articles, even if, e.g., the regular editors of the article think it would make more sense to describe symptoms before causes in a condition for which the cause is unknown, but to do it the other way around in articles about conditions that are normally asymptomatic or non-specific but for which the cause is known. Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa quietly rearranged the order of sections in almost all WPMED-tagged articles a few years ago, and whether it was a net improvement for any individual article has been disputed since they started that work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, precisely the point. By taking FAs out of compliance with WP:WIAFA, we have eliminated the possibility of medical FAs, and seen almost all of those that existed before this trend degrade and no longer be in compliance. The other issue is the fait accompli nature of these changes being installed with bot-like edits by two editors, not always using edit summaries, and often editwarring to retain the fait accompli. It is not so much the goals that WPMEDF sought to achieve, but how a few editors went about implementing those goals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Almaty, the problem lies not in MEDMOS, which is a list of suggestions; the problem lies in James misinterpreting it as policy or, as you say, "follows it blindly without consensus". Precisely the point of this proposal is to remind James of the difference between policy and a suggestion in a WikiProject guideline, which was carefully written so that it wouldn't be used as a bludgeon, and yet, it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I was of the impression that the MOS guidelines applied with particular strength for Featured articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medmos was an inappropriate guideline for the COVID-19 pandemic articles, I still think, as edited and wroted that "origin" "transmission" "prevention" would have been better, because we did not have a guideline for outbreaks or pandemics. MEDMOS is a guideline that is unhelpful for many articles, but James follows it blindly without conensus prior to changing it. --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaty (talk • contribs) 13:12, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

Doc James use of RFCs restricted

8) Doc James is required to seek pre-approval from two uninvolved editors at WT:RFC before launching any RFC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per SG drug pricing dispute, Colin Ethosuximide, Hipal RFC closure, and Barkeep49 observations

Doc James has repeatedly used the RFC dispute resolution process in a way that facilitates "winning" rather than "discussing". Some sort of restriction is needed, but I don't know how to word it. I am thinking of the need for approval by other editors, but outside of those editors among whom there is the appearance of coordinated editing. Something to stop the "win" by "tally" proliferation, with the appearance of coordinated editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, the word ban is not mentioned anywhere in this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you meant for that link to say WT:RFC instead of Talk:RFC. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you were right (fixed :) ... I think I did that somewhere else as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think it would not be a good idea to ban any editor from dispute resolution processes. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm not meant to comment here, and please revert if its inappropriate. I fully support most of User:Doc James' edits, even if they overrely on the MEDMOS guideline sometimes, as opposed to being reliable replication of the sources. Doc James and I usually agree, and we are both "wikidragons". However, I note that this RfC around COVID-19 did not require a what I would term "unnecessary", "binary" or even "skirting the rules" dispute resolution, rather just a simple discussion between myself and him, as occurred eventually, which resolved the RfC. --Almaty (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James mass edits disallowed

9) Doc James is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. This includes reordering of article sections, installing personal preferences in leads, adding drug prices, installing videos, installing WPMEDF templates, and the like. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction may be appealed no sooner than two years from the date it was approved by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from [13] per fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Almaty, this is similar to your "thin blue line" argument above. These mass, bot-like edits are not related to routine medical text; they are installing videos without consensus, reordering sections in a bot-like manner, rewriting leads to a personal preference, and generally arguing on talk pages as if MEDMOS were policy, never to be altered. This restriction is not intended to impede James' normal editing. If it appears to impede normal editing, the arbs or others can wordsmith it better.

The alternate to these measures I am putting forward is to topic ban Ozzie from medicine, as I see no way short of one or the other to get these problems to stop in an environment of coordinated editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, sure, it could be better worded to the general case, and would have the same effect, since only James and Ozzie are doing this. But however worded, it should be clear to them what is meant (there has been an IDHT effect here); mass bot-like edits that are known to be controversial are disallowed: that is, drug prices, videos, interpreting MEDMOS as policy, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Why do you repeatedly suggest sanctions should be imposed on other parties, merely for being on "the other side". We impose sanctions because editor conduct and behaviour has crossed a line. -- Colin°^Talk 08:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I think you need to explain why parties such as Barkeep49 should not be able to use AWB normally (because that would be included here [Doc James doesn't use that tool]). As for why this proposal is specifically Doc James and not everyone, or even anyone else on "that side" (which side is that?), I imagine it's because there are three documented instances of Doc James mass-adding content against consensus (search on this page for the word Acetazolamide and tell me if that doesn't sound like "mass-adding content against consensus" to you), mass-adding videos and then having to remove them when consensus fell the other way, and mass-rearranging articles. Prohibiting people who don't make mass edits from making mass edits is pointless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This would cause immense damage to the project. Doc James IMO does not have clear consensus to include videos, but has been beyond helpful with many other ways. He can do it himself. But if it is reverted, he must discuss. --Almaty (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if this is appropriate, should it not apply equally to any editor ? DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest applying this to all editors to point out the absurdity of applying it to only those one one side of a conflict dispute. DGG ( talk ) 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think it was absurd when community consensus, enacted by Barkeep49 applied it here? We typically apply a restriction on those who are engaging in the activity that needs to be addressed-- not equally to anyone who happens by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa mass edits disallowed

10) Ozzie10aaaa is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. This includes reordering of article sections, installing personal preferences in leads, adding drug prices, installing videos, installing WPMEDF templates, and the like. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction may be appealed no sooner than two years from the date it was approved by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from [14] per fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

All parties instructed

11) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, preferable to individual admonishments is to put everyone involved on alert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Parties specifically instructed

12) By way of illustration and not of limitation of remedy 11, the parties are instructed to avoid the following:

(i) Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith;

(ii) Any form of harassing or threatening comments, on the one hand, and unsupported allegations of harassment, on the other;

(iii) As to those parties who are administrators, use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved should be especially cautious in this area and should refer any potential use of administrator tools that may be controversial in this regard to a noticeboard or another administrator;

(iv) Editing by a party in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion constituting or creating a reasonable perception of excessively coordinated editing or of seeking "ownership" of articles or policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Shortened from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, because of the similarities between this case and that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Other editors counseled

13) Other editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with these principles, and to adhere strictly to AGF, CIVILITY, and no rehashing of grievances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, because there are unnamed parties as well who need to adhere to "no rehashing of grievances" going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

14) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Colin

Proposed principles

Advocacy

1) Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. When advocates of specific views prioritize their agendas over the project's goals or factions with different agendas, battling to install their favored content, edit-warring and other disruptions ensue. Wikipedia operates through collaboration between editors to achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Differences of opinion about neutrality, reliability, notability, and other issues are properly resolved through civil discussion aimed at facilitating a consensus. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia. Advocacy often leads to tendentious editing. Such editors accuse or suspect other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"; assign undue importance to a single aspect of a subject; believe Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied select sentences from Wikipedia:Advocacy and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. -- Colin°^Talk 20:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This confuses advocacy of personal beliefs and agendas with the agenda for change summarised in Our strategic direction. In particular, it is recognised in Improve User Experience and Prioritize Topics for Impact that the way we deliver content and the target audiences will have to evolve. It would be a mistake to regard as personal advocacy initiatives such as translation of medical articles into a wide range of languages, provision of medical content offline, and exploration of new ways to deliver multimedia content. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text clearly identifies harmful advocacy editing and behaviour separate from benevolent advocacy or merely holding beliefs and admitting to them on wiki. How and whether this principle relates to the areas of conflict seen with certain members of the WP:MED project is really the concern of another section. -- Colin°^Talk 09:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No finding of principle on advocacy should be made without a recognition of the existence of beneficial advocacy, otherwise it prejudices later findings by making an implicit assumption that all advocacy is harmful. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, re "at the expense of WP's core policies", WP:NOT is a core policy. Bluerasberry has expressed his advocacy interest per his then-employer. And claiming the price of a drug in Italy 20 years ago represents the price in lower middle income countries is not NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

the prohibition is against advocacy for personal agendas at the expense of WP's core policies. Advocacy of including information to provide a NPOV is advocacy in support of WP's core policies, and is to be encouraged not prohibited. (this is another way or wording what Rexx said, above) DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onus

2) While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. In other words, if removed in good faith, said material should not be restored prior to achieving consensus. This is particularly so for material whose inclusion is known to be controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from WP:ONUS, with extra text. Open to suggestion about how to word this. I believe we have established that including drug prices in articles is controversial, that there no consensus to do this routinely, and that this is long-known. Where an editor nevertheless adds that material but later (perhaps much later) finds that material removed by another editor in good faith, they are not permitted to just revert-restore the material. To do so, places the onus on the wrong editor. -- Colin°^Talk 17:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content cannot be wall-gardened to deny policies and guidelines. The policy that decides whether (or how much) verifiable content should be included in an article is WP:WEIGHT and that is where local consensuses provide solutions to disagreements. I agree that including drug prices in articles requires substantially greater than usual coverage in secondary sources, because of the problems of interpreting price databases. However, I do not agree that such a prohibition can be wantonly extended to the issues of drug pricing in order to exclude phrases like "relatively inexpensive", where sources often discuss such qualitative metrics without having to refer to quantitative ones with the precision we would need to introduce them into an article. The onus on every party is to explain why a particular addition or removal meets WEIGHT. Consensus is bilateral process. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: WP:ONUS is policy and part of the problem with WP:MED is some editors are acting like policy does not apply to them and is inconvenient when fighting the good fight against woo and anti-science. The great big revert-hammer they use to fight off quacks get used just the same against good-faith editors. An editor who is tendentiously removing content that meets our core policies can be dealt with by the usual mechanisms: we don't need to give god-like power to WP:MED editors to install "their content". And this problem of putting the ONUS onto the wrong side, wrt disputed content, is not restricted to pharmaceutical prices. The key is that the material was removed by another editor in good faith. -- Colin°^Talk 09:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, WP:PRESERVE is about keeping content that isn't perfect but still merits inclusion, and satisfies all our three content retention policies, of which WP:V is only one. Merely being verifiable (of which many of the drug prices are not) is insufficient. WP:PRESERVE absolutely does not say that if it meets WP:V you have to keep it or have to discuss and gain consensus for removal. The drug treatment prices, sourced to product databases, failed WP:OR, and most price/cost mention in drug articles completely fails WP:WEIGHT. I suggest again that the focus on "Oh but if we allow/forbid this, then that makes it harder to fight the bad guys" is exactly how we got into this mess. Many editors turned a blind eye to Jytdog because he fought the bad guys, and we are seeing the same again with James. There are other ways of dealing with the bad guys than just giving bigger hammers to the "good" guys. There's plenty verifiable information that the good guys remove all the time, and would certainly not want to see reverted back and forced to have a tedious debate on, for example, whether mice studies are sufficient to mention the anticonvulsant properties of aspirin in the lead of aspirin. Our ONUS policy is not balanced: the onus is always biased towards having to convince others of the case for inclusion, and yet James's editing pattern towards his peers is the direct opposite of this: his text is restored and others forced to explain why it must be removed. -- Colin°^Talk 14:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

We need to be mindful that our articles about drugs contain well-sourced information that COI editors/POV pushers/advocates would be delighted to remove. If I were a shill or quack, I could use this clause to remove well-sourced information about the known side-effects of my brand of snake oil and then mire the talk page in arguments about why it can't be reinstated. In policy terms, there's a creative tension between WP:ONUS and WP:PRESERVE that we "resolved", or at least, created a truce that's held since about 2009, by enjoining editors to preserve appropriate content without defining "appropriate".

Personally my angle is that I've been the target of a griefer whose modus operandi was to remove easily-verifiable information from articles they knew I was interested in. By doing so they were able to create a colossal quantity of work for me very quickly and at low cost to them. In the light of that experience, I feel that any measure that would have the effect of strengthening ONUS needs to be targeted specifically at the prices of pharmaceuticals and other medical treatments, not a wide-reaching measure that covers the whole topic area. And can we please consider words like "narrowly construed"?—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly is policy. So is WP:PRESERVE, and, the behaviour of removing verifiable information from the encyclopaedia should invite scrutiny because it is often an indicator of a problem editor. I do think that you should be able to remove drug pricing information even if it's sourced. I just have concerns that the wording of this proposed restriction is not restricted to drug prices. I feel that it is overly general and may have unintended consequences.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert first, talk later

3) Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. While the policy on edit warring focuses on multiple reverts, it takes two to tango. Just because the editor who got reverted refuses to be drawn into a war, does not mean the first revert is unproblematic in itself: that revert is in itself a declaration of war. A consistent practice of revert-first-talk-later gives an editor an unfair advantage over other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

First sentence copied from Wikipedia:Reverting. Related to Onus above. All things being equal, one would expect to find peer-editors equally likely to be arguing on talk pages for the current article text than arguing to change it. Indeed, an editor who has already reverted to their preferred version, has little need to engage in discussion at all. We should explore if some editors are abusing revert/restore to consistently gain the upper-hand in disputes. -- Colin°^Talk 17:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal suffers from not sufficiently taking into account consensus. Added content that has been stable for a period of time is usually considered to represent consensus. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. When content that has been stable for some time is removed, that removal is the bold edit in the BRD cycle. Editors who challenge that bold edit by reversion should be allowed to do so without the stigma of "edit-warring" being applied to them. It's when the content is re-removed that edit-warring begins. What would be an improvement is requiring the reverting editor to open a discussion on the talk page (assuming the discussion hasn't already been opened by the editor making the removal in the first place). There would be a lot less edit-warring if there were an expectation that issues would be discussed before redoing contested changes to the status quo. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I point to my Evidence at Atorvastatin where RexxS edit wars against another admin, justified with: "I am editing in accordance with consensus; they are not." Our policy on the negativity of reverting good faith peers (vs obvious vandals and POV pushers) and harmfulness of edit warring very much does not judge who is right or which text is right. -- Colin°^Talk 10:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refute that evidence as inaccurate, and point to my analysis of Colin's evidence, where I show that reverting a bold edit is not edit-warring. My justification for the revert was laid out immediately on the article talk page: "This is pricing information, not a price and briefly summarises the sections Cost and Generics per WP:LEAD." Colin has consistently blurred the distinction between quantitative prices in dollars and qualitative descriptions like "inexpensive" in order to claim consensus for removing the latter. This proposed principle stigmatises the legitimate challenging of unsupported bold edits, contrary to BRD. --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: this statement is about examining a user's approach to editing, rather than concentrating on an individual revert, and it doesn't at all say what you claim. Looking at an editor's interaction with their peers, are they equally likely to be arguing to change/remove someone else's text on the page as they are to keep their own text on the page? If we find, as the evidence and experience shows with James, that they are almost never in a position where they are arguing to restore their own material (because they already did that with a revert) then something is wrong. And BRD might be a frequently cited essay, and lots of practices are common, it doesn't mean that's the best way to behave with your peers in all cases. The best editors I know collaborate with each other with very few reverts, and when they do, it is always most apologetic and respectful. -- Colin°^Talk 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I don't think you're right. The "declaration of war" is when someone reverts the reversion, not when the first reversion is made. To give a popular example, the series runs:

Doc James adds the drug price in 2016: WP:BOLD
You remove it per the RFC outcome in 2020: WP:BRD
Doc James restores it: WP:Edit warring.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This, like some other proposals, has extremely far-reaching effects, way beyond the matters of dispute. It basically says WP:BRD, a common practice, is null and void. It would imply that if somebody comes and adds (in good faith!) content that is poorly sourced, it has to be left up while we get a consensus to exclude the material. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is often used as a excuse for edit warring, and Ithink that prior agreement can often be helpful. Perhaps we overuse this as a reason, when the heading to WP:BRD says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and its first paragraph says The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. Perhaps the overuse of BRD has exacerbated the problems here. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factoid insertion has a WP:WEIGHT problem

3) Factoid insertion is inherently in conflict with WP:WEIGHT. Editors who come to an article already armed with a fact they wish to insert, or who google "article + aspect" to get sources on just this aspect, lack the resources to determine weight. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. While this does not always cause a significant weight imbalance, editors inserting factoids should be aware of the risk, and be especially prepared to back down when challenged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In many of the post RFC discussions, we have abundant evidence that the source for a cost claim was discovered via a Google Books search for "Simvastatin low cost" or similar. For Ethosuximide, two sources were offered, one 16 and the other 15 years old, making tangential remarks, and contradicted by later editions of one of the sources. Regardless of one's view on the importance of prices on Wikipedia, WP:WEIGHT offers a solution to many "should we say this?" problems. What does the contemporary secondary literature generally say? It requires a bit of work. Reading books. It isn't being done.

To take one example, the fourth edition of the textbook "The Treatment of Epilepsy", which James cited in second edition at Ethosuximide is a great source for epilepsy and each chapter on epilepsy drugs is far far more comprehensive than any of our articles. The book is 1000 pages of small type in two columns. Of that, one third of one column is devoted to the cost of drug treatment. That's 1:6000 words. Of the chapters on drugs, phenobarbitatal and phenytoin merit brief mention of their low cost (the former extremely so); paraldehyde is noted as being more expensive than lorazepam, and the recent 14-fold price increase of ACTH is noted. That's it. There are 26 drug chapters in the book. This is the sort of analysis we should be doing, to argue whether it is encyclopaedic to note the price of a drug in 2020. This is basic Wikipedia editing 101. -- Colin°^Talk 21:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Doc James is advocacy editing on the topic of drug prices

1) See "Doc James, Blue Rasberry and QuackGuru are advocacy-editing over drug prices (Colin's evidence)" section below. -- Colin°^Talk 20:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

But so is Bluerasberry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Partially in response to DGG's comment below) This is advocacy in that content is being added without regard to or in opposition to Wikipedia's content policies, especially the use of Wikipedia for purposes that do not fit general consensus for what it considered encyclopedic content. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 'compound question'. Some people might agree with one or the other, but not both. User:DGG, the real-world value of "price sharing" or "price transparency" has been discussed many times. User:Bluerasberry might reasonably consider himself to outshine Doc James as the champion of that cause, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the compound question should be reduced. I addressed edit warring in my findings. This finding should end at "drug prices", cutting off the edit warring portion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed " and edit warring with peers" from the heading per WhatamIdoing and SandyGeorgia's comments. I thought it cleaner to remove rather than strike through as it is a section heading. -- Colin°^Talk 07:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do not see how thisis covered in the definition of advocacy. Were someone advocating for higher prices, or lower prices, or more equitable prices, then Advocacy might be relevant. Were someone even advocating for more transparency in the RW about drug prices, then Advocacy might be relevant. Were there even evidence that someone was wanting increased of decreased coverage of drug prices in Wikipedia as a way of supporting advocacy for RW pricing, then it might possibly be relevant. But when someone is arguing for what makesa better article in WP, then its a matter of disagreement for the best way to cover a topic, not advocacy in the sense used in that policy. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Doc James is topic banned from the subject of drug prices/costs.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I added Bluerasberry in my section. Per SG Evidence and Some1 evidence; the years-long disruption has been extreme, and with a willingness to follow each other to disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, James single handedly installed 530 drug prices before, during and after the 2016 RFC, and then edit warred after the close of the 2020 RFC. He doesn't seem able to respect community consensus on this. And his rush to two pseudo-RFCs without prior discussion is what prompted Barkeep49 to launch this arbcase. None of that is collaborative editing. With now two RFCs, it is hardly an unsettled content dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re DGG, the question before the arbs then is if this is just a content dispute, where they need to bang a few heads together and ask us all to play nicely together, or where there is a long term conduct problem with one editor, supported by a few others. The fact that all the videos (barring two added directly by Osmosis) were added by James and edit warred by James, and all the article-lead database-sourced prices were added by James and edit warred by James, suggests to me we have a problem editor, not a content problem. James himself lists a page on evidence that records 1300 articles where he alone has restructured and dumbed down the lead prior to forking for translation. He's the sole editor doing that. -- Colin°^Talk 09:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Once more, if this is somehow warranted, it should equally apply to those who oppose him. It seems that this remedy is an attempt to win a content dispute by getting an arb com decision to remove one's opponents from the topic. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is right. There is a real risk that this case could be misused to win a content dispute. The focus of the decision needs to be on removing whatever/whomever gets in the way of peaceful and collaborative editing, with as little collateral damage as practical. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that DGG was saying that this was "just a content dispute". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Barkeep49

Proposed principles (Barkeep49)

Function of WikiProjects

1) The function of WikiProjects is to facilitate and improve editing in a topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Taken from WP:WikiProject. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For background: the usual link is to WP:CONLOCAL, as WikiProjects often represent a topic-wide local level of creating consensus. In WP:ARBINFOBOX #Levels of consensus, ArbCom held that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." However, the degree to which a WikiProject's local consensus can be taken as binding on other editors has been challenged on occasion (not least by me). --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that but think my wording is accurate to how the principles apply in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It might perhaps be better to blue-link "may not impose..." to WP:OWN instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

2) Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by rejecting or ignoring community input such as requests for comment and continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from WP:Disruptive editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Talk pages

3) Being concise and avoiding repetition of points are good practices for talk page discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:::

Comment by parties:

Two points from WP:Talk pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

4) Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles.

Comment by Arbitrators:::

Comment by parties:

Adapted from WP:Dispute resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Local Consensus

5) Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:::

Comment by parties:

From Levels of consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact (Barkeep49)

QuackGuru edit warring

1) QuackGuru has engaged in edit warring in relation to pricing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

QuackGuru's editing in contentious areas

2) QuackGuru has disruptively edited in multiple areas under discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of WikiProjects in the dispute

3) The Medicine WikiProject, and while active the Pharmacology WikiProject, served as central forums for discussion on articles with-in their scope . These projects would sometimes generate local consensus which was used to justify changes to guidelines and content across many articles. Discussions at the Medicine WikiProject of specific articles also led to edit warring at some of those articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Typto, I mentioned it because discussion there was what lead WAID to originally change the MOS re pricing and further discussion there was used while launching the 2016 RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt WAID originally inserting "pricing information" as one of the generally forbidden topics. This brought MEDMOS in to line with WP:NOTPRICES policy; the formulation of this restriction mirrors policy. Therefore I don't see this as an example of a local consensus. Nor did it fundamentally change editing practice, which only ever occasionally crossed the line.

The cultural change I have seen, is that MEDMOS was developed as merely a guideline for editors working in collaboration and respect with others, to create comprehensive, readable articles. It was based upon "best practice" -- what did our Featured Articles say and how do our best editors try to write? James introduced a style of editing at WP:MED that was not collaborative or respectful of others. Disagreements were not discussed respectfully on talk, but were simply reverted and enforced with "per MEDMOS" edit summaries. MEDMOS became a weapon and cited to justify edits the guideline did not in fact support. The most glaring of these is MEDMOS specifically warns not to just reorder the sections in an existing article without seeking the consensus of existing editors first. To my knowledge, James has never done this, yet has likely reordered over a thousand medical articles "per MEDMOS".

James and a few others do not value and respect editors who wish to and are capable of thoroughly researching an article and who desire to develop Brilliant Prose, producing educational content among the finest anywhere on the internet. Those editors wake up one morning to find articles "vandalised", as far as they are concenred: sections reordered "per MEDMOS", lead completely restructured "per MEDMOS", words incompetently substituted "per MEDMOS", sentences chopped up "per MEDMOS" and facts presented without any apparent sequence or thought. In all these cases, mass editing, almost exclusively by James, has mechanically transformed our medical articles for the worse, and without project consensus. When article writers object, and try to restore correct flow in the article, or fix errors, they get instantly reverted like they were the vandal, for not being MEDMOS-compliant. It is no wonder that over the years, such editors have often left the WP:MED project.

James alters MEDMOS in line with his practice, not best practice. The WP:MEDLEAD section is recent and is simply a weapon for James's editing practice, not the practice of WP:MED in general, nor the "best practice" as see in our Featured Articles. For example, MEDMOS used to caution against writing down to the level of a 12-year-old, like patient information leaflets do. CFCF removed that, SV restored it, James edit warred it back. A later discussion opened by WAID had a majority in favour of the sentence being restored but nobody brave enough to defy James and put it back. We have seen in evidence how James quietly removed the "pricing" restriction without discussion, after he had begun routinely inserting prices, and in order to avoid any MEDMOS-based criticism of that practice.

So what we are seeing is not in fact a project-consensus level of local consensus, but really, the idiosyncrasies and advocacy of one editor imposed over hundreds of articles, largely by stealth, and then being imposed on that project's own guideline, which is now used as a weapon rather than a guide. -- Colin°^Talk 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PHARMMOS is a WikiProject's own guidance page. WP:MEDMOS is a site-wide guideline. It does not belong to WPMED, even if it is true that we are the group on wiki most likely to care about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To the best of my knowledge, the Pharmacology project is still active (just a lot fewer editors than Medicine), and I don't see any evidence that would justify its mention here, any more so than Neuroscience, Biology, or Chemistry. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, yeah, and I see that I have the dubious distinction of having made a comment there myself. But nonetheless, the project is still active. And I think it's more confusing than helpful to make it sound like both projects have had comparable roles in this particular dispute. Pretty much every WikiProject has guidance for pages within its scope. If you don't want to leave it out, then you might change it to a specific link to the Pharmacology discussion, but not treat Pharmacology as if it were a long-time central forum for setting guidelines across multiple articles at the same magnitude as WP:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensuses about pricing/cost information

4) Those who opposed the routine inclusion of pricing/cost information in articles were in a minority among Wikiproject Medicine participants but in a majority among the larger English Wikipedia community. Both sides could claim to have consensus behind their actions which exacerbated the dispute. Further this caused both sides to entrench in their positions rather than seeking compromise. This pattern had played out several times before and after the 2016 and 2020 RfCs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I cannot agree with "caused both sides to entrench"; I spent (or misspent) weeks during RFC formulation asking for a sample drug price text that we could use to put forward to the community, to truly determine if WP:NOT and WP:LEAD could be vacated for drug prices. We found not a single example of drug pricing text that did not have issues with other policies (V, WEIGHT, OR). This is not entrenchment or failure to seek compromise; this is trying to find a compromise and realizing that the problem was much worse than originally positioned. Further complicated by finding the deceptive redirects from policy to an essay. That is, as we progressed, what seemed like a simple issue to be resolved via RFC was revealed to be worse and worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This statement was meant to encompass years of discussion. I agree that many (though not all) editors sought compromise during the period between the ANI close and the launch of the RfC around the topic of the RfC. There is also a clear reason I did not name names here because the sides I'm referring to comprise multiple editors each. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Well, if leaving Wikipedia for years at a time is "entrenching", I'm guilty :) And yes, in every instance of fait accompli, one finds many voices from the broader community speaking up (once the dispute moves outside of WPMED). Perhaps we can fast forward to ... the solution. Had any of the fait accompli been presented as a proposal, and discussed, before they were done—or had any of them been presented on the broader Wikipedia policy or guideline page (WP:NOT or WP:LEAD)—resolution would have happened much sooner, and we probably wouldn't be here today. Focusing on who typed most vs. who gave up won't lead to solutions; the problem is fait accompli, that is the methodology that was used, and not consulting or holding in regard the Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, sorry but I think you make three mistakes here.

The first is to frame this as "Those who opposed the inclusion of pricing/cost information in articles" -- I am not aware of any editor who is blanket opposed to the inclusion of pricing/cost information in articles. The split, and I do think it is a split rather than a continuum, is between those editors who think, per WP:NOTPRICES, that such information should be exceptional and those who think such information must be routine. And the routine addition of this into articles is a recent phenomenon, driven solely by the advocacy of Blue Rasberry, Doc James and recently QuackGuru, and driven solely by the edits of Doc James. It would be quite wrong, for example, to suggest that the majority of WP:MED participants go around adding prices to any drug article they find. There's never even been a minority: there's only ever been one editor doing that.
The second is to believe that those who opposed routine prices were in a minority of WP:MED participants. I did wonder that myself, but User:WhatamIdoing corrected me, and perhaps she is better placed to comment on that. The poll-results also vary depending on what question you ask, how much you require participants to put their thinking caps on, and how little you say about the practicalities of actually inserting a price on Wikipedia that is compliant with the basic policies of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, etc. There was, as I think WhatamIdoing will agree, a fair bit of wishful thinking wrt sources going on in earlier discussions.
The third is the statement "Both sides could claim to have consensus behind their actions". Not if you include the words "honestly" or "justifiably" before "claim". There really hasn't ever been a WP:MED discussion that arrived at a consensus supporting routine prices in articles. James has occasionally cited earlier discussions, like he did when removing the pricing restriction from MEDMOS and Pharmacy Style guides, but those discussions very much did not support that: there was strong opposition. We have sometimes seen James, and others, use a "no consensus for" result as meaning "and therefore no consensus against", which is just logical nonsense. The main and overriding feature of all the discussions about prices, is that a few advocates have repeatedly tried to overturn WP:NOTPRICES to permit routine prices, and have repeatedly failed to get consensus for that. And then James just ignores the result and carries on editing and reverting. -- Colin°^Talk 10:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on point one. I will be changing the wording after this to reflect that. I stand open to being corrected on point two but it's not reflected in the evidence I've seen. I stand by point three. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49, what evidence do you have that opposition to prices involves only "a minority among Wikiproject Medicine participants"? That's not been my impression over the years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Head counting in the WikiProject Medicine discussions I've seen but I could be wrong which is why I am open to being corrected about it. Colin indicated you might have such evidence which I would love to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should include that claim without evidence, and my impression doesn't align with yours. I don't have evidence that supports your claim. In 2010, the group was pretty opposed. In the 2016 RFC, I think that the most vocal supporters were WPMED folks and the opposition was a more heterogenous group. It's a bit complicated to assign categories, because there are people who participate regularly, people who edit medicine-related articles but don't post at WT:MED, people who are sort of WPMED-adjacent (e.g., FTN folks), etc. In 2020, I think it was the other way around. The clearest pro-price comments in the 2020 RFC came from Bluerasberry, the video games people, and a couple of newer editors. Can you find a way to re-write your idea so it doesn't depend upon numbers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This finding appears to me to be accurate and correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what WAID pointed out about the numbers within WT:MED. I'd suggest revising the first sentence to: "Those who opposed the routine inclusion of pricing/cost information in articles were a majority among the larger English Wikipedia community, but there was significant support among Wikiproject Medicine participants." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of consensuses about pricing/cost information in general

5) Those who favored pricing/cost inclusion had a local consensus, at least when compared to the wishes of the broader English Wikipedia community. However, because the consensus among those who were most active in medical areas was in favor of inclusion, and because this consensus was formed among a relatively large group of editors, this local consensus was largely able to successfully include pricing/cost information in articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On what basis is the statement "had local consensus" made? In pricing, there was no discussion where consensus to invalidate WP:NOT prevailed, and there were two editors who joined James in edit warring to keep his 530 edits in drug articles against several dozen other editors, who tried to remove them. I am trying to understand where we can find consensus in this small group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has similar problems to #4. I also dispute "formed among a relatively large group of editors". Barkeep can you cite a WP:MED discussion that formed a "local consensus" in favour of routine prices in drug articles? Can you explain how/why this "local consensus" did not actually involve editing practice among any editor except James. I don't think the routine practice of inserting prices, especially inserting them derived from primary source databases and using original research to transform the price of a pill into a treatment cost, has ever had any kind of consensus, or represented the editing behaviour of multiple editors. -- Colin°^Talk 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about a discussion at WT:PHARMMOS? Or about just doggedly adding and re-adding the content for months? Both the 2016 and 2020 RFCs on drug pricing ended with "there is no consensus", which either suggests that there was no local consensus, or that the discussions weren't at either WT:MED or WT:MEDMOS. In other words, I'd like to see evidence that there was even so much as a "local consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think that if the proposed FoF just above this one is included, then this one is not really needed in addition. I think there are multiple issues with how to word this one; for just one example, how can one define "relatively large"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of consensuses about pricing/cost information for specific editors

6) The dichotomy between local and global consensus led to extensive writing, in both quantity of responses and length, sometimes to the point of overwhelming discussions, by Sandy Georgia and Colin. The combination of this extensive writing and the perception of having consensus in support of inclusion led to Doc James to stop engaging in discussion about the topic, to aggressively work to include pricing/cost information in articles, sometimes to the point of edit warring, and to prematurely launch local RfCs at two articles following the 2020 RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Multiple problems here. First, the 530 edits to drug articles were done and over well before the fait accompli was revealed and discussion began, so I don't see how we can say that this "extensive writing" led James to "aggressively work to include pricing cost information in articles". That was already done. Second, evidence reveals, in contrast to this proposal, that James failed to engage because he had been very busy IRL,[15] but never told us that. This is a matter of basic courtesy, considering that not just "Sandy and Colin" were working to formulate an RFC; about a dozen (or more) were working on that. To solve this problem, it is better to ask why James has a pattern of not engaging: that answer leads to ... Ozzie. Third, there is also no evidence to back that James had "consensus in support of inclusion" after multiple local discussions, a separate RFC, and reverts by several dozen independent editors—not involved in this conflict, but entered in evidence—failed to support this consensus. It is fairly clear from his own words that Bluerasberry was proceeding according to a "plan", knowing that there was not (yet) consensus in support of inserting these prices, claiming that policy didn't apply, but hoping to build support. Fourth, to say this "extensive writing" that "overwhelmed" him led James to edit warring is also unsupported by evidence; James has always edit warred. Al-ways. To solve these problems, one needs to look at why edit warring instead of discussing works as an editing practice for James, and that leads to ... Ozzie. As worded, this proposal is more speculation than evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here are the edits to the RFC; I don't see any complaints about Bluerasberry (whose contributions are the same as mine, but more than mine if we subtract my repost of a quote per request) or uninvolved SMcCandlish, who is close. This "Colin and Sandy" thing has become a meme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair at all to suggest "extensive writing" is in any way responsible for James's behaviour, or his actions post-RFC to not only revert four editors on four articles, using the dishonest edit summary of "adjusted", but to hastily insert yet more costs and cost-information into those articles. And in earlier posts I have commented that there never has been a local consensus supporting James. James may believe he has consensus, to justify his edits, but you'd really have to ask him to explain why he believes that in the absence of any evidence.

I am disappointed, frankly, to see here excuses being created to justify why James edit warred, rejected a large community RFC, and hastily created two poll-style RFCs to get support for his edit warring. The blame for all these lies at the feet of one editor. As Barkeep notes elsewhere, there has never been a single case where James has permitted one of his prices to be removed from an article. In my evidence I show dozens of cases over the years where multiple editors have removed prices, in good faith per policy, and had them immediately restored by James without discussion. James is permanently "going to war" with editors over this issue, and the only reason Wikipedia is not permanently "at war" is because other editors do not fight back with reverts of their own.

The edit warring by James on four articles post RFC was the entirely predicable result of five years of advocacy editing and warring with the community, by one editor with a handful of supporters. Colin°^Talk 11:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Barkeep has it exactly right here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies (Barkeep49)

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

QuackGuru TBAN

1) QuackGuru is topic banned from all areas under General or Discretionary Sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may also choose to topic ban QuackGuru from a topic area, even where General or Discretionary Sanctions do not currently exist, after evidence of disruption, as an arbitration enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Quack has a lot to offer the encyclopedia but has also moved from one contentious area to another. The idea here is to put a stop to that. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: if what you're saying is correct then the only remedy is to ban them. I was trying to come up with a remedy short of that but I think there is evidence in play to justify that sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re S Marshall (blessed thinking of how to address this) and Barkeep49, you are both more experienced at how to formulate helpful workable remedies, but I believe that orienting thinking around Some1's powerful evidence (an issue I was unaware of until they posted it yesterday)-- in conjunction with all of my evidence about coordinated editing-- is the key to finding a workable remedy. I suggest that the core problems in all five fait accompli disputes are a) one editor who edits too much too fast, and then controversial behaviors/edits are enabled by b) editors that back each other's positions in coordinated editing. The example Some1 gives of what happened at iPhone11 (carrying that dispute to another topic area, and backing each other based on an essay) is where the formulation of workable remedies should start. Is QuackGuru's editing alone as problematic as when these editors join together? I don't know. I have seen Quack do good work when not reinforced/enabled by coordinated editing. How to stop the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" problem--along with getting one editor to slow down and fully engage talk discussions and dispute resolution-- will be fundamental to addressing the rest. I don't know how either of these can be accomplished in enforceable remedy language. If it can't be done, the unfortunate conclusion may be as you indicate. But Tbanning Quack won't solve the overall coordinated editing problem; it will only remove one of the parties, where my evidence suggests that there are several other parties reinforcing and enabling the problems. (PS, I am not finished with my evidence.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So on a little more reflection I stand by this proposed remedy. If QG doesn't want to edit under these conditions, fine they can walk away. But I qualitatively think QG is in a different category than all the other parties. There could have reasonably been an ArbCom case about their conduct alone. There is the past history across multiple areas. There is the further evidence in this case. I like S Marshall would like to find a way to keep them around the project because they do some good work - I would suggest that there is plenty of NCORP related woo to be found and countered - but am as a second choice, based on the evidence here, OK if they chose to step away (or they are forced to step away). I've said a bunch now about this and so will probably sit out further discussion just in the interest of letting all voices be heard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re S Marshall, that is the sort of novel remedy that should be considered, except that a) on RFCs, I think a proposal that all Medicine RFCs should gain independent approval via Talk:RFC is more appropriate (I, too, put up a dreadful RFC, and we should start consulting the "experts"), and b) a cap on overall edits would help solve the "editing too fast, too much, all the time, without fully engaging" problem, but not address the possibility of coordinated editing or editing by proxy, which has been shown to be an issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This proposal topic-bans QuackGuru from the only place he ever does any good. What QuackGuru wants to do is debunk, expose and enlighten. He displays no interest in any area that isn't contentious. And since he's poor at analyzing sources, obstructive and pedantic when challenged or reverted, and he can't write readable English, moving him on from contentious areas doesn't leave him anything he can constructively do.—S Marshall T/C 15:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: QG is bloody annoying but I've always argued to Arbcom that a full topic ban is a suboptimal outcome for Wikipedia. We still need to find a way to rein in his edits to the mainspace and discussion spaces without losing his vigilance against woo, although I'm blessed if I can think of how.—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we (1) Cap the number of edits he can make to each article and each discussion space in a rolling 7-day period, and (2) Cap the number of RfCs he can have running at the same time? I'm mindful that I'm proposing a novel and complex remedy that someone would have to enforce; but I'm anxious to think creatively to resolve this without tbanning if possible.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful if anyone is going to want to monitor this restriction manually over the long haul, and if it's true that the editor is "obstructive and pedantic when challenged or reverted, and he can't write readable English", then I'm unclear if the effort of implementing some kind of automated counter is worth it. isaacl (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might work because QG himself, I imagine, would strive not to break the restrictions imposed upon him as he would not want to be blocked or site banned as a last resort.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may unfortunately be a situation in which narrowly-constructed sanctions have been tried and failed too many times, and there should be a site-ban with appeal after 12 months. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Tryptofish

Proposed principles (Tryptofish)

Conduct on arbitration cases

1) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied verbatim from the GMO case. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely. As the first line of WP:BATTLE says,"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges." As I've stated in evidence, we must stop that from entering into WP:MED, when it has not been a characteristic at WP:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:FeydHuxtable, I think you've fallen into the trap of assuming that there are simple sides. Tryptofish isn't aligned with Doc James on the question of whether this type of drug price belongs in articles, and hasn't ever been (since at least 2010). I have long advocated for vastly expanded economic information (just no longer via drug price databases, because editors at the 2020 RFC convinced me that my position in the 2016 RFC was wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied verbatim from the GMO case. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worth including. It's inevitable passionate editors working in busy topic classes will sometimes have personality clashes, and that factions will develop. Yet there's an expectation that editors should de-escalate where possible. Trypto themselves is a good example of a non battlefield editor. As the evidence shows, while they may be aligned with the Docs crew, they'll often post in line with Colin's positions, when that's supported by policy and evidence. And they typically use gentle language to express their points. Great to see they've unretired. Not trying to imply that any party here is battlefield, recent contribs show some are continuing to edit collaboratively with editors on the other side of the dispute, and I believe that historically there have been major efforts by leading parties to reconcile. Just really a reminder that it would be nice if fully collaborative relationships can one day be re-established, especially as all parties here seem to be mainstream and want the best for our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words. That truly means a lot to me. (Just to be clear, I've "unretired" largely for the purposes of this case, but I still intend to be away from here for a very long time. Simply participating in this case has been unpleasant for me, and I want to get away from this once the final decision has been made.) But thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAID, thank you as well. But I don't think that Feyd meant it that way. The important idea here is that, regardless of whether or not some editors are receptive to ideas from all directions, there has been a long-term and deeply troubled pattern of some editors insisting that those with whom they disagree constitute a "side" that must be opposed. After all, just look at how frequently on case pages, in spite of what you just correctly pointed out, editors have dismissed my comments on case pages by saying that I'm motivated by a desire to support Doc James or that I'm here to pursue an agenda of grievance against others. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case was precipitated by a dispute about the inclusion of pharmaceutical drug prices in articles. The community decided in a December 2019 discussion that the dispute should be resolved via a centralized request for comment. However, the resulting RfC did not put an end to the dispute. The case scope was expanded to look back, possibly as far back as 2012, in order to examine the longstanding polarization of editors working on content within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by David Fuchs

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Uninvolved administrator assessment of RfCs

1) Interpretation of RfC closes of topics under discretionary sanctions should be referred to WP:AE for the input of uninvolved administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Springboarding off some of S Marshall's comments above... not a fleshed out idea and I apologize for the terrible placeholder language, but running it up the flagpole for input. A key point of contention in evidence presented is not the closes of the pricing RfCs, but rather the interpretation of those closes (for example, whether "no consensus to add pricing info" equates with "no consensus to remove pricing info". Is this something where Arbitration Enforcement could provide a useful area to gather the input of uninvolved administrators on interpretation, or is this something best left to ad-hoc discussions at WP:AN? Alternatively, is a useful remedy requiring said "gut-check" of consensus interpretation in controversial areas via AN a better option? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I want to think more about the deeper idea here but I would hope that interpretation of RfCs under DS could be referred to X (AE/AN wherever) but not saying it should be. If the participants can, after an RfC, agree what it means without outside intervention that's productive longterm in a way that going to an outside place for a ruling would not be. No comment yet on the underlying idea here as I want to think more about that first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm that would come from this proposal, but alone it is insufficient to stem the RFC problems. Something is needed on the front end as well (that is, to avoid having the uninvolved adminstrators at AE weighing in on GIGO findings). What I like about this proposal is that it provides a path to enforcement, as consulting the RFC closers in the recent incident had no effect on the outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable idea. It probably wouldn't hurt WP:RFC to have a little more information on what to do if you don't like the outcome/don't agree on what it said. User:Giraffedata, maybe we should all talk this over at WT:RFC later, no matter what ArbCom decides here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would want the first place to turn to be discussion with the closer(s), before taking it anywhere else. In my opinion, the most salient issue here is not so much where the clarification discussion takes place, but rather how any clarification, once made, gets communicated. As such, I think that there must be some sort of indication that the closing statement has been revised, directly on the RfC page, at the end of the original closing statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something further occurs to me, although I do not know the answer. For something subject to DS, awareness of the DS is a formal requirement for enforcement – so to what extent is awareness of revisions or clarifications of an RfC close also a prerequisite for enforcement? Putting it another way, once an editor is aware of DS, what is their obligation to look beyond the posted closing statement for additional discussions about the closing statement? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of the authorization of discretionary sanctions is a desirable prerequisite since sanctions can be imposed without warning by a single administrator. Not knowing the consensus guidance in an area, including any related RfC closures, isn't a directly sanctionable mistake. Editors who edit contrary to guidance should be made aware of the consensus and normal collaborative actions or feedback for disruptive actions can ensue. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Tryptofish's point underlines how badly we need to find a way to keep a log of RfC closes, and subsequent amendments if any, in a space where they're easy to refer to.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what problems would be addressed by this proposal. An RfC clarification is not a matter of enforcement, so I don't see a particular advantage to finding an uninvolved administrator in that venue as opposed to other locations. I agree with Tryptofish that the clarifications should be easy to find. To that end, I suggest clarifications ought to be recorded with the RfC closure, in the same venue for cases where the RfC was held on a talk page and has since been archived, or on any corresponding guidance page that captures the result. RfCs that are referred to often could benefit from being spun out to its own subpage, even after closure, if there isn't a corresponding guidance page. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred that clarification of the RfC close or a further smaller scale RfC focused on areas of ambiguity with the previous RfC be taken before talk of topic bans take place because I remember when a clear result came back from the Videos RfC Doc James deleted the hundreds of videos from all the articles he added them to and no one from WP MED edited against the video RfC. So it is a true statement that once an RfC is clear with no ambiguity that WP MED editors accept it. So I am not sure that topic bans are necessary at this juncture, but if drama continues months down the line after said ambiguity is resolved then at that point I think the case could be amended to include topic bans.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that DS would address Literaturegeek's concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:RexxS

In terms of the impression of entrenchment of positions, this case most resembles the first infobox case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. It is also true, IMHO, that both of these cases rest far more on philosophical differences over content than on behaviour. The Infobox cases clearly demonstrate the problem of making decisions that sanction one side of a content dispute: eventually a case had to be brought that sanctioned the other side. The reason why we no longer have the same infobox wars is that the participants in the earlier disputes have learned how to respect each others views (even while not necessarily agreeing with them), and owes nothing to the remedies in the cases. That's outside the scope of this case, but it's the explanation of why I've lifted much of the final decision (bar the remedies) from the First Infobox War. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles (RexxS)

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@RexxS and SandyGeorgia: (I should be in the others section, but I have my official capacity) I think this is an interpretation of evidence question, and I think SandyGeorgia was trying to show that her statement was true in her evidence. Whether or not she actually did that is a question that I can't answer anymore. If you would like me to, please stop by my talk page in November to convince me that I need another round of, metaphorically, getting punched in the face. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This was doing so well, until "and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia" which is not, AFAIK, the purpose of Wikipedia at all. We make "free content", and we make strong efforts to ensure that and ensure it is reusable, but what other people do with that content and helping them do it is not our concern. Indeed Wikipedia:General disclaimer very much says "you are on your own mate". I do encourage this PP to be split, or the latter part dropped, because I love earlier stuff. -- Colin°^Talk 20:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colin. Of course it can be split, and you could do that in your own proposals. But your disagreement here is the nub of where you continually miss the point. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to create an encyclopedia that only the elite can read. We strive to make our "free content" available to everyone. MOS:ACCESS is packed with guidance on how to make our content available to the visually impaired for example. We create templates that include microformats for machines to read and redistribute. If we don't expend effort as volunteers to make our content more available in the current connected age, Wikipedia risks going the way of Encarta. As Bob Dylan sagely remarked "Your old road is rapidly agin' / Please get out of the new one / If you can't lend your hand / For the times they are a-changin'". C'mon Colin, if you don't want to join in the efforts of those wanting to drive us into the 2020s, at least don't block every effort of those who are trying to, please. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my or Arbcom's blessing for specific initiatives, then please declare them explicitly and outline the impact on Wikipedia pro/con. But if you are just looking for unspecified blanket support for "facilitating" third parties, that's a non-starter. -- Colin°^Talk 21:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text is exactly what ArbCom wrote in the original Infobox decision (passed 9 to 0) that I used as the the basis for this PP. It's as general as that, and I think you'll find it is very much a starter. I'd love to see you taking part constructively in working out the pros and cons of specific initiatives, ~~but the track record isn't good on that account~~. I am looking for support for initiatives that "facilitate" third-party re-use without detriment to the readers of our content and I have no doubt the Arbs will agree with me on that point. --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, adding "but the track record isn't good on that account" does not advance discussion here. Besides that some of us (eg, me) are not well versed in how to best formulate ArbCom wording, so can put forward wording as a starting place in the hope that, through our commentary, others will improve upon them. I just don't see the comparison to the Infobox case as strongly as you do: to my mind, this is the Omnibus case all over again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Sandy, and I apologise. It doesn't help and I've struck it. We both participated in the omnibus case and I understand your point. But although that case involved numerous problematical interactions between editors over a period of time, in my opinion, it didn't rest as much on content issues as this one and the infobox cases do. ArbCom should be looking for solutions to deep-seated problems, not applying a quick fix, and it won't achieve that without resolving some the key differences on content that the case has exposed. --RexxS (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RexxS; this shows what I've always said about those who can "simmer down quickly". Most appreciated. And yes, this is (as Feydhuxtable said) the most vexxed case possibly the arbs have ever faced, which is part of why I advocated for no word limits, and continue to advocate-- length aside-- that we all tell our complete stories. Through those stories, I have come to appreciate the pride that you and others have in your WPMEDF accomplishments, and the need to find a way to let that continue that doesn't cause the collateral damage to content and editor retention as I see it. I do hope we can move forward in a way that recognizes, as well, the pride some of the rest of us had in our accomplishments, and our desire to be able to continue doing what we do. And I continue to believe we can do this, because we are all good faith editors. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm still simmering over Colin's attack on WMMED. I am sincerely touched by your kind words about WMMED, and I assure you that as long as I'm involved with it, I'll seek ways to meet good-faith concerns such as you raise. You have my word on that. I hope you know that I have a great appreciation for the work done in the FA and FL processes, and have been fortunate enough to have some of my work on hyperbaric medicine recognised by them. I would never wish to belittle your contributions, nor Colin's, to creating and maintaining the highest quality medical content. When time allows me to, I want to take Nitrogen narcosis and Decompression sickness to FA standards, and I'll be seeking advice and help from folks like yourself in meeting those standards. In my view, there is no inherent conflict between wanting to move forward with new ideas and wanting to preserve and strengthen the values that Wikipedia was founded on. But people are only human and we all have our differences. I'd like to concentrate on narrowing them, not widening them, but I do fear this case will have the latter effect. I hope I'm mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know that if you're still simmering, it's time to push back :) I will next distract you by going over to your talk page to drag you in to the highly vexxed habit cough, which is giving me fits and sending off all kinds of red flags about something being off, and yet we have to reflect sources.

I know you will seek ways; the problem is, if these issues are not resolved thoroughly in this arbcase (which I do not believe can be accomplished with only Discretionary Sanctions), I am unlikely to be available to help you shepherd your FAs through, as I will quietly walk away again, frustrated that I am not allowed to do what I do on Wikipedia (which is try to bring content to and maintain it at Featured status). And you and Colin need to start seeing eye-to-eye, because there is NO ONE on Wikipedia as helpful in getting a medical article to FA status as Colin is. Colin, you and I ALL held User:Eubulides in very high regard, and seeing his years of dedication to cleaning up the entire walled garden of autism, and keeping Asperger's and autism at featured level ... well, it's even hard for me to write about how I felt the day Asperger syndrome lost the Eubulides star, and as one of our most highly viewed articles, fell into total disrepair. That is the pride that other folks might please understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I think the fact that we are arguing about what "facilitated" means and its extent, shows exactly why this proposal is a non-starter. RexxS is pushing the agenda of the group "Wiki Project Med Foundation" aka "Wikimedia Medicine" which is not always aligned with the goals and purpose of English Wikipedia, and has a track record of imposing changes to Wikipedia that were and are detrimental. While indeed offering our content with the free-est licenses is "facilitation" of re-use, it does not oblige us to participate in or accept any facilitation, especially when the only beneficiary is a third party (e.g. OnlyOffline templates). -- Colin°^Talk 09:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the agenda of the group "Wiki Project Med Foundation" aka "Wikimedia Medicine" which is not always aligned with the goals and purpose of English Wikipedia, and has a track record of imposing changes to Wikipedia that were and are detrimental. That's an outright falsehood, Colin, and I'm politely asking you to strike it. @Dreamy Jazz, Guerillero, Bradv, David Fuchs, and Maxim: clerks and drafting arbitrators, please can you ensure that the Expected standards of behavior as outlined at the top of the page are adhered to with respect to Colin's unfounded attack on Wikimedia Medicine, please? --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, how is it a falsehood to restate that which is covered in Evidence? Perhaps I would have added on the wording about the methodology employed, but I think the basis is there in evidence. Is it not equally a falsehood to say "but the track record isn't good on that account" about Colin, the person who gave two years to shepherding through the very WPMED project guidelines (MEDMOS and MEDRS) that we all depend upon today? As I've said before, we have some editors who simmer up quickly; how about we do the "simmer down just as quickly" part, too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Evidence that shows that the goals and purpose of the affiliate Wikimedia Medicine are not aligned with those of the English Wikipedia – quite the opposite. This is a global affiliate, recognised by the movement for its work over many years, with around 200 members, all active editors across many projects. It's proceedings are open and I defy anyone to show where WMMED's agenda misaligns with the rest of the movement. This sort of mud-slinging against a respected organisation that is not on trial here is disgraceful and does no credit to those involved. --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to consistently use the words implementation of when describing how these goals and purpose have been brought to the English Wikipedia, but I am sure even I forget at times, and I hope we know what I am referring to even when I forget. There is plenty of evidence about sub-optimal implementation and how this has led to this discord. Perhaps Colin would rectify that wording when he next edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia was always intended to be used by others. We adopted at the very start a copyright that facilitated and encouraged this, to be used by others for any purposes. We took what was at that time the very unusual step, of permitting even commercial reuse, even commercial reuse with modification of any sort, as long as there remained attribution We adopted a very narrow limit on non-free content, limited much more narrowly than the US law would have permitted, so that commercial reusers could be assured that almost all our content was usable or their purposes. Our fundamental software, Wikimedia, was explictly designed to be used elsewhere as well. Within the wiki-community, we developed procedures to facilitate translation, to facilitate references, to link to WMF non-wikipedia projects,=,even to use these projects to fill in areas where we did not want to develop ourselves, such as wiktionary and wikisource. We incorporated within our broad umbrella associated projects that differed from wikipedia in permitting payment for content--in the relevant case here, Wiki Project Medicine. It's part of our community, legally organized separately to do some things that we could not do more directly. Hundreds of us, including myself, showed our goodwill towards these projects by becoming nominal members, even though we had no intention of any active participation. Some few of us, intended to be active in both--there was not the least incompatibility.

As far as i can tell, I think Colin's statement above is exactly and diametrically wrong. We will and should work with any organization devoted to similar principles, unless there's a specific contraindication. Arb com has nothing to say about it, unless what we do violates the principles of Wikipedia --violates, not complements. Wiki Project Medicine is not merely an organization with similar goal to us, it's formally a Movement Affiliate. The only formal body with any authority common to both WP and wikimed is aff com , which has the right to decide if they are to be considered an movement affiliate--and it has decided that they are. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC) [16][reply]

I'm doubtful here, User:DGG. Can you remember any instance of editors agreeing to systematically re-writing articles to make the text more appropriate for a re-user? I can't. Even a die-hard supporter of re-use might blanch if someone said that thousands of articles had to be re-written because a re-user couldn't handle such long articles, or the re-user needed to hit a certain readability range to be able to use them in a school textbook, or they needed articles to be in a particular English variant for their re-use goals, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that a major part of SG's case was that DJ was trying to do exactly that. I agree with you that this was not the case. Rather, as everywhere in WP, rewriting is a continual and gradual process with many participants. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Doc James did try to do some of that. But I haven't ever seen the bit about "editors agreeing to" it. From where I've been sitting, multiple editors have objected repeatedly to his efforts to re-write articles for the sake of other Wikipedias, and many editors objected to his efforts to add videos to articles so they would be easy to download by Kiwix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert conventions should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The title "Editorial process" seems wrong. This seems more involved in dealing with editor disagreement. The "Editorial process" surely involves reading up on the article topic and writing about it, while citing one's sources. And surely, that's the important bit! -- Colin°^Talk 20:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Editorial process. I accept that prior ArbCom findings are not binding, but that one passed 9 to 0 originally. I can't believe that much has changed. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This seems to repeat some of #2. -- Colin°^Talk 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that. I suggest that it's worth highlighting the part seeking consensus plays when talk page discussion isn't solving problems. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would add that it is of critical importance not to subvert consensus of the currently accepted pathways such as RfCs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mission

5) Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely to everyone. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information and new initiatives align with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Looks like Mission creep to me. The first sentence is both incomplete and overreaching. "An encyclopaedia that can be modified" is quite an inadequate description. The distribution of Wikipedia is not our concern. WMF host it on their servers, thanks very much, beyond that is not Wikipedia's mission. WMF may have other missions and affiliate organisations may have other missions. I feel this PP is leading us blindly into supporting an agenda that is not being declared up front. -- Colin°^Talk 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Mission; same caveats. Wikipedia's mission, the WMF's mission, the affiliates' mission, the broader movement's mission is one and the same. See Wikimedia Foundation Mission and try to assess where you think it diverges from Wikipedia's mission. Perhaps we can discuss that on the talk page? --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think satisfying WP:NOT is sufficient. The Osmosis videos could be argued to be "in scope" (though their jokey student-audience tone was quite inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and their language-use demonstrated that their intended audience was doctors treating patients, rather than "the general reader"). However they failed our key policies, such as the content being verifiable. They included a degree of branding and corporate self-promotion the community rejected. And they failed Wikipedia:About for many reasons I've explained at WP:NOTYOUTUBE. Editors may agree and disagree on whether specific initiatives have flaws, and I don't think the solution to that is to get Arbcom's blessing on anything that might be proposed in future. -- Colin°^Talk 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think it is mission creep, but the issue is when the integrity of the material of the 'pedia is compromised in pursuit of this is the issue, either by advertising (Osmosis) or loss of accuracy in oversimplistic translation (some med material) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact (RexxS)

Locus of dispute

1) The path of this dispute runs over several years and is characterised by a tension between a loosely-defined group of editors who wish to introduce new initiatives and another loosely-defined group who generally wish to retain the traditional practices developed in the formative years of Wikipedia. The trigger for this case lies in an unrelated issue: the differences in interpretation of an RfC that took place between January and March 2020. Nevertheless the immediate dispute has highlighted the disjunction between the philosophies of two loose associations of editors in the medical field.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Repeating what I stated in evidence, the distinction is a) not always along those lines (see the number of non-medical editors who uphold Wikipedia-wide policy and guideline every time the dispute has moved outside of WP:MED) and b) the problem is not one of innovation vs. tradition-- it is one of seemingly stealth methods used to install fait accompli "innovation" (even when these innovations are against policy and guideline), without prior discussion, and then to retain those controversial edits via editwarring (and only one "side" engages in editwarring). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the characterisation of either group and the nature of their conflict. All too often the "innovation" has not been discussed with the wide Wikipedia community, installed as Sandy notes, by stealth and on mass scale, and achieved via such sub-optimal means that one wants to face palm and cry "Why didn't you talk to anyone about this before you started?" Above, at Barkeep's FoF, I comment on "The cultural change I have seen" and a small group of editors at WP:MED have lost, what RexxS describes above as "an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors". Too often, this group with a stated medical mission, have become involved in things that are not themselves medical: translation, articles-as-videos produced by a commercial third party, robot-narrated-slide-shows, accessible writing, price policy, etc, they have assumed a discussion at WP:MED with a couple of fellow members is sufficient to install these changes in hundreds of articles, or have just gone ahead and installed them without even saying so first. And then they rewrite project guidelines to support what they did and fight and edit war with their peers. This, this is the problem, not innovators vs Luddites. -- Colin°^Talk 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy's point is valid, because I've over-simplified two very broad and sometimes overlapping groups whom I've characterised generally as innovation <--> tradition. Nevertheless, I think it's a bigger mistake to characterise the groups as the good guys and the bad guys. I've been involved in trialling new initiatives right across Wikipedia not just in medicine over many years, but I don't recognise the use of stealth methods, nor do I recognise being involved in breaching policy and guidelines. I also can't accept the assertion that only one side engages in editwarring.

I expect Colin to disagree with the characterisation, because he doesn't share my view that innovation is essential to Wikipedia's survival. Nevertheless, I can sympathise with him as he has described himself as "Semi-retired (This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia)" since 2014. It is understandable that Colin, who has only participated in Wikipedia occasionally for the past six years, after being relatively prolific for almost a decade before, would feel that events had occurred without anybody telling him. I'd like to find ways of taking folks like Colin along with me when I engage in a new initiative, but beyond expending more effort in announcements and discussion at WT:MED, I'm stumped. I've presented evidence about the pages devoted to Internet-in-a-Box and VideoWiki, and I'd love to find ways of involving a broader swathe of medical and technical editors in new initiatives, but it's going to take more than me to make that a reality. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Innovation

2) Innovation can add value to the encyclopedia. However, editors have been divided in their assessment of the net value of most initiatives in the medical area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes agree - I think this oversimplifies this. See below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Medicine

3) Wikimedia Medicine is an international thematic organisation, affiliated to the Wikimedia Foundation, whose purpose is promoting development and distribution of health care content on Wikimedia projects. The members of WMMED who work on the English Wikipedia form an identifiable group. Although members may be more inclined to support innovation, their editing remains aligned with the goals of the Wikipedia project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence shows their editing does not always align with the goals of the Wikipedia project, if we assume that English Wikipedia policy is part of those goals. Osmosis videos did not align with "anyone can edit", but they were installed by one editor, with editwarring. Some drug prices do not align with WP:NOT, but they were installed by one editor, and maintained with edit warring. (I'm fairly certain editwarring is not a goal of any branch of WMF.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think expecting Arbcom to identify a group of editors by affiliation and declare that their editing is universally without sin, is a starter. -- Colin°^Talk 21:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence in this case shows that breaches of Wikipedia policies haven't been confined to one group of editors. I could edit Osmosis videos and I could teach anyone else to edit them as well. They were removed by James after it became clear that they couldn't do job we were hoping. WP:NOT prohibits sales catalogues, not drug prices. We exclude drug prices from the lead on the grounds of [[WP:SPTS], WP:WEIGHT and the 2020 RfC. Wikimedia Medicine has played no part in drug pricing.

It's not a starter to identify a group of editors by affiliation and indiscriminately blame them for all the sins either. I am fiercely proud of the good work done by Wikimedia Medicine, and is unacceptable to see blame being thrown at a group that has only ever worked for the betterment of these projects. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that the main reason Doc James removed the videos was because "they couldn't do job we were hoping"? I had thought that Doc James removed them because consensus at the RFC required it, not because the project wasn't producing results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Yes, I believe that, absolutely. One of the principal purposes of the videos was always to offer a useful summary for people who understood spoken English and images better than English text. That would include a lot of people in developing countries and younger readers, given the criticisms of Wikipedia for being too hard to read (as I'm sure you're aware). I showed it was possible to edit the videos to remove any promotional content, but when it became clear that the community also insisted on being able to amend the videos as easily as they do text, it was obvious the videos couldn't do the job we wanted them to. It's really unfair to characterise the Osmosis initiative as "James has an abstract idea and goes ahead implementing it for its own sake until he is forced to abandon it". It's far more like "James looks for a solution to a problem, works with others to try it out, and when it won't solve the problem, removes the test in good grace". Of course he then involved more people in looking for ways of tackling the problem of reaching the audience who prefer video to text, and they collectively worked on VideoWiki, which seeks to meet the objections raised about Osmosis – it's non-commercial and far more easily editable. James' motivations, as well those of Wikimedia Medicine, remain unimpeachable, and it's really not productive to assume otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Osmosis or VideoWiki, we are still left with the same fundamental and significant difference: our core policy of WP:V, and how important it is that medical information be timely and accurate. The Osmosis videos were not vetted for accuracy or verifiability, so if VideoWiki attempts to fix that, it has not yet succeeded. Dengue fever is outdated; I tried to edit the video, and could not get it to upload. So we have a video *in the lead* of a featured article (where it doesn't belong, as opposed to External links, where it does belong), spreading outdated information. So, for many of our readers, the first thing they will access is dated. On a Featured article, no less. This is why I say the implementation of some WPMEDF projects have undermined medical accuracy. And they have drained editor resources to off-English Wikipedia ventures (I'd so much rather see James engaged in updating Dengue fever ... and WPMED not discouraging those editors who might want to update FAs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, when I read Doc James saying "Based on the feedback here and elsewhere...I have removed all their videos from Wikipedia", I assume that the feedback from editors during that RFC mattered. From your story, the decision was made by WMMED and the consensus of editors was unimportant. I would like that to not be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure it's a great idea to drag WMMED en masse into this. Difficult one - I agree principles are broadly aligned, but the devil is in the detail and missed in the statement as is. I think WMMED places higher importance on accessibility and outreach, which some editors outside WMMED have noted has led to loss of accuracy - this is not always the case and people are generally acting with good intentions, but have seen it in multiple venues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think WMMED does have that orientation, and this is one of the reasons why they are properly a separate organization/project, just as is Simple. It doesn't contradict the principles of WP to have a similar project in a different style. If DJ has been trying to use WP material directly in WMMED without modification, I do not think it is a good idea, but then I've never been active in WMMED & I don't follow discussions there. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prices and pricing

4A) There is a distinction between the quantitative price of a drug and qualitative descriptions of those costs. Prices should only appear in the lead in exceptional circumstances. Pricing information can appear in the lead when it summarises significant content in the rest of the article, as described in WP:LEAD.

4B) The 2020 RFC concluded (indicated?) that there is a distinction between the quantitative price of a drug and qualitative descriptions of those costs. Prices should only appear in the lead in exceptional circumstances. Pricing information can appear in the lead when it summarises significant content in the rest of the article, as described in WP:LEAD.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Pricing information can appear in the lead when it summarises significant content in the rest of the article, as described in WP:LEAD" when the text in the body also complies with WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR and WP:DUE (something found not to be true in any of the 530 examples considered during the formulation of the RFC. That is, Wikipedia cannot summarize to the lead when the text in the body is not policy-compliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is expecting Arbcom to rule in a content dispute. Non starter. -- Colin°^Talk 21:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Simvastatin the body of the article has well sourced content describing the significant drop in price of the drug and the effect it had on its uses. That is summarised in one sentence in the lead and yet attempts have been made to use the 2020 RfC as a weapon to remove both article content and the sentence in the lead. We're only here because of the fuss kicked up when the RfC at Talk:Simvastatin showed that the 2020 RfC couldn't be abused to indiscriminately remove pricing information.

ArbCom knew what they were undertaking when they accepted the case vis-a-vis the issues surrounding prices and pricing. They've ruled on content before, and this case won't provide any long-term solutions unless they do so again. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also doubtful that they will rule on the content. However, I hope that they would be willing to state the outcome of the RFC(s) as a fact, i.e., "The RFC concluded that there is a distinction between..." rather than directly stating "There is a distinction between..." User:RexxS, would you like to consider a re-write along those lines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Of course I'm happy for any changes that improve the clarity or specificity of the PFoF. I'm not sure the closers made a point of it, but the discussion certainly did. I've put up an alternative with an alternative. The drafting Arbs will pick and modify any bits they like, anyway. The Infobox Arb case resembles this case in many aspects, IMHO, and there the Arbs made a finding of fact WP:ARBINFOBOX #Use of infoboxes that was pure content. Ironically, that statement proved to be the most enduring outcome of the case. --RexxS (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As is obvious through this entire case, there is sometimes a connection between content and behavior. One can be a little pushy to keep the presentation of a subject old-fashioned and confusing, or a little pushy to make it more modern and clearer; equally, one can try so hard to make things better than it antagonises other contributors and the article ends up worse than ever. One can be very polite, and effect goodchanges gently; or be equally polite and let all the errors stand to avoid a quarrel.

Sometimes a dispute that comes here is driven by disagreements about the subject, and trying to deal with them creates hostilities; sometimes people start off hostile, and choose some subject issue as a battleground because they want to fight with each other. I'm not necessarily saying that any of these oversimplifications are the actual facts here, but just that our standard dichotomies are not a straightforward as they sound when consideredapart from the actual situations. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, without reference to the specific articles in question in this case but as a general principle, "old-fashioned and confusing" vs "more modern and clearer" is a false dichotomy; we're not engaged in some kind of Maoist permanent revolution in which change automatically equates to progress. In the Wikipedia context there are often excellent reasons to stick with apparently outdated practices: consistency with other articles so readers know where to look; familiar processes so people can have at least some expectation that similar inputs (whether in the literal sense of article edits, or in the figurative sense of contributions to discussions) will produce similar results; less risk of introducing buggy templates; convenience for downstream re-users of content who may not be equipped to handle complex new markup; less risk of confusing occasional or returning editors who haven't kept up with technical changes…

Yes, the Wikipedia community sometimes over-fetishises "this is how we've always done it", but it's the innate conservatism of a project that requires a difficult consensus-building process to make any significant change that's the reason stolid, unimaginative Wikipedia has survived when Knol, Citizendium, Amapedia, Everipedia and everything else that embraced the philosophy of "run fast and break things" ended up alienating and confusing their editors and are now just minor footnotes to our own history. ‑ Iridescent 2 11:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we have survived but some of it is due to failures at our competitors, some is due to the advantage we have from being there first and largest, and some I would like to believe has been from the fundamental strength of our basic model of open editing by nonexperts. But some of it has been with out gradual changes: first, the adoption of the principle than BLPs must be sourced, then our increasing emphasis of quality of sourcing, and some our higher standards for notability and NPOV, most of which were accomplished without a formal change in rules but by the growth of a feeling of responsibility in the community. This iswhat Imean by modern--which is not perhaps as good a word as "higher quality" . though we do not know what leads to higher quality except by trying it out, as the numerous unsuccessful efforts of the WMFhave demonstrated. But in practice I think of growth and even our survival --despite repeated predictions of our death has been due to our continuing recruitment of new editors, partly from formal outreach projects, but more from the same general attractiveness o fvolunteering here that got us started in the first place. And I do not mean to imply in what I stated that one particular side of this dispute is progressive. Indeed, it is obvious that the harm from the conflict has been greater than the benefit of either having or not having prices. In that respect, it's similar to infoboxes, as others have also noticed. DGG ( talk ) 11:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James

5) James is a well-respected long-term editor and one of the most prolific editors of medical articles. He sometimes edit wars, but engages regularly on talk pages, and has often demonstrated his willingness to compromise. James is keen to innovate, but is realistic enough to accept when consensus is against him, such as his removal of the Osmosis videos from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest that the "sometimes edit wars" is a bit of an understatement. And I believe evidence shows he only compromises after a long period of extended debate and agida, to which we have all been exposed too many times, because James single-handedly installs his preferences without listening to others. I also have suggested that the extent of his "prolific" editing may be one factor in him not slowing down enough to understand when he makes mistakes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last month (April) James made nearly 2,000 edits to mainspace. For comparison that's around ten times as many as Colin has made in three years. So, I agree he will make mistakes, and will edit-war in the course of his editing. The problem is that when you examine a sample of those 2,000 mainspace edits, you see that he's engaged in cleaning up the mass of spurious editing at COVID-19-related articles with a high degree of accuracy, as well as patiently explaining MEDRS to keen newbies on the talk page who want to add what they've just seen on YouTube into the article. If he slows down, we lose the battle to keep our articles honest, because there's nobody else with the same experience putting in the same effort to uphold our policies in those situations. We shouldn't be casting James as a villain here, but looking for ways to support his editing to help avoid mistakes. After all, "The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything." – Theodore Roosevelt. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is apples and oranges to look at James' volume of edits compared to editors (like Colin and me) who have been chased off; it is not representative. But you raise another problem I meant to raise, but don't know where. MUCH of James' time pressure could be alleviated by a reminder that his talk page is not article talk or WPMED talk, and that those helpers who like to make "per James" edits might be put to better use in moving commentary from James' talk page to article talk or WPMED talk as appropriate, to take some pressure off of Doc. It is just absurd that one has to follow one editor's talk page to know what is going on in medicine articles. And specifically, that excludes Colin from those discussions, as he is banned from James' talk (which I find most unhelpful-- sheesh, I endured all manner of everything on my talk while I was FAC delegate, and never banned anyone). THAT is how we should be supporting James-- by getting article content discussions off of his page and back over to articles or the Project. The man is trying to do too much, and the people who suffer are ... ones like me ... where I had to struggle (against outside interference) to get James' attention to text at dementia with Lewy bodies. We will NOT "lose the battle" by better using everyone's time, in ways that encourage editors like me to re-engage with a Project that I feel has mistreated the articles and issues I am proud of. There is too much of medical content being transacted at one editor's talk page, and of course that adds to his time pressure and leaves him being the only one addressing many issues! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't go edit warring with your peers (Atorvastatin, Simvastatin, Ethosuximide, all of whom are long term good faith editors, because you are too busy, making the odd understandable mistake. We aren't here because of James's occasional mistakes within a high volume of uncontentious edits. -- Colin°^Talk 16:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need evidence of "often demonstrated his willingness to compromise" and I haven't seen any posted. And wrt accepting when consensus is against him, very much the opposite. The Osmosis capitulation was not a compromise nor a good example of knowing when consensus was against him: As RexxS notes himself in evidence, when the community started removing the sponsorship/brand-awareness aspects of the videos, the relationship with Osmosis soured. The game was up because it became clear those videos were never going to get edited ever again. And RexxS, you and I both know about the {{OnlyOffline}} debacle where the videos were brought back to Wikipedia by stealth (visible by the Kwix browser but crudely hidden from web browsers in a way that impacted very reader with extra download costs). And James's claims that VideoWiki could bring back an "editable" version of those Osmosis videos. No, that's not a good example at all. -- Colin°^Talk 22:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like as good of a place as any to note that I continue to respect the work Doc James has done as a representative of the Wikimedia community on the board of the foundation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, the videos were always editable...a little bit. Search this page for the word nitpicked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to read Typtofish's evidence. They cannot be dismissed as a sycophant, and have opposed James on various issues, but their evidence outlines an appreciation of the willingness James shows to change tack, in stark contrast with Colin's inflexibility. James' removal of the Osmosis videos was a clear example of knowing when consensus was against him and accepting it. It is astonishing bad faith to view that in any other light.

Colin, the only debacle was your failure to get your own way over offline content, and your insulting tone in calling my work "stealth" and "crude" is typical of your contempt for fellow editors. I created a technical solution that would allow any sort of content to be made available to offline viewers without it appearing on Wikipedia, as a proof-of-concept and it was tested in 22 articles quite openly. As far as I know, it is not presently in use on enwiki. You failed to have the template deleted because it was never about Osmosis videos, but you still insist on beating that dead horse.

@WhatamIdoing: The Osmosis videos were just as editable of the hundreds of thousands of other videos on Commons. Some edits are easy to do, like cropping; others like changing the soundtrack are more difficult, but all are editable. We don't demand editability as a prerequisite for inclusion for all of the other videos, sound clips and images we use from Commons, and this double standard is an invention used to bludgeon James. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, wrt James "accept when consensus is against him". See User talk:Doc James/Archive 162#Narcolepsy video. James says in Feb 2020, "a small number of people are very very against video" and "the proportion of people who wanted the videos removed was small. If there are enough people who want them back we can do another RfC.". James still does not accept the community consensus. If he did, we'd have him admitting "I got that one wrong" rather than pursuing the idea that VideoWiki will make them "editable" enough to restore. -- Colin°^Talk 09:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course he accepts the community consensus, and that's why he removed the videos. They have not reappeared, but he is correct that consensus can change. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I may be mistaken, but I think eventually Osmosis did find a way to make the videos editable at least partially , and it was decided that they were also otherwise not suitable for wikipedia article content. (I'm not sure whether the decision not to use them came before or after they were made at least somewhat editable). DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

6) Colin is a well-respected long-term editor and a regular contributor to creating the highest-quality medical articles. He has consistently opposed innovation and tends to try to dominate discussions by sheer volume of text. Colin is highly invested in his own position on issues and vary rarely moves his position to try to find common ground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ditto to above: innovation is not opposed-- stealth methods, without discussion, and maintained by editwarring is opposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sandy wrt innovation. But also, well you are likely dwelling on on some unusual high profile conflicts and it's not like I was consistently on the wrong side of wider community consensus, or ever the editor misbehaving in article-space, unlike, *cough*, someone else.

I won't disagree that I can be too verbose (have you seen one of my reviews?) and too keen to respond to someone's point with my own response, and I do acknowledge this is an area for improvement.

If you actually look at my editing style, well you wouldn't write that last sentence... I don't revert, I don't edit war, and I am full of respect and admiration for other editors who are creating wonderful articles. When I edit articles to try to fix or improve the text, I make it clear that I'm more than happy to be reverted if others think I've blundered, and often in my reviews I'll just point out the issues I find. I then (a) leave it to the other person to reword and improve [they have access to all the sources and are much better placed to do this] and (b) don't kick up any fuss at all if my recommendations or preferences are rejected or ignored. One example: after reviewing and copyediting Poliomyelitis for User:DO11.10, which became Featured, we collaborated to create List of polio survivors, which was also Featured. Graham notes that my harsh reviews pushed him to create better articles. I recall at one point we disagreed on whether Rotavirus should include both the virus and disease and I even mocked up some alternatives in user space. Graham didn't like it and that was the end of it. WP:MED at that time produced many featured articles, and I'm proud of the part I played in that.

So, no, I'm a collaborative editor fully loving an "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors". It was when the reverty edit warriors took over at WP:MED, led by James, Jytdog, QuackGuru and some "I agree with X" dogsbodies, who attacked and chased away a newbie neurologist trying to improve Epilepsy, that I semi-retired. That's not my editing style at all. -- Colin°^Talk 22:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just noted my respect for James I will also note that I have come to respect Colin as I've worked as an uninvolved administrator in this area. RexxS while I think the innovation wording works well to describe James I think trying to apply that concept to Colin just doesn't work because unlike James he isn't editing for innovation so he's neither for nor against it, in the way that many editors are neither for nor against it. And from what I have seen Colin is not adverse to change which might be closer to what you're getting at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the two times that Colin has not budged (Osmosis videos and WP:NOT), the consensus via community-wide RFC was with Colin; policy is policy, and Colin happened to be right. There should be no budging on allowing unverified inaccurate outdated original research into medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence presented by Typtofish, as near to a neutral observer as we're likely to find in this case is telling. It does not paint a picture of Colin in the words he uses to describe himself. The descriptions used include "mocking and sarcastic", and it documents Colin stating that Typtofish "sound exactly like an apologist for sexual abuse in the workplace". It relates an experience where he was working out differences with Sandy, when Colin entered the discussion with a wall of text which Typtofish summarises thus: "He isn't really trying to help me understand earlier discussions of which I might not be aware, nor looking for ways to get to consensus. He is tut-tutting me, and schooling me, in a condescending way that makes it sound like I should defer to those who are wiser than I am." That has such a familiar ring to it. Literaturegeek, another neutral, gives a damning indictment of Colin's treatment of other editors and his refusals to shift from entrenched positions. From CFCF there is a section about Colin titled "Incivility" where he shows Colin belittling him over his age and his ability to understand English. Ian Furst's evidence on "Walls of text and changing questions in RfCs" illustrates another aspect that editors face when discussing with Colin: their defence of their position with walls of text. The next sections shows how Colin attacked the VideoWiki initiative with no effort to seek any outcome other than its closure.

I don't accept that any community consensus exists that legitimises Colin's misuse of a policy about sales catalogues, but I do agree he hasn't shifted from that. But he also didn't budge from his refusal to accept that keeping the language in the lead simple was desirable, calling it "dumbing down Wikipedia". He didn't shift from opposing my {{OnlyOffline}}, even when a deletion discussion made it abundantly clear that it was useful for more than just what he was claiming. Colin, right or wrong, has failed to budge on any significant dispute discussed in this case, and that's what this PFoF seeks to encapsulate. --RexxS (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thank you, RexxS, for what you said about me here and in the section just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies (RexxS)

Requirements on editors promoting innovation

1) Editors who wish to innovate are required to be sensitive to objections to the changes they wish to make and to assume good faith on the part of the opposers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The general use of the word innovate to describe two editors using mass bot-like edits and editing against policy, against consensus, against RFC, against guideline, with editwarring and without full disclosure or edit summaries so that others can see what is happening-- is subtly disingenuous.

Setting that aside, would it not be more useful to explain better practice for promoting actual innovation (as opposed to fait accompli) with wording like:

Rather than experimenting or advocating via editing in article space, editors who wish to promote change or new ideas should make their suggestions on the appropriate Wikipedia policy or guideline pages (examples, WP:NOT for drug prices and WP:LEAD for altering the way leads are written to accommodate translation) and assume good faith on the part of those who oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is more disingenuous to describe innovations such as systematically providing translations, Internet-in-a-box, offline content, and VideoWiki as "editing against policy, against consensus, against RFC, against guideline, with editwarring and without full disclosure or edit summaries so that others can see what is happening". Those initiatives were none of those things, and many editors will feel their good-faith contributions unfairly slighted by such an unfounded characterisation.

It would be great if we could work to find ways of engaging a very broad spectrum of our medical editors (and others) in new developments and having colleagues playing devil's advocate with those would be appreciated. I understand that Colin, for example, believes that outright opposition is the only course for projects he's not been involved in developing, but we have to move away from that as the pace of change quickens in response to the 2030 Movement Strategy. Replacing naked hostility with a more collaborative approach would do wonders to ease the coming changes, and this part, complemented by the next, would place a responsibility on innovators to work with objectors in the right spirit.

I disagree with requiring editors to seek permission before editing. That runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. WP:NOT is about sales catalogues, not drug prices, and it would be most inappropriate to hold discussions there. The MoS already tells us to minimise WP:JARGON and we should be working to keep the required reading age down to a sensible level, especially in the lead, without having to seek prior consensus. On the other hand, seeking constructive criticism before embarking on a new venture makes eminent sense, but innovators are going to be reluctant to do so in the current atmosphere of mistrust, if folks like Ian Furst are treated the way he was over VideoWiki. --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Requirements on editors opposing innovation

2) Editors who oppose innovation are required to be sensitive to the potential value of the changes they oppose and to assume good faith on the part of the proponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Using the word innovate to describe two editors adding or changing content to articles via mass bot-like edits, without first proposing changes at the relevant Wikipedia-wide pages and doing so against policy, against consensus, against RFC, against guideline, with editwarring and without full disclosure or edit summaries so that others can see what is happening-- is subtly disingenuous. For this proposal to be more useful, it should be worded to be more relevant to the way proposals should happen-- at the correct policy or guideline page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above re: innovate and finding ways of engaging more people.

This part complements the previous one and seeks to place a reciprocal responsibility on opposers to work with innovators in the right spirit. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editors reminded

3) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about medical topics. Battleground behaviour is not acceptable in interactions with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions

4) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for edits to articles and talk pages in the scope of WP:WikiProject Medicine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Trypto I am confused. You seem to focus on all MED in the wording but then on pricing in your comment. I support DS as well and struggle with the scope but think all of Medicine is too broad. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not yet convinced the DS will work at all for the particulars of this case, because of the coordinated editing aspect, but should they be needed, the problems definitely extend beyond drug pricing, and should include all medical. I have given samples in my evidence that cover everything from diseases to mental disorders to cancer; it's everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am strongly in favor of implementing DS, but I have some mixed feelings about the scope that they should have. WP:MED covers a vast amount of territory, much of it relatively peaceful. (For example, there are a lot of articles that are in the scope of the various basic sciences, such as neuroscience and pharmacology, among others, where med also lists the page as low priority for their project.) I think there is no getting around the fact that ArbCom is going to have to remove some editors, entirely, from the topic area. Once that is done, it may be best to place DS on pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing, where there is still an awful lot that the community still needs to work out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, my comment reflects what I think (cf the DS proposal in S Marshall's section). But the wording of the proposed remedy was written by RexxS, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement (RexxS)

Enforcement of restrictions

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

Appeals and modifications

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

etc.

1) In other words, the usual {{Arbitration standard provisions}} apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it's worth noting the standard provisions so that editors are aware. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Almaty

Proposed principles

Template

1) That there is a need to recruit medical editors, and that behaviours from all parties do not currently adhere to the pillars of Wikipedia. This drives new potential editors away, as we can see from the evidence.

To comment on the context of my submission. I'm unfamiliar with ARBCOM but from my limited experience this is what I propose. --Almaty (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) That edit warring is rampant throughout many articles within scope of Wikiproject Medicine, and that various parties are given license to edit war, for various reasons. This should not occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) That incivility is also rampant in Wikiproject medicine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) That the RfC process in medical articles needs to be revamped, to involve discussion for 48 hours, followed by third opinion, and the third opinion must write the RfC. This should be permanent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) That uninvolved administrators recognize and warn and block as per normal processes, even if involved editors are "senior". We should "template the regulars" if there is an edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) That several administrators monitor all parties behaviour and warn them when they edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Any editor should be able to warn others against edit-warring. There are simply too few admins active in the medical arena to put the burden just on them. I would add, though, that warnings must be even-handed, and not just used as a stick to beat editors that disagree with you. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

--Almaty (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Hipal (Ronz)

Proposed principles

Communication

1) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates#Communication --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruption by administrators

2) Because of their position of trust in the community, administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-administrators. Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates#Disruption_by_administrators --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia

3) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Combined from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates#Purpose_of_Wikipedia_2 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates#Purpose_of_Wikipedia_3 --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Quality of sources

4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates#Quality_of_sources --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 7

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Consensus from 2016 Request for Comments on price of medications

From the initial creation of the 2016 Request for Comments on price of medications, the first two subheadings were "Support including pricing details" and "Oppose including pricing details". I don't believe any of the opposes can be interpreted as only opposing new additions made after the RfC. Thus in my opinion, in particular for participants in the RfC, there is no basis to assume that the outcome of the RfC does not support removing prices, barring any specific significance in appropriate sources (as noted in the closing statement). isaacl (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Where there is no consensus, as there was for part of the conclusion of the 2016 RfC, then nothing changes. One can just as easily contend that there is no basis to assume that the outcome of the RfC supports removing prices. What is clear, though, is the the 2016 RfC shows consensus for inclusion of pricing where the sources note the significance of the pricing.

Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles.

That consensus cannot be dismissed lightly. --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand Isaacl's point. Wrt RexxS point, he repeats the logical error wrt "supports removing prices". The WP:ONUS is always on those seeking to include text to demonstrate it meets policy, such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. Permission to remove text that editors believe, in good faith, fails to meet policy, is an absolute given, always. We don't need an RFC on that: it is just how WP works. This logical knot-tieing where James and others have tried to claim "well, there's no consensus to remove the prices either" is a fallacy. The 2016 RFC confirmed the longstanding consensus at WP:NOTPRICES and concluded there was "no consensus" to move beyond that towards routine prices in articles. Sources showing the exceptional significance of prices is merely a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, to include that text on Wikipedia. WP:WEIGHT remains a very big problem, and the prices inserted by James had WP:V and WP:OR and basic maths/statistics problems too. -- Colin°^Talk 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So here's one of the frustrating bits, and maybe User:RexxS can analyze this and say what he thinks ought to happen.
  - July 2016: RFC conclusion says "no consensus to add the pricing"
  - December 2016: Doc James adds the pricing to Acetazolamide, Amikacin, Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, Anastrozole, Artemether, Artesunate, Artesunate/amodiaquine, Asparaginase, etc. Exactly zero of these edits cite a source that "note[s] the significance of the pricing".
- How exactly are we supposed to deal with this situation? "No changes" now, so anyone quietly editing against the RFC's consensus gets what he wants in the end, or "No changes" then, and maybe you volunteer to revert all of those anti-consensus edits? (I don't volunteer for the job, thanks; I've seen what happens to people who remove the content that you just said above shouldn't have been added in the first place.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WhatamIdoing: The 2016 RfC found that there was consensus to add pricing where the sources note the significance of the pricing. You can't just cherry pick a few words and omit the exceptions that actually led off the findings. Doc James was editing within consensus to add pricing whenever there were sources that note the significance of the pricing. You can quibble about whether the sources met your standard for significance, but not about the result of the RfC, which was unambiguous and still holds today. You solve it by engaging in debate on the article talk page and asking for the sources that show significance, just like any other piece of content that needs to be sourced. WP:CHALLENGE gives good guidance on how that may be done in a collegial manner. --RexxS (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, you can't just go all Trump and make claims about what James did without evidence. Diffs please to the sources James used, and the text claiming the price is significant, which my dictionary defines as "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy". Let's clear a couple of things up. All drugs start off on patent and are jolly expensive. When the patent expires, much much cheaper generics appear. This is not "significant" and a source noting, say, that Simvastatin has a lower cost than it used to when it was only available as originator-brand Zocor, is utterly banal. When WHO assess a drug for their Essential Medicine list, they are looking for the price to be "acceptable", not for it to be "exceptional" in any way. They are merely waiting for an efficacious drug to enter the second phase of its expected price journey. There are 500 extremely ordinary drugs with (mostly) extremely ordinary prices in the essential medicine list. It doesn't help when you describe someone else's view as a "quibble" whereas your own interpretation is "unambiguous". Clearly James has interpreted (or ignored) the RFC result differently to most others. We aren't here because there is unambiguous agreement that all 530+ drug articles have significant prices or that they are without problem. -- Colin°^Talk 10:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your diffs to the sources you object to? You're the one saying they don't meet your standards, so show why. I'll clear this up for you. You write: "When the patent expires, much much cheaper generics appear. This is not "significant" and a source noting, say, that Simvastatin has a lower cost than it used to when it was only available as originator-brand Zocor, is utterly banal." and you're dead wrong. That change made Simvastatin cost-effective to use as a prophylactic statin, and that's a significant change. The sources state it. You're now shifting the goal-posts by requiring "exceptional" significance, and that's a long way from your definition of "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy". A drug that goes on the EML is significant for its inclusion, no matter how much you pretend it isn't. Complaining about another editor's choice of words is a bit rich, given your willingness to ascribe my view as "repeating the logical error" and your view as "an absolute given, always" in this very section. Neither of which have any basis in fact. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, I do believe there was an RFC recently that examined those sources and many editors voiced their opinions on policy requiring prices to be exceptional. You clearly have a strongly held opinion on the matter, so it is regrettable that you didn't participate in order for your voice to be heard. -- Colin°^Talk 17:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:RexxS, so your interpretation of "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles" is that it's okay to add pricing, as long as some unknown, uncited, purely hypothetical source says that the price is significant. And if I can't find such an unknown, uncited, purely hypothetical source, then I have to go to 500 talk pages, and start 500 discussions, and have 500 conversations, with the same person (who may or may not choose to engage), about whether such a source exists, and whether that source meets the standard set forth in the RFC. And the response I'm going to get (because it's the response that I did get) is a vague handwave that some sources talk about the importance of drug prices in general (without actually mentioning the names of any of these drugs specifically, or sometimes without mentioning any drug by name), and that the existence of these sources means that absolutely every single drug in the entire encyclopedia should include a drug price. Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation of that RFC result to you?

It does not sound like a reasonable interpretation to me. I understood the RFC as requiring editors who are adding pricing information to actually have a source in hand (not a belief that one probably exists) that notes the significance of the pricing for that drug (not for drugs in general). I also did not understand the RFC as requiring editors who challenge these edits as being against consensus to have to have 500 separate conversations about each one individually. The whole point of a broad RFC is to stop that waste of time, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WhatamIdoing, my interpretation is that it's acceptable to add pricing to articles where a source notes its significance. That's pretty much the same standard as required for any statement, and why would it be different? If you find uncited text that you feel needs a citation, you can always follow policy: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." if you're interested in improving the collegiality of editing, that would be a reasonable step to take, in my opinion. If there is a pattern of not supplying sources by the same editor, you should surely take it up with the editor.

So what's your interpretation of the RfC? You find 500 unsourced pieces of text, so you simply remove them, quoting WP:V? If every editor did that with every unsourced statement we'd soon have very little Wikipedia left. In Talk:Simvastatin, you oppose the statement "Simvastatin is relatively low cost" on sourcing grounds. Yet one source cited in the RfC states

Costs fell from $1,200 to $40/patient/year, as priced by the Management Sciences for Health International Medical Products Price Guide (19). This reduction helped make statins cost-effective by WHO standards, and in 2007, statins were added to the EML as a therapeutic class. Given its lower cost and off-patent status, we proposed simvastatin as the representative example of the therapeutic class of statins.

and the other source cited states

Simvastatin, used for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, is a universally accepted and relatively inexpensive drug.

Those sources show how far out you are in your assessment, and nobody should be removing sourceable material on the spurious grounds that the sources might not exist. Considering how quick you are to want content removed, will you be equally keen to see the restoration of the text removed from Simvastatin when the RfC closes in favour of adding the statement? --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the start of that discussion. The Simvastatin sentence suddenly sprouted an extra source after several editors pointed out that a wholesale cost of US$40 a year (which often means a retail cost of $1 per day) isn't "inexpensive" to most of the world. The first time it was proposed, only the first source was cited. Doc James went searching for the second source when we told him that interpreting $40 wholesale as "relatively low cost" would violate WP:NOR.
I want to know whether (in your opinion) adding a price plus (only) a source that does not indicate anything whatsoever about the significance of the price would comply with the outcome of the 2016 RFC, which appears to require a source that does indicate something about the significance of the price. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence § Consensus being misinterpreted, the closure of the 2016 RfC was quoted, which said in part "there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles", and then the statement was made "Plus there was no consensus for removal of prices." This appears to draw a distinction from the use of "add" in the closing statement. However based on the actual RfC subheading, which was chosen by the editor who created the RfC, and the actual comments, no such distinction was made. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that every editor in the discussion in this section is highly intelligent, and yet, look at how difficult it is to reach agreement about the meanings of what are now two successive RfC closes (and not just the 2016 one!). And I reject the possibility that anyone here is giving a wrong interpretation out of either ineptitude or bad intent. In an ideal world, it would be clear right off the bat what a closing statement means, and there would be no need for anyone to go to a closer and ask for an extensive clarification – but of course this is not an ideal world. WAID and I have discussed multiple times the fact that the 2020 RfC was designed with the intention that it would be the first of two RfCs, designed to collect ideas rather than to solve all problems, and that there would likely be a follow-up RfC that would tie up any loose ends about the final community consensus. Of course, that RfC has yet to happen. It's important not to forget that now. Personally, I thought that leaving anything still unresolved was a bad idea and would lead to ongoing conflict, but I failed to persuade ~~anyone else~~ of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: some editors did agree at the time, but it was not the prevailing view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James does not write about cost, he adds factoids (Evidence presented by Colin)

There are article writers and there are factoid inserters. Quantity vs quality. It is like the difference between a restaurant meal served over three courses with wine, and a fast food takeaway with a can of cola. James is primarily a factoid inserter. Two examples illustrate this well, and you don't need a position on the price RFC to appreciate the issues with the writing, with the approach to sourcing and with the quality of the sources used. This demonstrates one of the sources of conflict with writers who aspire to write Brilliant Prose.

Simvastatin

After the RFC, James expanded the cost section in this article, to arrive at this version.

"Simvastatin is relatively in expensive". You might expect the source to be a general analysis of this drug or class of medications. But it is in fact an eight-year-old review of the latest (then) research into the topical application of Simvastatin to encourage dental bone growth after periodontitis. Not, AFAIK, an actual clinical use.
"The wholesale cost in some LMIC is around US$0.01 to 0.12 per day as of 2014." This "range" of prices in fact represent just two: the per-pill price of a 28-pack of 10mg pills sold to the South African Department of Health in 2014, and the 100-pill pack of 10mg pills sold to the Sudan National Health Insurance Fund in 2014.
"The price decreased from roughly US$1,200 to $40 per year of medication following the patent expiring in 2006." There's no regional information or pill size in this sentence, no idea if it is wholesale or retail, and it is for a year's treatment this time.
"In the United States, it costs about US$10 to 20 per month since patent protection ended." This price isn't year-dated and it isn't possible to tell which dose is being taken (10, 20 and 40mg pills are available). There are two sources. The first, a google books link, tells us James searched for "Simvastatin cost". It's a political book, with subtitle "Bridging the Gap Between Myth and Reality" that the publisher says "provides readers with the information to make informed decisions and to help counter the bias of political pundits and the influence of the for-profit health care industry". Wouldn't have been my first choice of reliable sources for drug costs. The author of this book carelessly gives a price for "Zocor" (the originator brand) that is actually the price of a cheaper generic version (Zocor will still cost you $262 for 30 tablets vs $10.60 for a generic). The second source is the live Drugs.com retail price, so will vary depending on when the reader looks.
"In the UK in 2008, the typical per-patient cost to the NHS of simvastatin was about £1.50 per month. (40 mg/day costs UK NHS £1.37/month in 2012)". The first sentence was added by User:Rod57 in 2008 and was sourced and expanded by him in 2012. The BBC New source gave a price for the purpose of comparing with atorvastatin, which was 13x more expensive because it was still on-patent. This dated price is no longer relevant or notable.

So is our reader to make any sense of these factoids? As an article writer, would you choose to juxtapose prices for a day, a month and a year's treatment? Would you juxtapose prices for 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2020? Would you juxtapose wholesale and retail and unspecified prices? Would you juxtapose the cost for 10mg tablets with 40mg tablets with unspecified sizes? Or would you write about the cost of simvastatin based (and in proportion) to what the body of secondary literature has to say. Or would you just enter "simvastatin cost" into google and pick whatever turns up? Would you learn about the cost of various statins today in 2020 and conclude the simvastatin's price is no longer notable -- it is just another of several generic statins.

Ethosuximide

After the RFC, James created and expanded a Cost section in this article to arrive at this version.

"Ethosuximide, along with phenobarbital and phenytoin, is one of the few antiepileptic medications that people can generally afford in most areas of the world as of 2008" The source is the second edition of a textbook from 2004, not 2008, and is a google books result for searching for "Ethosuximide cost". The third and fourth editions of this book have dropped phenytoin and ethosuximide from the sentence, to leave only phenobarbital. It is no longer generally affordable, if it ever was. For example, in the UK, the price has shot up by 40x over the last decade or so.
"The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$28 per month for the defined daily dose of 1,250 mg as of 2014" This is the infamous and much ridiculed sentence from the price RFC. Everyone, including James at the time, accepted that a price for a small charity who work in the north east region of the civil-war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, and who deliver medicines using their own fleet of trucks, in 2014 only, is not really representative of the developing world. This is a drug that is actually unavailable in the developing world. It is literally price-less.
"In the United States the wholesale cost of this amount is about US$96 per month as of 2019. With discounts this amount may be purchased for around US$57 in the United States." Now, you're probably wondering how the wholesale cost can be twice the retail cost. Me too. Like the Drugs.com price for Simvastatin, this GoodRX.com price for Ethosuximide is to a live website whose prices change constantly.
"In Italy the retail price of 750 mg per day for a year was about 133 Euro in 2011." Yes, this is the only drug article on the International English Wikipedia to give you Italian retail prices. If you are Italian, it is your lucky day. Shame they are nearly 20 years old: it is actually the price for 2001, not 2011. It is for 750mg rather than 1250mg earlier. And it is for a year's treatment rather than a month.

As with Simvastatin, this is an accumulation of random factoids that merely confuse rather than enlighten our readers. It is the another mix of wholesale and retail, monthly and yearly treatment costs, a huge span of dates and totally different dosages. What article writer, in 2020, when surveying their collection of contemporary literature sources, would decide to mention an Italian price from nearly 20 years ago and compare that with a current price for a much larger dose?

-- Colin°^Talk 17:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doc James' evidence 1

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

James' states (emphasis mine):

There however was attempts by Colin and Sandy to remove this wording in 2019 without discussion.[17][18]

The first diff shows a removal by Colin, and the second diff shows a discussion started by Colin, with considerable discussion by many people. There is no diff backing any removal "without discussion", and none "by Sandy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sentence, as written, is wrong. There were about 10 editors in that discussion, with a range of opinions. Perhaps Doc James meant only to indicate that you were one of the editors most strongly supporting Colin's changes during the discussion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

James' evidence 2

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

James states:

Sandy attempted to remove the fact that there is no rule against citations in the leads of articles from MEDMOS in 2018.

And the diff shows that I am removing the statement because it is not in compliance with the broader WP:LEAD, which adequately states the case about citations in the lead. The notion that I am removing a statement that "there is no rule against citations" is misleading; in fact, what I removed was a statement that citations were mandatory. WP:MEDLEAD had (with no basis) added the additional unproven statement that:

"Medical statements are much more likely than the average statement to be challenged, thus making citation mandatory."

Citations are never mandatory on Wikipedia (not even WP:BLP policy uses the word mandatory), and "Vulvar cancer is cancer of the vulva" is not likely to be challenged (taking the best example from WhatamIdoing), nor does it require citation. James' view holds that everything in a medical lead must be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MEDMOS statement contained another falsehood, which Sandy removed in the above diff.

"To facilitate broad coverage of our medical content in other languages, the translation task force often translates only the lead, which then requires citations"

This line concludes that citations are "required", bringing MEDMOS into conflict with guideline and policy elsewhere. However the Translation task force page James linked to demonstrates that the TTF actually translate a fork of the lead, which is created by James. I suggested at the RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles that editors could instead use HTML comments to indicate sources used, and these could be un-commented on the translation fork. Sandy incorporated that idea when recently discussing the lead of Dementia with Lewy bodies. James made the same suggestion himself. So it appears we do now have a solution to one cause of the over-citation problem. If Donald Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can all cope with no or a couple of lead citations, I'm quite sure the majority of drugs and diseases can too. This is another example of a kludge being inflicted on English Wikipedia to "solve" a problem elsewhere, and of James forcing changes to MEDMOS to support his own idiosyncratic position when he comes into conflict with other editors. -- Colin°^Talk 13:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more complicated claim than it looks. In practical terms, a well-written and comprehensive lead for a medical condition (which is what the translators were usually working on) ought to contain a significant amount of WP:MINREF content, and therefore (if that content were not cited elsewhere in the article) would require inline citations under our rules. However, those translations are going to non-English Wikipedias, which have their own rules. Many of those Wikipedias do not have similar standards, and some (e.g., htwiki) have no policy about citations at all. Whenever we say something is "required", the question should be "required by whom?" It can't be required by us, because the translations aren't ending up here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

James' evidence 3

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In the same section, James states:

The attempt to remove this text occurred despite this having been discussed multiple times.

Yes, it had been discussed many times, and was many times found to be problematic. An RFC in this area is needed. I tried an RFC, which was a failure through my own fault for not structuring the RFC adequately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sandy's block log

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sandy's block was quickly reversed and considered a bad block by many including by Doc James [19] [20]. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Bluerasberry evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Bluerasberry says I "do not travel to WikiProject Medicine to seek collaboration, but rather to engage in a pattern of disruption"; see my evidence for just a few samples of what happens when I do "seek collaboration". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry says "participants get harassed for making proposals"; proposals for discussion would be a good thing, but what happens instead is fait accompli with announcements after the fact, or editors moving forward even without consensus (drug prices). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry says three editors "spoiled" the drug pricing RFC; see my response to editcountitis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ian Furst evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ian Furst says, "I believe that the walls of text we've seen in the discussions about MEDMOS, LEAD and Talk pages are designed to discourage and exhaust the editors who are attempting to add the content." This is a failure to AGF. I am not suggesting a FoF for Ian Furst, as this is not a common problem with him as far as I know, but I am pointing out the effect of the repeated and cumulative casting of aspersions at Colin, when confronting walls of WP:IDHT, as seen in evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I feel like it's gratuitous (and indeed chilling) to point out that one is not going to suggest an FoF. Depending on where one sits, describing what other editors say as a wall of IDHT could instead be perceived as the failure of AGF.

With respect to both this and to Bluerasberry's "spoiled" comment, just above, I think I understand what they were trying to communicate. It's not really about WP:ECT, but more about whether or not one feels listened to. I think that what Ian Furst encountered here: [21], is an example of what he is talking about: jumping in (in this case in response to a question that was directed at me) to say that one version is better than another. My experience in the (for me, ill-fated) discussion about formulating the RfC was that this happened over and over. And I do not think that there was bad intent in it; the intent was good, but the effect was troubling. In this comment: [22], Barkeep49 explains it with admirable neutrality and sympathy; see especially the part around "Gosh that's a lot." After a while, it becomes exhausting for editors, not out of bad will, but as the practical effect on how the dispute plays out over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Noting that CFCF adds this diff, saying to look at the edit summary, which appears (??) to be implying that I am saying "stupid doc" in reference to our Doc (James); the reference is to my husband's stupid doctor, who ignored a family history of other cancers when discounting PSA results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF also says I canvas with these pings to WT:MED; you can't canvass to a page people who are already active at that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Changing one's mind

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Tryptofish: first a thank you. As I started typing my reply I was able to put into effective enough words something that I hadn't been able to in my own section above. But, just to be clear, you are looking for a case when Colin/Sandy changed their minds in this topic area based on discussion? Correct? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could point you to many of those already on the evidence page, but then by typing and re-typing, I might be guilty of bludgeoning :) Which was precisely the pattern during RFC formulation, where one had to continually state what was already in evidence.

I also find it curious that this is framed as "Colin and Sandy" (perhaps a trend that started when Doc James accused us both of "harassment" on his evidence statement under a "Colin and Sandy" heading, and never struck that even after it was demonstrated wrong); please look at all of the community voices who join "Colin and Sandy" in every discussion, and let's also remember the other medical editors who are still willing to speak up, if they haven't left (and we only know how they feel via email). They might not be as verbose as I am, but their voices still count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Tryptofish, for context, please note that it will be difficult to find multitudinous examples of "changing one's mind" when one was forced off of WPMED by these behaviors. But, just to list those that are already in evidence at the Evidence page as examples: the disastrous RFC on MEDLEAD led quite specifically to Ian Furst, RexxS and me to move towards consensus on the talk page, and that (tenuous?) consensus was installed at WP:MEDLEAD. I say "tenuous" because many editors have not even bothered to weigh in as to whether the disputed tag can now be removed. All parties started out in positions that migrated towards each other, towards compromise. In spite of the blunderbuss thrown at me. The text now at WP:MEDLEAD is a clear compromise between those who feel that we should not repeat at a sub-guideline (MEDLEAD) what is said in a main guideline (LEAD), which was my initial position, and those who want to spell out more explicitly certain items. After much unnecessary blunderbuss at the MEDLEAD RFC, because of discussion with calmer heads, reason seems to have prevailed.

You can look today at the (awkward) leads of Tourette syndrome (where the most characteristic phrase to describe tics-- wax and wane-- is gone), and dementia with Lewy bodies, where the "lack of interest" is most awkwardly piped to apathy, forcing the reader to click to see what this "lack of interest" is (lack of interest in American football maybe?). Both of those are compromises I made to satisfy James; that I disagree with them is less important than the fact that I did them regardless, in recognition of James' concerns. Many times, I have removed language that James' finds too technical; sometimes he has been right (we don't need to say epidemiology or pathophysiology in the lead).

At this RFC, you can see that Colin, James and I were aligned (although the broader point-- that MEDMOS sections are only suggested for new articles-- had to be explained to James).

I don't believe compromise was possible on the Osmosis videos, and that is why that was such a heated discussion. After curating articles like autism for years, one wakes up one day to find inaccurate information foisted upon the first section, that can't be edited, and then is editwarred back in when you try to remove it, then commercial interests are revealed, then everyone and their brother starts mentioning the number of inaccuracies ... hence James finally removed them himself. Imagine the agida that could have been avoided if he had sought consensus to add them before doing so.

On the new matter of WikiVideos, it remains to be seen if people will actually engage and dialogue so that we can reach some compromise. Right now, we have an inaccurate video installed in the lead of a featured article at dengue fever. At least it should be removed to External links where it belongs, and at best, it should be redone after the article is updated. But there it is, in the lead, presumably so it can be used for WPMEDF apps-- spreading medical misinformation farther than the English Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Tryptofish, since all of this is already in evidence, and there should have been no need to repeat it at all, it did not appear that a simple diff would suffice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In thinking about the evidence, something has occurred to me that I would like to ask about. In my own evidence, I described how Doc James had a strong opinion about the Osmosis videos, but then set that opinion aside in deference to consensus. I haven't seen anything that I can remember with regard to a similar WP:CCC for WP:MEDMOS. From what I've seen, Colin and Sandy have presented MEDMOS as something that had reached a mature stage by about the time that Doc James and some of the other editors showed up, and that had to be defended against any further change from that point forward. If that's accurate, it would present a barrier to getting consensus in subsequent discussions. Has there been anything along the lines of I used to think that MEDMOS had to be xyz, but when I saw what Doc James or another editor was able to do, I changed my mind about it? If I missed it, which is entirely possible, please correct me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that since consensus can change, the editors you name should have changed their minds that consensus has changed based on the article edits made by others. I feel this is a circular argument that assumes that consensus has in fact changed with respect to the manual of style for medicine-related articles. The crux of the issue, though, is the ongoing difficulty in determining if there has been a change in consensus. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on that, but the way that I see it is that this is not a case with a group of smart and experienced editors on one side and a bunch of trolls on the other; both "sides" are smart and experienced. And it's been noted repeatedly in the evidence that there are numerous named parties as well as others who have repeatedly stated their agreement with Doc James – numerically enough for at least the arithmetic possibility of a consensus. (Some editors have interpreted that as editors coordinating to make trouble, but it could just as well be editors who genuinely agree with each other about something.) So it seems to me that there could very well have been something over the years (not necessarily prices, nor anything else that led to an RfC, but maybe something else about sourcing or writing) where one would expect there to have been a good idea coming from either "side". In fact, it would be kind of counterintuitive (not impossible, but unlikely) that one "side" would have gone so many years without a single good idea. So if there were an example of that happening and being acknowledged, it would be good to know that for the resolution of this case. I don't really think that it should be inherently difficult to ascertain if there has been a change in consensus, assuming editors are talking collaboratively. What makes it difficult is when someone, anyone, refuses to budge. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's a nuanced issue and so building a consensus in a large, unmoderated group discussion is really hard. For simplicity, most people in this case have referred to the dispute as whether or not price information should be included, but as has been noted in some of the evidence, the answer isn't a simple yes/no: it depends on context. (I have more thoughts on the problems of determining consensus, but it isn't analysis of evidence, so I won't discuss it further here.) I think I understand what you're looking for (though it seems to me it's more of an evidence question than analysis of evidence): are there signs of the involved parties working collaboratively to facilitate discussion, or have they been recalcitrant and thus hindering progress? But I disagree this should be in the form "I see what you're trying to do, and so I think consensus has changed now." isaacl (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl, I think I created more confusion than clarity when I referred to CCC. So let's instead re-frame what I meant as having nothing to do with an assessment of consensus, and instead being a matter of saying, simply, "I changed my mind." Changing one's mind is something that happens (or should happen) routinely during discussions about many topics that go on over many years. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think changing one's mind is something that must happen routinely. People are free to continue to disagree, but once it is established that this disagreement is not shared by a consensus of editors, if they continue to engage in discussion, they should be willing to put their disagreement aside. Unless you're going to proceed with analysing some of the discussions already entered into evidence, this seems to be a call for new evidence. Perhaps the talk page might be a better place for it? isaacl (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was genuinely hoping for a simple "Here is a diff of just that:", but I guess that wasn't in the cards. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I tried to clarify this to Isaacl just above, but yes, I'm basically looking for something to the effect of "Doc James, I changed my mind about x and I think you made a valid point". If it's out there, it would go a long way towards a more peaceful outcome for this ArbCom case. And Sandy, all I would expect is something like "Here are two examples: diff, diff." No one would call that bludgeoning. And I know for a fact that you and I have had lots of exchanges just like that, and there are a lot of them in the DLB talk page sections I linked to in my evidence, me agreeing with you and you agreeing with me. And it need not be about prices, nor about videos. I could be about something small. As I've thought about this, I remembered the discussions about inline cites in lead sections of articles. There's a diff of my commenting about that to you on Doc James' talk page in my evidence. Doc James added a lot of inline cites to lead sections, and you objected to him doing that. And, forget about WP:MED, there are millions of pages all around the wiki where there are cites in the lead, so he was (so far as I can tell) very much in line with site-wide consensus (lead cites not required, but certainly permitted). I would think that would have been something where there could have been some coming together. Or, if not that, then anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tryptofish

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just before the close of the Evidence page, Tryptofish said: "In my evidence, I've been careful to present the chronology accurately, but Sandy presents events out of chronological order, by years, in order to make it look like ... " Regarding, "in order to make it look like," AGF please; while almost all of my evidence is carefully timestamped, I had very little time to put together this response to 11th hour evidence. I have made a complete list of diffs with timestamps here to explain the issues as I experienced them.

It matters not if Tryptofish is a named party, but going forward, I support a remedy such as Barkeep’s closing statement on the December ANI: specifically relevant to Tryptofish are, strict enforcement of AGF and no rehashing of grievances. The diffs in the link I give above show the rehashing and rehashing by Tryptofish towards Colin, and how that affected the overall RFC, as well as other matters. This should apply to all named parties and participants (eg, Tryptofish). Since I am not all that familiar with ArbCom processes, I am not sure how this can be accomplished, but as far as I can determine, this is the first time someone retired to avoid AE enforcement, and yet returned to give evidence about other named parties. The only relevance here is that the grudge-bearing and rehashing of old grievances needs to be stopped in all participants, whether named parties or not.

Tryptofish also said, "and using the time pressure to keep saying that they would only have time to work on that one and not really look at anything else". At that point (a month in to RFC formulation) this is what Trtyptofish had put forward; Tryptofish proposes starting over on a bare draft a month in to the process, when we had already been accused of not trying to find a resolvable scope. That is the "time pressure" I reference.

Tryptofish also said I "assumed bad faith", and provides this diff, where no "bad faith" is in evidence.

Tryptofish provides this diff, supporting "the fact that I didn't like the way I had started to feel and act." THIS is key to my AGF as outlined at User:SandyGeorgia/Response to Trypto diffs; Tryptofish had repeatedly stated a desire to retire.

Tryptofish says, "What Colin posted on Barkeep's talk page: He actually misquotes some of what I said, and it's a real stretch to call any of that 'personal attacks'." The words "personal attacks" are used only in the entire Barkeep archive in reference to other editors (that is, AlmostFrancis, who was sanctioned), not Tryptofish. The discussion of Tryptofish’s behaviors was about specifically "Lack of AGF", commenting negatively on other editors, with a "direct attack" pointed out by Colin at 11:11 6 January. After we had all been admonished in the ANI close to avoid rehashing of old grievances, Tryptofish again says at 20:30 6 January, "Colin is one of only three editors whom I have banned from my talk page." (In 15 years, as far as I know, I've never banned anyone from my talk page: just saying.)

Barkeep concludes at 03:23 7 January:

I think the diffs Colin has put together are more than sufficient for a filling at WP:AE. Trypto if you have your own diffs and rebuttal, well that noticeboard offers a structured format for providing them. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2020

I submit this because of the need for remedies to assure that all participants drop "rehashing of old grievances", not just the named parties. I may have made a mistake in not naming Tryptofish a party, but I will not give up my AGF-ometer because one editor caused so much consternation that I cried more times than I care to admit; just as Colin is proud that he doesn't revert, I am proud that I will not let Wikipedia issues destroy my AGF. I regret that has meant that Tryptofish entered two-year-old diffs from another editor (Literaturegeek)[23] even after Literaturegeek had wisely removed them as stale. Those diffs reflect one very heated period two years ago that is not characteristic of Colin's 15-year editing history, any more than my upset during my husband's cancer is representative of my 15-year editing history. This rehashing and grudge-bearing needs to be stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

Re Tryptofish, I know far less about Arbcom processes than you do, but a simple resolution to this is for you to agree to cease rehashing old grievances with Colin, whether or not you are a named party. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, multiple typo corrections, clarifications made at User:SandyGeorgia/Response to Trypto diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my AE comment was a mistake. What I said at Trypto's user talk, and which I still believe today is ...I would just like to express how sad I am about your leaving. I am also regretful the actions I did that precipitated your choosing to step back. I hadn't realized how close to the breaking point you were and if I had I would have phrased some stuff differently... and ...I did not presume what the outcome of an AE filing would be. In the end I didn't feel comfortable with levying any formal sanctions against you and choose not to. I wish I had made that point clearer at the time. (the you being Trypto in both quotes). What I would have phrased differently are my vague allusions to administrative response and trying to be as empathetic to Trypto (who I thought was in an OK place but which later events would reveal was not) as I had been to Colin (who seemed like he needed the empathy). The action that I felt appropriate at the time was a two-way interaction ban between Trypto and Colin. However, when I went to implement that, I found it difficult to really justify it with diffs under the MOS DS that would have let me do so. It was at that point I wrote the AE comment, which I stand by as an appropriate community forum to craft a response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

So I am now asked to respond to Sandy's response to my response to Sandy's response to my evidence. I'm not sure how much or how little I should post here. I'll say a few things, and let comments or suggestions from other editors, or, better, from Arbs, determine how much more I will say.

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Open cases, the drafting Arbs have the role of, among other things, "adding or removing parties". I cannot remember any previous case in which an editor other than the filing party has assumed the role of adding parties or discussing their not adding of a party as though that had some sort of significance that derives from a defined role not made available to other editors participating in the case. (I do realize that Sandy asked Barkeep about how to add parties, at the filing of the case request, and Barkeep told her to go ahead and add some on her own, but still...)

One of those drafting Arbs, David Fuchs, has already said on the workshop talk page that retirement statements are not enforceable by ArbCom. And since I posted that I was leaving, I have made zero content edits. And I doubt that I will, once this case is over, at least not for a very long time. I've responded to various issues on my user talk, and to some pings that were directed at me. I've commented on this and another ArbCom case. I left an editor a condolence message. And, very importantly, I never once touched the prices RfC. I didn't influence its outcome in any way. I just let it happen. And I don't routinely edit in the WP:MED topic area. If one's AGF leads one to assert that I left because I wanted to avoid AE, well let that be as it may. I'm pretty sure that I could have defended myself successfully there, although it would have been unpleasant. I actually left because I was extremely upset and unhappy and I just wanted to step away. Which I think is a lot better than continuing to stay around while feeling upset. And I did post this on my talk page before this case was ever requested: [24] (also in my evidence). "And I feel the need to say, after some distance, that I don't like the way that I was coming across, that it really did represent a decline in my frame of mind, and is all the more reason for me to continue to be away."

Looking back, I believe that this comment that I posted near the end of my participation in the RfC drafting discussion was indeed a step too far: [25]. I was wrong to have said that, and I'm sorry. And I quickly recognized that I needed to separate myself from that situation, for everyone's good. ArbCom has included a principle in many of its cases, saying more or less that isolated losses of temper can be expected from editors, but that the conduct pattern over time is what is dispositive. If you go through the rest of the "evidence" against me, most of it is in user talk, with me discussing concerns with Barkeep, which is what Barkeep asked editors to do, and I'm not attacking or ABFing anyone. And the remaining things I said at the RfC drafting discussion were also statements of fact about what was going on. Sandy does not like that I said it, but there really were problems, and I wasn't the only editor noting those problems.

I hope those reading this can see that I'm trying to respond by being honest about my own conduct, instead of arguing that what somebody else did was worse.

Barkeep has posted numerous times that he regrets some aspects of the statement that Sandy quotes about AE. If he wants to, he can comment on what he thinks about any of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Presenting evidence about conduct going on over a period of time, when ArbCom decided that the case scope would be expanded to look at the origins of the long-term dispute, is not the "rehashing of grievance" during the RfC or its drafting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up Barkeep. I truly, truly appreciate that (and understand it a lot better now than I did before you posted it). And as I think I said at the time, a 2-way IBAN would be fine with me. I'm half-tempted to post it in my workshop remedies section, myself (from my personal point of view, not as something that would do any good for the problems in the case scope). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this really adds anything here, but here is the reason why I changed my mind after having earlier decided not to participate in this case. I changed my mind about a day before the evidence closed because it looked at that point like the evidence page was wildly one-sided, and very contrary to what I had observed myself. It felt like some editors were, as it were, giving up without a fight. It turns out that some of them were apparently just procrastinating, but anyway, that's why I did it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy has pointed to the page in her userspace ([26]), put together after the evidence phase had closed. I urge anyone who looks at it not to take any editorializing on face value, and to look back at my part of the evidence page, where I examine almost everything there. I did not intend anything gendered in anything that I have said to Sandy, and if Sandy has been subjected to truly gender-based mistreatment by any of the named parties, that would be very important to examine in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's evidence

Colin claims that 'RexxS suggests that "pricing information" means "general prose descriptions like 'relatively inexpensive'" There is no evidence presented that any editor has considered that meaning before'. Yet the 2020 RfC very prominently contains a quote box attributed by Ronz (Hipal) captioned Pricing/prices and stating 'Encyclopedic prices don't appear to exist. Meanwhile, I think a good case could be made for giving extra weight to pricing information when it's available'. The quote dates back to December 2019 in WT:MEDMOS, and it clearly shows that Colin's claim is false. This point is summed up well by Ronz in their RfC statement 'Pricing information is important, not a specific price' (02:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)).
Colin claims that he is unaware of any editor who wishes to remove pricing information, and yet in the very next section, he adduces evidence that directly contracts his assertion:
- 30 March. User:Graham Beards removes prices from the lead
- 30 March. User:Doc James ... adds a statement "Atorvastatin is relatively inexpensive" to both the body and lead, citing a textbook.
(At this point James opens a discussion on the talk page.)
- 1 April. User:Hipal asks on talk "How about removing all mention of pricing from the lede per the RfC and the content policies cited there?"
- 4 April. User:Hipal removes "and is relatively inexpensive" from the lead
At this point Hipal also removes "It is available as a generic medication" along with two references in a separate edit.
4 April. User:Doc James restores "It is available as a generic medication and is relatively inexpensive." along with the two references.
Colin claims that anybody who edits the same information is edit warring. The text "Atorvastatin ... is relatively inexpensive" remained in the article while under discussion on the talk page for three weeks. Then on 22 April Seraphimblade removed "and is relatively inexpensive" from the lead. Edit summary : WP:NOPRICES as well as an explicit RfC. This was not flagged as a revert; seven edits had occurred in the intervening time. Contrary to Colin's claim, this isn't edit-warring.
On 22 April I reverted Seraphimblade on the assumption that they misunderstood the 2016 RfC. Edit summary: revert removal of sourced information per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84 #Price of medications. This is not a price. I immediately open discussion on the talk page. This is not edit-warring; it's simply BRD.
Colin criticises my evidence on the purpose of the section headed "Sales catalogues" in WP:NOT. Yet he fails to offer his rationale for using that section in relation to drug prices. This is the basis of his claims regarding the meaning of WP:NOTPRICE, which he extrapolates for purposes well beyond its intention. The issue of describing qualitative drug pricing is not subject to WP:NOT, but is treated just like any other encyclopedic content: WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are the controlling policies. We are at ArbCom because over-enthusiastic editors have picked a fight at Simvastatin to remove the entire sourced cost section and the phrase "It is relatively low cost." from the lead, and are now miffed that the resulting RfC isn't going their way.
Colin claims I have made a fundamental error in logic, yet offers no rationale or evidence. This sort of hand-waving does nothing more than throw misinformation in the hope it sticks. My statement concerning the conclusion of the 2016 RfC ("This notes a consensus to add pricing to articles where the sources note the significance of the pricing." doesn't contain a logical flaw; it expresses exactly the consensus that was apparent from that RfC. This doesn't "suggest we are therefore compelled to do some things", but it does clearly show that consensus is that we are not prohibited from adding them where the sources note the significance of the pricing. Adding properly sourced pricing information contradicts no policies or RfCs, and editing to remove the information on the pretext that it breaches WP:NOT or an RfC consensus is the disruptive action that has brought us here.
Colin claims that there is no systematic removal of pricing information from the lead of articles. Yet anyone reading WT:MED can see Colin planning a systematic removal - even quoting a figure of 540 articles. A full reading of the subsections gives a very clear insight into the intentions, and explains why the current disputes at Talk:Simvastatin and Talk:Atorvastatin flared up.
Colin accuses me of attacking him and inaccurately depicts my edits.
Following eight screens of discussion on the issue of including the sentence "As of 2008 it was generally affordable in many areas of the world." without any resolution, I attempted once more to find some common ground at Talk:Ethosuximide, where I wrote: "Trying to look at the bigger picture, my suggestion for moving forward would involve agreement on several seemingly disputed points, some general, some specific:" and laid out nine questions that Sandy helpfully engaged with.
Colin's contribution to this was " I don't think it is helpful to contemplate further areas of agreement/disagreement on drug prices in this Ethosuximide talk page. and goes on to criticise my attempt. This exemplifies Colin's method of shutting down any discussion that isn't going in the direction he likes. Throughout the evidence presented by many editors, Colin displays no interest in finding common ground, but only on restating his preconceived positions over and again. When I object to him shutting down debate, he accuses me of hostility. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Summary of SG evidence: how it works

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In trying to understand how Discretionary Sanctions would not just foist an unsolved problem back on innocent admins (ie, coordinated editing), here's the summary of the effect of the behaviors in this case on my editing. SandyGeorgia—long-time FAC delegate—would always object to promoting an article FA if the average reader had to click a wikilink to understand a term in the lead. Now, let's suppose I put up a FAC with a nonsensical term in the lead, where the reader has to click out to figure out What The Heck is that? Now, anyone reviewing the article at FAC will say, why would you put that nonsense in place of a common word, and make us click to figure out what you meant? And I have to say, well some obscure translator in some unknown country might not know how to translate that word, even though it's a very common English word and a precise and accurate term for the symptom described, so I had to dumb it down. Reviewer at FAC says, "uh, no, this is the English Wikipedia, and that is dumb"; and besides, SandyGeorgia, you hypocrite !! You wouldn't promote our articles with something like that, but now you expect us to promote yours? OPPOSE unless fixed. But I don't dare change it, because, as evidence shows, James will edit war it back, and then I *really* can't pass FAC, per 1e, stability. What happens next ?

Well, theoretically, the arbcase is closed and I can't do anything remotely looking like "rehashing". So I'm left with few options. The FAC fails, and I have to hold an RFC over a simple English word. Next, as evidence shows, because this a word that James wants in the article, Ozzie appears within minutes to "agree w/Doc James"; few others show up because, it's one word, so really who cares, and we have (as seen in evidence), "that's two-to-one, you don't have consensus" and the word stays. I am forced—per Ozzie, an editor who knows nothing of the topic but will always show to add his "agree w/Doc James"—to keep a word that will not get by FAC. End result (which has been the case for me now for four years): I cannot do what I most enjoy doing on Wikipedia because, effectively I need Ozzie's permission for each word in the lead. I can't submit FACs, and I strongly believe that our best insurance against woo is to bring articles to their highest overall standard, as Colin, Eubulides and I did at water flouridation when it was all-the-woo. Meanwhile, Ozzie gets Dyslexia brought to GA status because James exempted him, with no valid reason, from MEDRS, which is quite more significant than a translation issue.

In what way can a situation like this (coordinated editing, I scratch your back you scratch mine, quid-pro-quo all over the evidence I submitted) be addressed by discretionary sanctions? Right now, we all need Ozzie's permission for ... everything ... because he is guaranteed to show and "agree w/Doc James" on any proposal, any discussion, any RFC. So there is no reason for me to work up any content up to FA level if I need one editor's permission—regardless of their competence with the topic—for anything I write. And seriously, RFCs over individual commonplace English words? And if I can't do what I do to keep out "woo" (write to the highest level of sourcing possible, whether at morgellons or MMR vaccine controversy or delusional parasitosis), then why keep editing? Coordinated editing chases out editors who could be and used to be helping hold that "thin blue line", but are being held back by coordinated editing to hold WikiProject guidelines as if they were policy, in ways that do not even comply with Wikipedia-wide guidelines, so that I cannot comply with WP:WIAFA. This is one of the points of my abundance of evidence, to show the problem here is broader than drug pricing. It's fine that CFCF or James don't care about FAs, and belittle me because I do want to maintain the medical FAs, but could they leave room for me to do what I do, so that I am also encouraged to participate more broadly again? And for those who say, James is agreeable; yes, he is agreeable to putting up an RFC, where he has Ozzie's unqualified support, so I still end up with a lead that can't go to FAC in this hypothetical scenario, which is pretty much where I've been for four years. With two members of WPMED demanding things in leads that are not in alignment with WP:LEAD (as they are demanding things in bodies of articles as if MEDMOS order of sections were policy), and I must get through an RFC or an editwar that will end in the inevitable, "agree w/Doc James", then ... why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Ozzie10aaaa: What do you think about the statement here? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

have been watching page, will respond with well-weighed words in the coming day(s), thank you Tryptofish(BTW its good to see you around)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, Blue Rasberry and QuackGuru are advocacy-editing over drug prices (Colin's evidence)

Consider the advice: "You should not buy a luxury car unless you are confident you can afford to keep up the repayments on the loan." This advice does not suggest that if you can afford it, you should go out and buy an expensive car. Clearly, there are other things one can buy with money one doesn't have. Some appear to read "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" as though it says "If it isn't disallowed here, you absolutely must include it, and have our permission to edit war to retain it, and even when it is disallowed, we didn't mean your special cause." We have all woken up one morning to find a BMW parked on our driveways and a threatening demand from the bank.

Advocates for routine prices in drug articles either reject WP:NOTPRICES or try to justify why drugs are all exceptional.

BlueRasberry

BlueRasberry has been a consistent advocacy voice in discussions on including drug prices. Some examples:

"I think the inclusion of price data for drugs is worthwhile to share because a history of precedent in Consumer Reports publishing has found that people in the United States demand and use this data. I work for Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization which has for decades published the price of drugs in the United States.....Physicians routinely include patients in decisions about what drugs they will take but physicians almost never provide pricing comparisons....The reason why it is important to share this is because for most people, normal typical people, getting a drug is a consumer marketplace decision."[27]

This is a distinctly North American viewpoint, that the doctor-patient relationship is a financial one similar to the purchase of a washing machine, rather than a clinical discussion involving a respected expert.

"Support changing policy to encourage addition of cost information...Current policy either discourages reporting cost or is ambivalent...I would like to see prices routinely reported in Wikipedia for all drugs, regardless of whether secondary sources raise the issue. To start, prices could routinely be reported in {{Infobox drug}}. If that works, then perhaps price could be mentioned again in the body of the article, even in the usual case where we only have primary sources backing this....price information is necessary for understanding the nature of a drug... Wikipedia general rules suggest in places that reporting primary data is inappropriate, but I think in the case of drugs reporting some pricing information is a good exception to this rule because it is very common for people using medical treatments to need pricing information as routine background information for understanding the treatment."[28]

"English Wikipedia policy [] historically says, "no prices". Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. I do not think the prohibition in the policy is on prices specifically, but instead, the prohibition is on primary data and information which is not backed by reliable sources....I work for a consumer organization, Consumer Reports, which does activism and lobbying that more medical pricing data be made more public.... It often happens that there can be multiple drugs available to treat a medical condition and price is a major guiding factor in choosing which one is appropriate for the patient. It is politically difficult to acknowledge that people get different medical care depending on the money they have, but it is the reality, and having access to information on drug prices makes it easier for consumers have discussions with their health care providers about what sort of treatment matches their health care needs and the money they have."[29]

Here BlueRasbery is clearly aware his position on prices and primary data are not supported in policy, but drug prices are a "good exception". BlueRasbery is pushing the same agenda as his (then) employer. Wikipedia:Advocacy tells us "Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia" and yet here we have BlueRasbery acknowledging that secondary sources do not give WP:WEIGHT to prices and his agenda requires breaking these fundamental rules.

Sandy's evidence details how BlueRasberry, while being fully aware of WP:NOTPRICES, attempted to deny its existence. BlueRasberry's Wikipedia:Prices essay (initial text) opened with the false claim "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products". BlueRasberry then changed two redirects WP:PRICE and WP:PRICES to no longer point at WP:NOTPRICES part of WP:NOT but to his own essay. He even edit warred with User:Smallbones over this. The consequence of this can be seen in two edit wars and the argument used by warriors to justify:

After edit warring at Ivermectin, James writes on talk: "Per Wikipedia:Prices "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products."". Twelve minutes later Ozzie10aaaa turns up to parrot "agree with Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products". It is notable that Ozzie's !vote tips things numerically in James's favour, writing "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you."
After edit warring by James and QuackGuru at IPhone 11, James writes on talk "Support per Wikipedia:Prices which says "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products"". Ozzie10aaaa writes "Support per Wikipedia:Prices". BlueRasberry writes "Support per WP:PRICES..."

At the RFC, I suggest to BlueRasberry that the prices are so incompetently and randomly derived as to mislead, and this "actually contributes negative information". BlueRasberry responds "Wikipedia is not censored to withhold data which the Wikipedia community of editors deem dangerous." Later, WhatamIdoing would ask BlueRasberry if he'd be happy with external pro-price advocates writing '"Good job, Lane! Any price information at all, even if it's basically wrong, is better than nothing!"'. BlueRasberry says

"Whether a drug is $0.01 or $10 will frequently mean the difference of whether a person can access it, and since we know people read Wikipedia to inform their general options, we can be sure that people will only talk with their doctors about the options they can afford to purchase"

He goes on to deny policy applies:

"The policy "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" does not apply here ... This does not apply because this text is about 15 years old, and was written by people in 2005 who were imagining the 1990s, and the context of this entire section is about the era when companies printed database data on paper and distributed them in paper books.....Also about WP:NOT - I know it is a "Wikipedia Policy", and policies are supposed to be our most established rules, but the reality is that most Wikipedia policies are whatever anyone drafted 15 years ago, and they never got discussed. If anyone checks the archives there, it is not the case that the "sales catalogue" policy had community discussion, and instead almost all of that entire ~10-pages of "What Wikipedia is not" text got adopted as a block without discussion."

I'm pretty sure we had the internet when WP:NOT was drafted, and I know that the MSH price guide has existing since 1986. The claim that WP:NOT just appeared overnight without discussion is quite without any merit whatsoever, but it is a point James also tries to make in the RFC. Throughout the RFC, BlueRasberry is quite unconcerned about issues with the actual article text, dismissing it as irrelevant, and yet continues to support the existing text having prices. He writes that " I am in favor of saying that this drug costs $28 a month, because sources do that.". WhatamIdoing call him out on this, explaining that price is derived from raw data by James using arbitrary selections of dosage and pill sizes and database records, and does not appear anywhere in any source. For BlueRasberry, it really is vital that Wikipedia articles contain prices, even if they are actually random numbers.

Wrt drug prices, BlueRasberry is here to promote an American consumer agenda where Wikipedia provides comparison-shopping advice on which statin to ask your doctor for. He is not interested in whether the price is encyclopaedic or notable or in fact correct. To achieve that, he has consistently rejected and encouraged others to reject policies that are inconvenient to achieving that agenda, to the point of deception.

James

When James argues, without evidence, that "Every essential medicine has extensive coverage / discussion of its pricing by reliable independent sources", James is referring to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. At a stroke, 500 of the medicines that are by definition least likely to have exceptional prices must, by this rationale, have one in the article lead. Of course WHO assess cost and value-for-money as a part of the process for deciding their list, but so does my local Tesco supermarket when deciding which wines to sell to their very average customers. All products that are sold have their price assessed by somebody. That doesn't make the price exceptional.

James is very much unconcerned by consensus on prices. At a stage in August 2015 where price discussions concerned WikiData and infoboxes, and there was much opposition, James began adding prices to the lead of drug articles. James had not proposed doing this or asked for advice on what to write and how to use the sources. His efforts are a sorry mix of per-pill prices, per-month treatment prices, require original research and cherry-picking from multiple possible database records, and have a high degree of basic errors.

In the 2016 RFC, James explains why his original-research primary-source-derived price of $44 to $78 for rabies vaccine "makes it perfectly clear" why people in developing nations can't afford it and 50k people die each year. Without this people apparently "will struggle to figure out why it continues to kill so many people". The first problem with this is that, as anyone who has watched Has Rosling will know, people have odd and wrong ideas about what folk in the developing world can afford. The second problem is that if this is a notable public health concern, there should be no problem finding secondary sources making the point that the high price of human rabies vaccine is leading to unnecessary deaths and putting that into text in the article (actually, the cost of vaccinating dogs is more important in many countries).

In September 2019, at Ivermectin, James notes his advocacy to explain why he has been edit warring:

Yes of course we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored.[30]

Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value.[31]

Yes industry wish to hide how much medications actually cost both from the general population.[32]

At WikiProject Pharmacology he repeats:

We know that the pharmaceutical industry really really wants to suppress the cost of medications.[33][34][35]. Wikipedia is not censored.[36]

In October 2019, James argues:

The prices of medicines and transparency around them is key to public health. Many NGOs such as UNICEF[37] and MSF[38] are working to improve transparency in this area. Many within the pharmaceutical industry are trying to decrease transparency around medication prices with lawsuits currently ongoing in the US.[39] We are not censored obviously.[40]

Prices are important and many, including in the medical field, do not have enough clarity around them. I have had people come to the ER after seeing their family physician a few hours earlier as they were unable to afford what the FP had prescribed and were requesting a less expensive option.[41]

Further concerns with respect to attempts to suppress this information, an account that was pushing to remove medication prices from buprenorphine/naloxone has just been blocked for undisclosed paid editing[42]...[43]

In November 2019 at WP:MED, James argues with Colin over the prices and makes this personal criticism of Colin:

That you are pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENZOR Wikipedia is concerning.[44]

James explains why mainstream media (which WP:NOTPRICES requires) is inconvenient to his cause:

the core of this issue is one of knowledge equity. It is by far easier to write about content that is of "importance" to people in the United States and Europe....And no it is not surprising that the Western popular press frequently does not cover issues of importance in LMIC. Does not mean we shouldn't either, of course not.[45]

But this comes to the heart of Wikipedia:Advocacy. If our sources are less concerned (unjustly perhaps) with the price or affordability of particular medicines in developing countries, or even at all, we can't just make up for that ourselves by inventing the prices from product database. Like BlueRasberry, James wants Wikipedia to aid his patients to comparison-shop the cheapest medicine. This advocacy has led James, encouraged by BlueRasberry, to edit en mass against consensus, to revert all attempts to remove price, to accuse those who did so of censorship, to ignore and reject multiple RFCs, and to repeatedly edit war with his peers.

QuackGuru

In October 2019, Quackguru adds an advocacy statement on WP:MEDMOS:

When including content about product pricing an independent source should be used. The pharmaceutical industry has tried to conceal medication prices because of their continuing legal cases in the United States. There is a lack of transparency regarding medication and vaccine prices among non-governmental organizations.[46]

He goes on to add a line permitting the insertion of cost information in the lead of drug articles ("Cost information may be included in the lead, but this is done on a case-by-case basis") citing "Current consensus in med articles". This "consensus" is the 500 articles where James has already added cost information to the lead, either without an edit summary, or with the vague "added" summary. Per Barkeep's timeline, Quackguru goes on to edit war with three editors over this cost section before the guideline is protected.

-- Colin°^Talk 20:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The analysis and evidence here is sufficient I believe, for a topic ban of James and BlueRasberry on drug price/cost, broadly construed (see proposals by Colin and Sandy above). -- Colin°^Talk 20:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm confused. Is this an analysis of the evidence that you provided on the evidence page, or is it additional evidence that you are entering on the workshop page? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by CFCF

Not sure where to stick this. I acknowledge CFCF's regret about "any incivility or rudeness". In my own evidence and workshop comments, I have chosen not to revisit old personal grievances, but to stick to a limited set of very recent or longstanding editing issues. In evidence, I only mentioned CFCF's recent insult to me, made during the drug price debate. I would be happy to strike his remark and put it in the past, though I cannot edit the evidence page now. For my part I have in the past also been rude to CFCF and apologise for that. -- Colin°^Talk 21:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Re this, neither of those is either what we have now or what we are likely to have in either scenario. Right now, because of overall neglect, we have basically no good medical content at just about any level, from FA on down. This is very black-and-white thinking, and again, trying to divide us into "sides" when we all have the same goals, and those who are WPMED regulars will go on to working together, with or without these attempts to classify and divide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I've been wondering how this case would impact Doc James's position as one of WMF trustees should a remedy against him passes. George Ho (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: That is not a matter for arbcom. If significant findings and/or sanctions are passed against James then I would expect the ArbCom to formally notify the board of that, and it will be for the board to determine whether what, if any, action they need to take. The most serious sanction ArbCom can pass is an indefinite ban from the English Wikipedia, but the community seats on the board are not tied to specific projects so even that would not automatically necessitate his disqualification. James' term is listed as expiring at Wikimania 2020 (although this has been postponed, I don't the elections haven't been but I have asked for clarification) meaning that, if he chooses to stand again, the community will be able to take any findings here into account relatively soon regardless of what the board does or does not do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there's a lot of evidence to be sifted through. I'd like to make some very broad points about it, albeit at the risk of stating the obvious. Agreeing or disagreeing with a particular opinion about content, and agreeing or disagreeing with another editor about content, are not in themselves valid reasons for sanctions. ArbCom's focus should be on conduct, and particularly on conduct that occurred over extended periods of time. Admittedly, all of that really is stating the obvious, but I feel like it's helpful to point it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This grows out of observations made by FeydHuxtable and Ian Furst on the evidence page, but what I'm saying is more of a general comment about the issues in this case, rather than an analysis of any single thing. One of the factors that makes this a difficult case is that there are so many editors who are widely respected for their long-term contributions to the project. On the other hand, ArbCom's role is to try to find a way to finally end disputes, and that typically requires some amount of removing or restricting editors from some amount of the case scope. It seems to me that this difficult decision hinges to some extent on considering the effect on the project of each of two purely hypothetical scenarios:

We will have a limited number of truly splendid medical articles, very complete and very polished. But the vast majority of medical content will be of low quality and filled with misleading information introduced by drive-by users with COIs.
We will miss out on those splendid articles, but overall the medical content will not mislead our readers.

I realize that it's kind of, well, cold to reduce the case to a cost-benefit analysis, but I think this is something to ponder. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disengaged from one of the previous RfCs because I found it too adversarial.

I think resolution requires a consensus that gives more concrete guidance on content. I suggest an inductive approach: we should nominate specific examples of medication pricing information which was, is, or could be in Wikipedia, compile a concise representative list, and then have an RFC asking which of the examples are acceptable and which aren't, and why. I welcome any better ideas.

Would a remedy requiring a specific form of RfC be possible? Specific editing restrictions that only applied to the RfC might be more minimal than TBANs. HLHJ (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2,301: / Line 2,301: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
+:: Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&curid=63594884&diff=955089207&oldid=955087933 this,] neither of those is either what we have now or what we are likely to have in either scenario.  Right now, because of overall neglect, we have basically no good medical content at just about any level, from FA on down. This is very black-and-white thinking, and again, trying to divide us into "sides" when we all have the same goals, and those who ''are'' WPMED regulars will go on to working together, with or without these attempts to classify and divide. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])  22:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
-::
 :'''Comment by others:'''