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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 5
2–3 4
4–5 3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Tendentious editing[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Fait accompli[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Wording's a little clunky but the principle is sound. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There might be a simpler wording but the principle is clear. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Existing policy on pricing[edit]

8) The Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not includes, "an article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention [...] Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors." The policy on pricing has existed in almost its exact wording for a decade.[1]

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Worth stating that while there's disputes about interpretation of said policy, it's been an uncontested part of NOT for years at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Surprising that it's been an undisputed part of NOT for so long, yet here we are. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. When I mentioned what this dispute was about to a Wikipedian unfamiliar with the medical disputes, she was stunned that it was a problem at all, as this part of NOTCATALOG is so obvious to what we are doing on Wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Worth reminding that this is long-standing policy that needs to be followed (including its clearly marked exceptions. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Clarity of consensus[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
The third sentence is at odds with the rest of this principle. WP:CAREFUL does not actually mention cases "where consensus is unclear" but instead edits to "complex, controversial subjects". As the principle is currently worded, it implies that BOLD should be suspended in all cases where consensus is unclear and not just cases where consensus is unclear regarding controversial topics. Imho, that sentence should be stricken from the principle (and can be without actually losing anything). Regards SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Levels of consensus[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Essays are useful ways of articulating thoughts, especially in repeated discussions, but they shouldn't be treated as anything more than what they are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This bears repeating. Katietalk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Essays are important, and can be very accurate in modelling community policies, but they should not be used to over-ride said policies. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the understanding that guidelines already allow for local exceptions where needed. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Added. I believe there was an expectation that ArbCom would resolve the outstanding content disputes left over from the RfC, but it's important to note here that that's not within our remit. Hopefully sorting out some of the behavioural issues and principles will help the consensus-building efforts, and we can provide some tools to help with the disruption, but it is not our role to settle the underlying content dispute. – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think I accidentally cut this out when reordering the PD draft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I was concerned when coming into this case that there would be an expectation to answer the content dispute. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't see a need for "good-faith" since ArbCom should never settle content disputes, no matter what motives the editors in question might have. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 16:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Medical articles are tough, both to write and maintain, especially when there is the added concerns that Wikipedia is used as a reliable source of medical information for a lot of people; after BLPs, they're potentially one of the most dangerous areas where the encyclopedia can cause real harm. While I didn't really find a good way of making it into a principle or FoF, I did want to highlight that I think everyone involved is acting with what they believe are the best of intentions in this dispute; the problem lies in differing interpretations of how Wikipedia's articles on medicine should function and who they serve. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't think the second part belongs into a FoF but is more akin to a principle (WP:REALWORLD comes to mind) but I can live with both being in one FoF. Regards SoWhy 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The comparison to BLPs is apt: medicine is an area where we should adjust our normal editing practices because Wikipedia is in the real world. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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

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

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While there was no consensus at the recent RfC for blanket inclusion of drug prices in articles, there were certain items that did find consensus. On the whole, the exercise should have resulted in editors listening to each other's perspectives better, rather than furthering the dispute. Fault for that lies not with the proposal or the close, but with those who continued the batteground behaviour after the RfC was closed. – bradv🍁 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
The diff doesn't quite read right to me, and is mildly. I'd prefer a link to the RFC for the RfC point, and make it clear that the other was to a timeline. WormTT(talk) 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also think the FoF should be clearer about what parts there was consensus for because as it reads now, it sounds as if there was only one question that resulted in no consensus. Regards SoWhy 19:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support:
  1. I don't know what the solution is, but this is a flaw in the consensus-based model of decision making. It seems to get worse as Wikipedia gets bigger. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I don't think this is the exact same scenario as Infoboxes (where a huge problem is that we really don't have any policy or guideline to try and solve what ultimately comes down to a stylistic choice) it's a problem that has I think become more common with Arbitration cases, even as I think a lot of other issues are successfully being solved before they arrive here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It does seem to get worse as time passes and it's becoming more and more of a problem. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The idea behind a big multi-part RfC, such as the 2020 drug pricing RfC, is to achieve at least partial consensus, which should then be accepted as resolved even by those editors who disagree with it. That partial consensus then gets implemented so that the outstanding items can be worked out. When editors fail to accept the conclusions of the previous discussion and continue to argue those points, the secondary points never get resolved, and the progress made at the original RfC risks being undone. Our job here is to identify those editors who are disrupting these consensus-building efforts and try to amend or neutralize this behaviour. – bradv🍁 20:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Putting the comparison to Infoboxes aside, since it's not central to the FoF, this is accurate and relevant background to the dispute. I disagree with Beeblebrox in that I don't consider no consensus outcomes a flaw; we're not a bureaucracy, and we don't have to come up with binding decisions in every dispute. As big, centralised RfCs have become increasingly popular, editors need to bear that in mind, as well as the fact that consensus can change. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per WTT but I feel a bit more strongly about the comparison to infoboxes. This FoF risks making it seem as if this situation is similar to infoboxes despite the fact that there was no policy like WP:NOTPRICE for infoboxes. At best this is confusing and at worst, this is misleading, so we should avoid having a FoF like that unless it's really necessary for the case. Which it does not appear to be. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I get the sentiment, but this doesn't really match infoboxes case, which was largely a dispute between individuals who work on specific articles vs those who work more generally. What's more, the community had refused to put out a blanket rule on infoboxes. Here, however, we have a blanket rule, that prices do not appear, unless there is a good reason for them. Finally, I don't believe the finding adds to the case, and isn't therefore needed. However, I don't feel strongly enough to oppose. WormTT(talk) 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

CFCF[edit]

4) CFCF (talk · contribs) has degraded discussions with unsupported accusations.[3] They were previously warned as part of an arbitration case.[4] CFCF has apologized for their behavior in regards to the scope of this case.

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Self-reflection is important, and their apology is certainly worthy of being mentioned here. – bradv🍁 20:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I appreciate the self-reflection, but I'm also keenly aware that CFCF has been sanctioned by Arbcom before. I need to have a look at the timeline and similarities of behaviours and have a think WormTT(talk) 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Colin[edit]

5) Colin (talk · contribs) has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism, e.g. [5][6][7]

Support:
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not 100% on the descriptive words, baseless and needless - I'd be waivering less if they weren't there. However, although I understand the reticence below, I do believe that Colin's discussion style has been a factor in the degradation of the area. WormTT(talk) 10:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These diffs and, especially, Bluerasberry's evidence, show that Colin has at times commented on the contributor rather than the content of a dispute. Although I agree with Beeblebrox that these particular instances are not particularly serious breaches of the civility policy, it is hard to draw a conclusion about a pattern of behaviour from the evidence we have. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments below, this isn't well-supported by evidence. Of the three diffs listed here and the 16 on the talk page, all but three are from 2018. The three remaining diffs are from 2019, and none of those are particularly troubling. – bradv🍁 01:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Maxim(talk) 15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I went through all the evidence provided again but most if not all seems to have been from 2018. Of course, past behavior might indicate a pattern. However, the lack of comparable behavior later might also indicate that the user has improved their behavior. And while the language used in the first diff presented here is not stellar, I don't think the evidence presented carries the FoF but on the other hand, I also don't see it to have been completely fine, which is why I landed here. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm finding this to be a little thin to support an FoF. The first diff, sure, yeah, not ok. The second one is a little harsh but not over the line in my opinion, unless I'm somehow missing the point. The diff from BlueRaspberry is just a long list of out-of-context examples of when Colin used "negative words" but many of those may have been perfectly reasonable in context. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this, as the kinds of things that Colin is accused of doing are notoriously difficult to provide diffs for. As Beeblebrox mentions, the diffs above are really not that big of a deal (although the hyperbole in the first one is a bit shocking). But yet from all the comments made throughout the case, there clearly is something that needs to be addressed. – bradv🍁 20:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to think about this; largely agree with Beeblebrox. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James[edit]

6) Doc James (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred[8][9] to add or retain pricing information in articles, despite repeated RfCs that closed with no consensus for blanket inclusion.[10][11][12] Their low usage of edit summaries has contributed to problems in collaborative editing.[13][14] They were previously the subject of an editing restriction as the result of an arbitration case.[15]

Support:
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is unacceptable from an administrator. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, misleading or missing edit summaries – these are all behavioural issues that need to be corrected. – bradv🍁 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Accurate. WormTT(talk) 10:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I know edit summaries are not mandatory but still. Also, in the interest of fairness, while Doc James was previously subject to an editing restriction, it was in 2009, 11 years ago. Regards SoWhy 20:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. None of this is particularly egregious, but it seems some minor adjustments to DJ's editing habits could have been a big help here. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
It should be noted, just to avoid confusion, that when the previous restriction was placed Doc James was editing as User:Jmh649. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru[edit]

7) QuackGuru (talk · contribs) has acted disruptively and participated in edit wars regarding drug pricing,[16][17] They have previously been topic-banned by the community[18] and were warned as the result of an arbitration case,[19] for which they were later blocked.[20]

Support:
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Katietalk 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While QuackGuru did not participate in this case, there is enough evidence to show that they are a problem editor in this topic area. – bradv🍁 21:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Accurate. Worth noting that the topic ban is on a completely different subject. WormTT(talk) 10:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What WTT said. Regards SoWhy 20:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Topic moratorium[edit]

1) In consideration of the lack of clear global consensus on the subject, a topic moratorium is imposed on content related to pharmaceutical drug pricing. Under this topic moratorium, editors must seek local consensus on a case-by-case basis prior to making non-trivial edits related to pharmaceutical drug pricing, broadly construed.

If an editor wishes to add or remove information on drug pricing, a talk page discussion must be opened prior to making such an edit. As with any "protected edit"-type request, the proposed edit(s) should be a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specifying what text should be removed, if any, and a verbatim copy of the text that should be added, complete with appropriate references, and justification per existing policy. The talkpage discussion must run for a minimum of seven days before being closed by any uninvolved editor. Such a discussion shall be advertised by means of a neutral noticeboard Wikipedia:Edit requests for topics under moratorium and a tracking category Category:Edit requests for topics under moratorium.

Excessive numbers of requests from any single editor are strongly discouraged. Attempts to game the system or otherwise bludgeon the process can be reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, where an uninvolved administrator is authorized to place any proportionate combination of time-limited site blocks, individual page bans, and broad topic bans.

It is permitted to make trivial edits (for example: copyedits that do not change the meaning of the text) without a prior discussion. Examples of non-trivial edits, for which consensus must first be obtained, include the insertion or deletion of text, the insertion or deletion of references, or the reorganization of text or references. In cases where it is unclear whether such non-trivial edits are related to pharmaceutical drug pricing, the default presumption should be that such edits are covered by this moratorium.

As is done with discretionary sanctions, every effort must be made to warn editors that they are editing an article that covers a topic under moratorium, such as by adding editnotices to affected articles, and directly warning involved editors by means of talk page message. Repeated failure to abide by the topic moratorium can be reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Uninvolved administrators are authorized to place sanctions as needed to enforce the topic moratorium, which can include any proportionate combination of time-limited site blocks, individual page bans, and broad topic bans.

It is the hope of the Arbitration Committee that such a local consensus-building exercise will eventually lead to a clearer global consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of pharmaceutical drug prices. The effectiveness of this remedy will be reappraised within six to twelve months of the case close.

Support:
  1. The goal here is to, at the very least, slow down the edit wars, and offer up a chance for other parties to voice their opinion, and a stab at dealing with the issue a bit more directly than just authorizing DS and hoping that solves it. My goal is that we'd revisit closer to six months rather than twelve (so that it's the same committee evaluating its remedy) but realize that it's a fluid situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We're kind of going out on a limb with this idea, but I think it is worth a shot. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC) My real job has gone from "hurry up and wait" to "full-blown crisis mode" and I simply do not have the time right now to evaluate the various statements about this remedy on the talk page. I'm confident in my other votes, but not this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're going to have to think of more creative solutions to this kind of thing, and I too believe this is worth trying. As David says, I'd like this committee to be the ones to review it, and hopefully we can get that done close to the end of the year. Katietalk 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Edit 5/27: I am also going to hold off here based on the talk page comments. I'm not quite yet to the point of supporting 1a). Katietalk 16:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice over 2. Maxim(talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Move to support DS/simplify count if necessary.[reply]
    I think this is an excellent idea, and I hope it works. WormTT(talk) 10:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I'm going to hold off my support for the moment and think a bit further on this, per some valid comments on the talk page. WormTT(talk) 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments below, and the many concerns expressed on the talk page. This remedy does not allow for the implementation of the results of the current RfC, which concluded that drug pricing should be removed from the lead. It also does not allow for the implementation of the results of any new RfC, nor does it permit bold uncontroversial edits. The solution to this editing crisis is to enforce the BRD model of editing that Wikipedia was built on, not to endorse the current revision irrespective of consensus. – bradv🍁 13:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support the intention, but prefer the simplified implementation in 1a. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Took the weekend to think about it and I don't think this is workable as written. We can revisit it later in a simplified form, but for now I think I'd like to stick with DS. Katietalk 14:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. While I understand the idea behind this proposal wrt trying new things, this feels a bit too much like trying to influence content and consensus building by creating a completely new process without prior community consultation and discussion. This might be a good new tool to add to the arsenal in general but I don't think this should be implemented without said prior discussion or consultation. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments:
How does this topic moratorium allow for the implementation of a new broader consensus on drug pricing, should one be achieved? And how does it allow for implementation of the results of the recent RfC? – bradv🍁 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself: my hope with this remedy is that it does lead to a clearer globabl consensus, and the committee could suspend/terminate the moratorium as needed following an amendment request. Maxim(talk) 00:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that despite the recent RfC concluding that drug pricing should not be in the lead, there are still hundreds of articles that do contain that information. If this moratorium passes, some uninvolved administrator (who?) could have hundreds of edit requests to manage. At the very least this should be changed to allow for the removal of those edits that currently do not have consensus. – bradv🍁 01:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus required[edit]

1a) All editors must obtain consensus before reinstating any edits related to pharmaceutical drug pricing that have been challenged via reversion.

  • Bold edits are permitted, but if they are reverted they must be discussed on the article talk page before they can be reintroduced, in the same or in a different form, by the same editor or by any other editor.
  • Article-level discussions on drug pricing shall be left open for at least 7 days, be advertised on a neutral noticeboard set up for this purpose, and the consensus shall be assessed by an uninvolved editor.
  • Editors found to be repeatedly violating this restriction may be banned from edits related to pharmaceutical drug pricing by any uninvolved administrator.
Support:
  1. Proposed. This forces all edits related to pharmaceutical drug pricing to follow the BRD model of editing. It also allows for the continued implementation of the consensus achieved at WP:MEDMOS2020, and any new consensus that may be achieved from a new RfC. The standard enforcement provisions below are in effect, to which we add the authorization to TBAN disruptive editors from the topic area. – bradv🍁 04:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice now, after #2. – bradv🍁 15:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fine, but prefer 1) WormTT(talk) 10:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Essentially just a formalisation of WP:BRD, but it seems medical pricing has become contentious enough that we need to mandate it. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 2). Katietalk 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I wouldn't think it's unclear that the moratorium still requires complying with BRD; it just formalizes the process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, judging by the comments on the talk page there could be as many as 600 articles that currently do not comply with the results of WP:MEDMOS2020, nor with WP:NOTPRICES as interpreted by that RfC. Remedy 1 denies the progress accomplished in that RfC, and mandates that the discussion be repeated individually for every article. Remedy 1a, on the other hand, mandates discussions only for those changes that are contested. In essence, Remedy 1 would be endorsing the wrong version of hundreds of articles, with no mechanism for the community to easily implement changes that comply with policy or consensus.
I think what we may be missing here is that much of this pricing data was added by Doc James, who continued to do so even after the RfC concluded (example). These edits do not have consensus, and many of them will be relatively straightforward to fix assuming remedy 5 passes. We should not be endorsing his version, while simultaneously sanctioning him for making these edits in the first place. – bradv🍁 15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, part of the problem is the Wrong Version. Arguably, both remedies 1 and 1a endorse the wrong version. Remedy 1 is bad if you take the WP:MEDMOS2020 results as a clear consensus. Remedy 1a is bad if you take those same results as unclear (or otherwise open to interpretation by a reasonable (& experienced) editor).
My reading of remedy 1a versus 1 is that they aim to accomplish the same goal, that is to force discussion of a contentious matter, but by using different means. Remedy 1a forces a 1RR situation whereas remedy 1 acts more to eliminate reversions by forcing edits that are more likely than not controversial to be discussed first.
Correct if I'm wrong, but is this possible under remedy 1a: a bold edit can be made to remove pricing data on the grounds that it doesn't comply with RfC results, but should someone disagree, the editor who disagrees is entitled to revert and force a talkpage discussion? The net result is the same in terms of forcing the talkpage discussion to discuss a change, except an attempt was first made on the article itself.
Remedy 1 would therefore be a better outcome. By prohibiting editing without a previously advertised discussion, It makes it more difficult to sneak in edits (fait accompli scenario). Maxim(talk) 16:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, please read the comments on the talk page by Barkeep49, Colin, Tryptofish, Hipal/Ronz, S Marshall, and Seraphimblade. They've all identified this same issue with Remedy 1, in that it ignores the progress made in the RfC, prevents its implementation, and makes further attempts at establishing a global consensus pointless as they won't be able to be implemented. – bradv🍁 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard discretionary sanctions[edit]

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

Support:
  1. As an alternative to 1, if it does not pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to remedy 1. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to 1). Katietalk 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Also changing to first choice. I share the concerns about interested yet uninvolved admins willing to deal with this, but AE is always available. We can always revisit in a few months. Katietalk 15:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 1.First choice. Maxim(talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to 1a, as I am concerned that we don't have enough uninvolved administrators interested in moderating these disputes, and therefore would prefer not to delegate all enforcement. – bradv🍁 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to first choice. I remain concerned that there aren't enough uninvolved administrators to handle these disputes, but using the familiar DS system means that this can at least be enforced at AE. In that sense this is preferable to the novel solutions proposed above. – bradv🍁 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the restricted area of effect, I can now support this. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
For now based on comment below. I'm not against DS on principle but as it's currently worded, it seems unnecessary broad. Regards SoWhy 08:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Switch to support. SoWhy 08:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. DS are too blunt an instrument; I think 1a will be just as effective in breaking the back of the pricing dispute, without the extra baggage of DS notification and enforcement. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
As drafted, this remedy only applies to "pages related to the topic of drug pricing", so I would expect some confusion as to whether it applies to pages about drugs, or what happens to any active sanctions once the drug pricing information is removed. I would prefer to activate DS for all articles related to pharmaceutical drugs (or even medicine), broadly construed. – bradv🍁 21:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly changed this to "pharmaceutical drugs", as those are the pages in the disputed topic area. – bradv🍁 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why this can't be restricted to edits about drug pricing as suggested on the talk page, e.g. Discretionary sanctions based on this remedy may only be applied in case of edits about drug pricing, broadly construed? I, too, see the risk that this is overly broad without any restriction since as it's currently worded, DS would be allowed for any drug-related article, even if there is no dispute over drug pricing, without evidence that drug-related articles are a field that requires such remedies. Regards SoWhy 08:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another option might be adopt some formulation of the wording used with respect to infoboxes – Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.. That is the only example I could find of DS not being applied specifically to a set of pages. It works for the purposes of topic banning editors or managing disruptive discussions, but it's a little messy when it comes to enforcing page restrictions (1RR, etc.) And of course at the beginning of this case there was a push to not just make it about drug pricing, but about medicine in general, and now I'm sensing a push in the opposite direction. – bradv🍁 14:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the text of this remedy to apply to discussions and edits about drug pricing, but not actually a discrete set of pages. I believe that was the original intent of this motion, and this wording seems to me to be better than either of the previous versions. Pinging those who have already voted: David Fuchs, Beeblebrox, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Worm That Turned, SoWhy. – bradv🍁 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF reminded[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd also mention that there are a finite number of times you get away with just a warning, apology or no. The idea is not to act that way in the first place, and I do hope that is thoroughly understood at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Beeblebrox. Katietalk 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A gentle reminder, which they have already acknowledged. – bradv🍁 21:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Colin warned[edit]

4) Colin is admonished for needlessly personalizing disputes and is reminded to assume good intentions of other collaborators.

Support:
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Katietalk 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I can't go so far as to support this, especially with the word needlessly, I'm sure he felt there was a need. What's more, I'm not keen on "good intentions", we assume good faith, which isn't quite the same. I'd consider a reminder with a clearer wording. WormTT(talk) 14:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think the evidence warrants singling Colin out. I may have said this elsewhere, but all participants need to read the principles in this case and wear the shoes that fit. – bradv🍁 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comment on FoF #5, I don't think we have evidence of conduct bad enough to justify an admonishment. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree that FoF, even if it passes, is not sufficient to support an admonishment. However, I think Colin, as well as others, should be reminded of this, although I don't think we need a separate remedy for that. Regards SoWhy 18:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Doc James restricted[edit]

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

Support:
  1. As I mentioned above, I think all the parties in this case have the best of intentions. However Doc James' conduct specifically has made this situation much more thorny, and their continued editing in this topic even while the case was ongoing suggests to me it's best to see if the situation improves without him involved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think Doc James is coming from a place of genuinely wanting to do the right thing, his approach to the issue is the problem, and shows no signs of abating, so this is an unfortunate necessity. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As I said above, this is unacceptable from an administrator, no matter how good the intentions are. I sincerely hope Doc James stops the IDHT attitude toward consensus and that the situation improves without his input. Katietalk 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – bradv🍁 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Disappointed that it has come to this, but I think it would help the situation. I disagree with Beeblebrox's blanket opinion that anyone who has a restriction cannot be an admin. WormTT(talk) 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doc James clearly needs to step back from this dispute, but I agree that we are miles away from conduct that would warrant a desysop. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With the additional recommendation to take Beeblebrox's comment below to heart. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'd like to add that , generally, I am of the opinion that if we have to place an editing restriction on an administrator, they probably should not be an administrator. I'm holding my fire in this case and not proposing a desysop, but I think any admin who finds themselves restricted in such a way needs to take a long, hard look at what they are doing, and why, and remember what the purpose of Wikipedia actually is. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru topic banned[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would advise QuackGuru to do a little reflecting regarding how many times they have been sanctioned for their behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Beeblebrox. Katietalk 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – bradv🍁 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. And would consider a more severe remedy given the disparity between the areas that he has found himself topic banned. WormTT(talk) 14:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SoWhy 08:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC) by Jonesey95.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Neutrality and conflicts of interest 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Wikipedia is not a battleground 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Sanctions and circumstances 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Tendentious editing 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Fait accompli 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Criticism and casting aspersions 8 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Existing policy on pricing 8 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Clarity of consensus 7 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Levels of consensus 8 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Role of the Arbitration Committee 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Manual of Style: Medicine-related articles and pharmaceutical drug prices 6 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Unclear consensus of requests for comment is not novel 6 1 1 PASSING ·
4 CFCF 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Colin 4 1 2 PASSING ·
6 Doc James 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 QuackGuru 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Topic moratorium 1 3 1 NOT PASSING 4
1a Consensus required 4 0 0 NOT PASSING 1 2 votes are second choice to 2; 1 vote is second choice to 1
2 Standard discretionary sanctions 7 1 0 PASSING ·
3 CFCF reminded 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Colin warned 2 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 Doc James restricted 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6 QuackGuru topic banned 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Many thanks to all the participants on the talk page for their thoughtful and helpful responses. I believe we have found a way forward, and am hopeful for a positive outcome. It is now time to close this case. – bradv🍁 15:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maxim(talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems like what's going to pass is there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With no more discussion since Friday, I think there is nothing more to do here. Regards SoWhy 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision&oldid=1164483626"