Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I would not necessarily consider myself an uninvolved administrator with this article, but neither am I all that involved in practice. I do hope that I have the bona fides to simply declare (without having to provide much evidence) that I have never been seen as one to be particularly sympathetic to pseudoscientific and other non-mainstream (or significant minority) points of view.

With that said, having read the talk page oldid that Kww links to, I am afraid I do not view things from his perspective. For example, Kww portrays A1candidate as someone who is "attempting to block a reflection of scientific consensus in the article" because they are attempting to "portray acupuncture as having medical legitimacy". That simply makes no sense to me; I read the talk page as indicating that A1candidate is not nearly convinced (by sources linked to and provided on that talk page) that acupuncture has significant medical benefits but that it does have some valid mechanism of action. Accordingly, it would make no sense to call it pseudoscientific, just like it would not make any sense to call yoga or meditation psuedoscientific (even though they are important components of Ayurveda).

Do I see some editors who should be banned on Talk:Acupuncture? Yes. But I don't think an ArbCom case will be the best venue for that. I think what is seriously needed is a set of reports to be filed at WP:AE with actual enforcement of the "Decorum" provisions of WP:AC/DS. I see that as working far more effectively than a full case. NW ( Talk ) 23:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a lot simpler if the log were maintained at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That page also serves as the log for Fringe Science, Chiropractic medicine and Homeopathy. It would confuse the issue to now have two separate logs for highly related pages. NW ( Talk ) 22:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So where do I log chiropractic topic bans? There is clear evidence that it helps some people, and it is definitely CAM. But do we continue to do it in Pseudoscience, or should we now be logging it in Acupuncture? What happens when someone tries to push some nonsense about Faith healing, Crystal energy, Transcendental Meditation or Ayurveda? Psuedoscience or Acupuncture? Will the sanction be dismissed if they haven't been warned under the proper case name or topic? What if I sanction someone and I am not aware that they were previously sanctioned for the same edit(s) on a different case log? The list can go on and on. Renaming the case or even creating a central log of discretionary sanctions would be fine with me, but CAM and Fringe Science are too tightly linked for it to be a good idea to try to separate the two logs like this. NW ( Talk ) 04:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty far from being a content decision. If anything it's going to be the opposite – I'm now probably going to get complaints when I block at Crystal energy under Psuedoscience rather than as an AE action under Acupuncture. (I say "I", but it's likely to be someone who actually still does a significant amount of work on this site...) Haven't you just kicked the can down the road to the AE admins to make the content decision on which case these all belong under? (see also Timotheus Canens' statement, which I works 100% for me) NW ( Talk ) 20:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem with that. NW ( Talk ) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, User:EdJohnston just floated on my talk page the idea of creating a centralized log. Still not sure what I think about that, but it's one idea. NW ( Talk ) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
KWW's statement is very illustrative of what is wrong with the alternative medicine topic area in Wikipedia. Although he admits that the behavior of WP's established "pro-science" editors can be problematic, he proposes that only the "pro-acupuncture" editors be topic banned, presumably because the established WP editors, even though they are behaving badly, need to stay around because they are supporting the "good" POV. For some reason, suggesting to Wikipedia's "pro-science" advocates and their admin enablers, that all relevant information (such as these "ambiguous studies" that KWW refers to) be allowed into these articles so the reader can read everything and make up their own mind as to the veracity of the claims is met with ridicule, insult, rejection, and/or indifference. If I understand correctly, because KWW doesn't want to get into a wheel war with John, he's asking for you, the Committee, to formally support and establish the official House POV on alternative medicine as the one supported by KWW and the editors who edit in the ways that his group approves of. KWW can correct me if I'm wrong. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like acupuncture will now follow the same pattern as the other alternative medicine articles: (1) newbies will arrive and try to NPOV the tone of the article and add sources, including academic studies, that make the article less negative towards the topic, (2) they will be reverted, insulted, and dismissed by the article's regulars, several of whose names are listed above but have decided not to stick their necks out by making statements here, then (3) KWW and other admins dedicated to preserving the house POV will use some pretense to topic ban or ban those newbie editors under the Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions.  Keep it up, WP. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to make it easy for us, several long-time editors, including two admins, on this page have declared that they don't care what the RS say, they personally consider acupuncture to be a pseudoscience and "scientifically discredited" and therefore it is correct and just to ban any other editor who feels differently. So, WP admins, these guys have made it easy for you to figure out who to ban from the pseudoscience and alternative medicine topic areas for openly declaring that the NPOV policy doesn't apply to them.  HJMitchell, NuclearWarfare, et al, let's get busy, ok? Cla68 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, here's a good example of the type of behavior involved with the alternative medicine topic area and involving several editors who have commented here on this request. The behavior of the regulars at the Homeopathy article was commented upon in a pejorative manner in the Huffington Post.  Those regulars, with no apparent sense of irony (or the COI guideline), then all piled-in to vote not to include mention of that commentary in the article.  You really cannot make this stuff up. Cla68 (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCom, why are you voting to put discretionary sanctions on acupuncture? KWW didn't present any actual evidence of wrongdoing by the editors he doesn't like.  He just basically said, "There are some very polite editors attempting to add content to the acupuncture articles that I and other editors with a different POV find objectionable.  Could you please classify it as a pseudoscience so I can ban them using those discretionary sanctions?"  You're still deciding to give him what he wants by placing DS on the topic, even though they're name differently in order to sidestep the label issue.  Anyone want to take any bets on how long it takes for several of the editors who have commented here to get their topic bans? Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, just wondering, but could anyone post evidence of any established editor being topic banned or banned for POV-pushing the white-male, Western science POV related to medicine, alternative medicine, or pseudoscience? The only one I know if is ScienceApologist, and that was for clearly socking.  However, the number of newbies blocked for supposedly supporting "fringe science" probably numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands.  I would really like to hear HJMitchell's, NuclearWarfare's, MastCell's, or JzG's explanations as to why this is so or appropriate for a crowdsourcing project like this one.  Is the purpose of en.wp to push western philosophy over all others?  Serious question. Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
I would caution the committee against making any rulings on content, which seems to be what this request is ultimately asking (banning only editors on a particular side of this dispute which would swing the article towards a particular POV). On a side note, I don't really know much about acupuncture but I looked it up at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which states "Results from a number of studies suggest that acupuncture may help ease types of pain that are often chronic such as low-back pain, neck pain, and osteoarthritis/knee pain. It also may help reduce the frequency of tension headaches and prevent migraine headaches. Therefore, acupuncture appears to be a reasonable option for people with chronic pain to consider."  It does not describe it as "pseudoscience" so Kww may be mistaken that there's a scientific consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArbCom: Our article on acupuncture contains the word "pseudoscience" seven times. Even if acupuncture is not a pseudoscience, as long as editors and/or sources are making this connection, this should be covered under the pseudoscience sanctions, at least the parts that pertain to it being a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not within ArbCom's remit to make decisions on article content. Have you tried the Dispute resolution noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If Kww has engaged in sanctionable misconduct, you can file a Request for Enforcement (RfE) at WP:AE. I have every confidence in the AE admins to sort through this mess. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am genuinely curious as to why you say that whether acupuncture is pseudoscience is a "definite "yes.". My only prior knowledge of acupuncture is what I see in the movies and on TV.  But when I looked it up at: Not a single one of the sources I looked up describes acupuncture as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
 * The Mayo Clinic
 * The National Cancer Institute
 * The American Heart Association
 * Encyclopedia Britannica (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours)

I'm not sure it's accurate to call this a "Western science POV". As I pointed out above, when I looked it up, not a single source I found described acupuncture as pseudoscience. And these are all highly respected, highly reliable Western sources. As best as I can figure out, the POV that acupuncture is a pseudoscience is a WP:FRINGE (or perhaps a minority) POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by
One reason that WP:AE might not be workable is that it could lead to anomalous results if uninvolved admins are polarized. In theory, both and  could rationally consider themselves uninvolved, and would consider different editors as ignoring WP:MEDRS. Certainly, other uninvolved editors (and admins) could easily interpret WP:MEDRS differently, leading to, as points out above, wheel wars. I do not consider myself uninvolved. Perhaps a motion clarifying how the pseudoscience decision relates to this article might avoid problems, even if it might lead to the WP:WRONGVERSION. I generally agree with ; the uncivil behavior by the scientists (in general) follows the (polite) WP:IDHT from the acupuncturists in regard pseudoscience. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
As one of the admins working at WP:AE, I've been asked by Thryduulf on my talk page to offer an opinion about whether the "acupuncture" topic is part of the "pseudoscience" topic area for which discretionary sanctions are authorized. As far as I can tell, the question of whether acupuncture is a pseudoscience is a matter of contention between proponents of acupuncture and others, but there are, at least, reliable sources that discuss its alleged status as a pseudoscience or fringe science. As such, acupuncture is at least a topic "relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted", and consequently subject to discretionary sanctions. However, like arbitration generally, AE cannot resolve content disputes (such as whether some piece of content is neutral or not). It can only address conduct problems, such as edit-warring or persistent tendentious editing.  Sandstein  14:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
Please make a motion clarifying whether or not AltMed topics are subject to discretionary sanctions under the pseudoscience decision. You obviously aren't saying they are pseudoscience, just saying that you want those remedies applied there because its the same problem needing the same solution. That's the one simple thing you can do to help resolve this (any many other similar) issue(s). Take away the potential objection that will surely be made by any tendentious editors brought to AE. Jehochman Talk 14:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * the Huffington Post? You know that rag takes submissions from anybody. What point are you trying to make with that?  We've all seen this story before.  Sensible editors eventually lose their cool after relentless POV pushing by tendentious editors. The cure is to topic ban the tendentious.  Jehochman Talk 13:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
This case request, like the one about Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, is a request for the ArbCom to accept a case about a topic that already falls within an area of existing ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I asked what the filing party expected the ArbCom to do that the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement could not do. I didn't get an answer that I understood. More importantly, the arbitrators didn't get an answer that they understood. To the extent that I did understand the answer, it insulted the Arbitration Enforcement administrators by implying that they couldn't get it right. At least this time, the filing party does say what he wants the ArbCom to do. He wants the ArbCom to topic-ban certain pro-acupuncture editors. He doesn't say why he thinks that AE can't deal with those editors. The implication is that different admins will have different standards of how much tolerance there is for reasoning that is partly pseudo-scientific. My own observation is that, although the rules for discretionary sanctions allow any uninvolved administrator to impose topic-bans, topic-bans are in fact only imposed after discussion between several respected administrators with different standards, so that AE is a good substitute for new arbitration by multiple respected arbitrators with different standards. I ask the filing party to explain why arbitration enforcement will not be effective. I trust that if there is no plausible answer, the arbitrators will decline the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I am mostly uninvolved. My only real involvement was to close an RFC on a different traditional Asian healing philosophy, Ayurveda, asking whether Ayurveda was pseudo-science. I concluded that there was consensus that it was only pseudo-science to the extent that scientific claims were made, and that its roots were in religion rather than science, and were not pseudo-science because they preceded the concept of modern science. That issue was resolved using a dispute resolution procedure without arbitration or arbitration enforcement. This issue may require arbitration enforcement, but why does it require new arbitration? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Is Acupuncture Pseudoscience?

The appropriate way to determine whether acupuncture or any other area of inquiry is pseudoscience and subject to discretionary sanctions is a Request for Comments. If the purpose of this request for arbitration is a determination as to whether acupuncture is pseudoscience and so subject to discretionary sanctions, an RFC is sufficient. If the objective is to topic-ban certain editors, then why can't arbitration enforcement be used rather than new arbitration? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
This dispute appears to involve not only Acupuncture, but also Traditional Chinese medicine, Acupuncture point, List of acupuncture points, Meridian (Chinese medicine), Qi, and possibly Electroacupuncture.

I am concerned about the claim that one side of the content dispute in question is in general staying within the rules while the other side is not. If true, arbcom could be in the position of taking sides in the content dispute simply by sanctioning those who are misbehaving and not sanctioning those who are not. One could argue that this is the price you pay for not following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, but one could also argue that the end result would violate WP:NPOV.

If this arbitration request is denied, I think it should be made clear whether it is denied and the topic is subject to arbitration enforcement and/or discretionary sanctions under the pseudoscience case or whether it is denied and not subject to arbitration enforcement and/or discretionary sanctions -- implying that behavioral problems should be brought up at WP:ANI and content disputes should be handled by WP:RfC or brought up at WP:DRN. Otherwise there will no doubt be a clarification request asking that very question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Edited 17:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the motion below is a good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Harry Mitchell
Since Thryduulf asked my opinion on whether this could be handled through the existing discretionary sanctions so I'll offer a few thoughts. I offer no opinion on whether the case should be accepted, but these thoughts might inform the decision:


 * Discretionary sanctions work well over relatively broad topic areas, usually influenced by real-world disputes that are being re-fought on Wikipedia, where a large number of editors line up on sides and where POV pushing, edit-warring, and other misconduct are rife. In order for discretionary sanctions to be effective, they need to widely known-about and understood, and violations of the standards of conduct need to be reported to admins. So to contrast two examples, they work well in the Israel-Palestine topic area (which, even seven years after the case, still accounts for about 50% of the workload at AE) because all the established editors there are familiar with the standards expected and there is no lack of zeal in reporting; the effectiveness of the BLP discretionary sanctions (and their predecessor, BLP special enforcement) is more open to question, possibly because of a lack of awareness, the less clear boundaries, or just because admins enjoy widespread community support for BLP enforcement and don't need to invoke the discretionary sanctions.
 * Acupuncture falls within the discretionary sanctions on psuedoscience; whether it is pseudoscience is a matter of (fierce) debate, but it is clearly related to the topic area. Even if it weren't, the dispute over whether acupuncture is pseudoscience would clearly fall under the remit of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions.
 * While I have no opinion on acupuncture itself, the problem here seems to be that the article and its talk page are dominated by editors on both sides who have extremely strong opinions. One side happens to have the support of a lot of established editors and the odd adminsitrator, but that doesn't make that side right or the other side wrong per se. I haven't looked into the matter deeply enough to comment on whether there are serious conduct issues beyond heated debate in a content dispute. An ArbCom-mandated RfC, widely advertised and perhaps with suffrage requirements (to prevent brand-new SPAs from muddying the waters) and perhaps without the participation of the parties to the current dispute, might be able to put the issue of how acupuncture should be covered to bed?

— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will say this: the conduct Kww describes is not the sort of conduct that discretionary sanctions can deal with. Persistently advocating for the inclusion of content that any reasonable editor would know had no place in an encyclopaedia article would be disruptive and could be grounds for discretionary sanctions, as would obstructing discussion to the point that it makes consensus impossible to find, but this would require diffs and careful explanation at AE, but discretionary sanctions work best for obvious misconduct. Merely suggesting, in good faith, additions or removals that meet with the displeasure of the dominant group of editors on the article is not disruptive and would not constitute grounds for sanctions. And for the record, a pseudoscience article being dominated by extreme sceptics would be as problematic as if it wee dominated by avid proponents, just as it would be problematic for an article related to Israel-Palestine or India-Pakistan or Eastern Europe to be dominated by nationalist zealots from one side or the other. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection to the proposed motion. 's suggestion of a centralised DS log is an excellent one. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, your complaint will disappear into the ether on this page because it's not set up to evaluate the conduct of a particular editor. WP:AE, on the other hand, is set up for exactly that purpose, and Cla is clearly aware of the DS in this area as he has commented on the AE request concerning JzG. If your complaint here is accurate, please do bring it to AE with diffs and it will be evaluated. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Fæ
I have not been involved in this case, however I have uploaded several hundred relevant images relating to acupuncture and traditional medicine as part of my work with Wellcome Images (the majority being 18th century or earlier artefacts with a handful of 20th century exceptions) and wish to see them more widely reused and articles expanded. However this case pans out, either here or elsewhere, I recommend that a distinction is retained between alternative Medicine and its current perception and trade, and the history of medicine which may include branches such as acupuncture, if necessary by encouraging article splits.

It would be sad day to find potential knowledgeable contributors put off editing and illustrating historical articles for fear of stepping into long running dramas or complex restrictions. --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Lukeno94

 * Without any regards to the merits of either side, I'm failing to see why the RfC route hasn't been followed more vigorously. Since Kww appears to want solid judgements on what can and can't be included in the article, which indeed doesn't really fall inside ArbCom's remit, why not have a large-scale RfC on the topic, with different questions for each contended bit? I don't really see any evidence that most of these editors are being unconstructive; opposing changes by having a different viewpoint is not on its own a problematic thing, which some users seem to be implying, and if they do so politely, then that's what they're supposed to do. I do personally think that if an article is too heavily biased towards the scientific side of things, even as someone who would take that side, then it violates NPOV and this is a problem (I lack the subject knowledge to decide if the article is too unbalanced or not right now, however.) Acupuncture, after all, has not been widely decreed as being quack by the scientific community; indeed, it seems to be in a very grey area. I also agree with the statement that the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience apply here, since the debate is related to that topic. Finally, I find Cla68's comment, particularly with regard to good-faith newbies, to be fairly accurate of what seems likely to happen if the articles aren't made a little more balanced. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
To my eyes, there are basically two issues, closely related, here. One is the broad question as to whether acupuncture in general qualifies as a pseudoscience. The answer there is, so far as I can tell, a definite "yes." It is one of the longer articles in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as per WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles, so I think that certainly establishes that answer. There is perhaps another question as to whether some specific procedures practiced within a field which is rather clearly pseudoscientific are themselves necessarily inherently pseudoscientific. This is a harder issue to determine. Acupuncture has been around for many centuries, and like any other procedure of that type, I guess even including exorcism, the practice of the discipline as it is done today will include some aspects which can be shown to be to an extent demonstrably effective in some cases. Trial-and-error practice for centuries or millenia will make that true to virtually all archaic practices to some degree or another. That latter topic is however irrelevant to whether this topic is covered by the existing sanctions, which I think it clearly and unequivocally is. If there were issues of specific behavior of specific individuals which might extend beyond the field of pseudoscience, then there might be basis for a case, but in this particular case I don't see anything which can't be handled at AE or ARCA. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it obvious that if something is prominently included in an encyclopedia on the topic itself, it qualifies as being within the scope of that topic. Speaking as someone who personally would prefer we not use the word "pseudoscience" too much in our articles, because of the comparative ambiguity and recentness of the term, I have to acknowledge that it certainly qualifies for inclusion in related lists and categories based on it being prominently included in one of the recent reference works specifically on the topic, as I indicated above. And that would, seemingly, mean that it also would reasonably fall within the range of the existing sanctions on the topic. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Arbs: Just noting that at WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles "Alternative medicine" is itself listed as being one of the longer articles in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, so presumably that topic area would in general fall within the existing discretionary sanctions anyway. I dunno how to define "complementary medicine," and don't see anything like that listed, but it looks to me like a lot of the stuff that I might think might be included there, like fad diets, Ayurvedic medicine, and others are specifically included as well. It might actually be easier for someone, probably not me, to go around at tag the relevant articles and maybe work up the relevant project banner to specifically indicate that all the articles tagged with the Pseudoscience project banner pretty much by definition fall under the discretionary sanctions? John Carter (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TimidGuy
My feeling is that the acupuncture article, like many articles on Wikipedia, is skewed toward a particular point of view. That view is established as the standard NPOV view, and then attempts are made to ban editors who don't agree with that view. Cla68 makes a good point, referring to this as Wikipedia's House POV. Elements of the article seem extreme. Is it appropriate to quote a blogger, for example, referring to acupuncture as "quackademic medicine" and "woo"? And this sentence, which is in the article twice and cites an editorial, is simply given as a statement of fact: "TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." This sentence in the first paragraph of the lead is stated as fact: "The TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge." But the source is QuackWatch, which is self-published and has a clear agenda. In my mind, it remains an open question whether acupuncture is pseudoscience, given that there are various points of view, given that scores of leading US medical centers offer it, given that even a conservative publication such as the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that it may be an acceptable treatment for low back pain, given the large number of randomized-controlled trials and the extensive ongoing research into the theory and practice. TimidGuy (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I might add that I think there may be a behavioral problem here, and not necessarily on the part of those with an interest in acupuncture. Using questionable sources, such as a blog and QuackWatch, is bad enough, but even worse is the fact that editors attempted to edit war a statement into the WP:FRINGE guideline that these sites are reliable sources. TimidGuy (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Good decline in progress. This is not a request to determine if acupuncture falls under pseudoscience discretionary sanctions -- it's a request to change policy by declaring something called "scientific consensus" to be a trump card admins can pull out to dictate content, based on a Western view of the world; while an important view, it's certainly not the only one, and Wikipedia policy should be to balance the viewpoints depending on their prominence in reliable sources. Per WP:MEDICAL, we don't have a responsibility to publish THE TRUTH, only to reflect sources. It's disrespectful of other cultures not to include their viewpoints. No evidence has been applied there's a serious disagreement as to whether an admin can impose DS on an editor per pseudoscience (i.e. there's no link to disputed AE or AN threads follow such an imposition.) NE Ent 02:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom 2015: Please learn to vote so the clerks and your fellow committee members can keep the count accurate. First of, what is "procedurally accept"? Per the AC Guide, a simple Accept or Decline will do. ('Accept, or accept not, there is no "procedural" decline' Yoda). The fact that some of ya'll are willing to change your mind is a great sign of deliberation and collaborativeness, but striking a bold Decline makes it hard to read, so please unbold your declines. Finally, placing your vote at the beginning of your statement just makes this easier. As the saying goes, KISS -- Keep it Simple, Sahib. NE Ent 00:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The scientific status of acupuncture is, of course, not our business (it is unusual amongst alternative treatments in that it still receives some mainstream scientific coverage, due to the inherent difficulties of blinding patients as to whether needles are actually inserted; the existence of qi and meridians is refuted, the question of whether needling itself has any objective effect is still open). It's also very much not a matter for ArbCom, in that the sources establishing this to be fringe science are robust and thus there is no question of demarcation or applicability of prior arbitrations.

User conduct, however, probably is. The majority of those involved in this dispute are devoted to advocacy (I discount Cla68, who is simply making trouble, in my view). Several users acknowledge that they are practitioners or otherwise vested in acupuncture. This has led to some problems such as, a WP:COATRACK created by an acupuncture advocate (A1candidate) in order to promote the "fact that, as he wrote, "The anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mediated by the adenosine A1 receptor" supported by a source which is not a WP:MEDRS (it discusses patent law, ). Similar edits were made on representing a tentative conclusion along the lines of "may be caused by" as a factual statement "is caused by". You may also wish to review A1candidate's advocacy of including the opinions of Dana Ullman at talk:Homeopathy (see ) - this is indicative of a credulous approach, to say the least.

I believe that users like A1candidate are sincere, but there is a disparity of motivation in that the proponents of scientifically refuted ideas have a disproportionate need to get their views reflected as "fact" on Wikipedia and the Wikipedia editors who try to maintain WP:NPOV tend not to be anything like so vested in any single subject. , and  are all examples of this. So the issue is a generic one, in that we have only limited patience to deal with those who want to keep demanding until they get what they want. These cases usually end up here, and usually end up with ArbCom telling the advocates to accept the presentation of the scientific consensus view or take a hike. And along the way, lots of people lose their temper. If you can find a solution to this I'd be very happy. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Collect: It's a nice idea, but we'd be legislating a new classification that doesn't exist in the real world. There are issues of branding, e.g. "traditional Chinese medicine", which is actually pretty much a creation of Mao, cobbled together from a loose collection of folkways, and there are issues of nomenclature and demarcation, but the actual position is this, as far as I can tell:
 * Many "traditional" / folk practices are based largely on superstition. Their more honest advocates do not attempt to claim otherwise.
 * Pseudoscience is a very specific term covering activities that give the appearance of science, but fail in some critical area pertaining to the scientific method. Tests that use the language and styles of science but begin with a statement like "homeopathy is a 200-year-old system of medicine based on the use of substances which cause in a healthy person the symptoms experienced by a person suffering form a disease" are pseudoscientific, because none of those statements is true apart from the age. There are debates to be had over the difference between pseudoscience and pathological se, but in this we can follow the sources.
 * The vast majority of the alternatives to medicine under discussion, are supported primarily on grounds that are entirely fallacious. Appeals to tradition, nature, mystery and authority are endemic. We rightly accord such views less weight than those based on good science.
 * The abuse of "evidence based medicine" by proponents of refuted therapies, is rife. Ioannidis shows that for a null treatment, biases and other confounders will result in a small net positive evidence base. Advocates of refuted therapies point to this small net positive evidence base and assert that it overrides the absence of plausible mechanism. They take the small net positive evidence base and use that to advance speculative mechanisms by which it "works", and then use these as evidence that the weak positive base shows real effect.
 * So the question is whether Wikipedia wants to fall for the current rebranding and become an "integrative encyclopaedia", adding fiction to fact in order to document the universe "holistically". Remember, alternative medicine, by definition, either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. We are dealing with a situation precisely analogous to creationism here. Alternative medicine is like Young-Earth Creationism, "integrative" medicine is like theistic evolution and other forms of old-earth / old universe creationism. Science is not in the business of proving a negative, it's in the business of testing claims. The claims of virtually all of the supplement, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry are generally permitted only because of industry lobbying or "grandfather" clauses. None of them, pretty  uch without exception, would be approved today if they were introduced as a new treatment (see also: Lunatic charlatans, an example of how cranks get round that). We are dealing here with religions, not with science. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
I find myself in agreement with parts of most statements above (Fae and others) - the real problem, as I see it, is the strong position that anything not precisely backed by empirical medical science is considered pseudoscience and the fact that many such practices were historically and traditionally used as medicine in many places, thus earning a legitimate place in any articles dealing with "historical and traditional medicine". The current dichotomy of pseudoscience is quite recent, with empirical studies of efficacy of many treatments only dating to the last half century. I suggest that a motion be made suggesting a community discussion on whether a new category of (say) "Historical and traditional medical practices" be established to contain such "alternative medicine" topics as ought to be so labelled, and this category be distinguished from "pseudoscience" which is primarily aimed at topics which at the time the practice originated were so regarded as pseudoscience. This would not come close to emptying the pseudoscience category, but would make clear that the topics are "historical and traditional" in nature, rather than deliberate affronts to empirical science. Collect (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by T. Canens
The proposed motion creates significant additional complexity for AE because it sets up two separate DS topic areas with significant overlap, for little benefit. The only arguable benefit is that the committee might avoid the appearance of making a content decision, but there is no content decision even if the committee authorized DS for a single, expanded topic area. The committee extended the original pseudoscience discretionary sanctions to cover fringe science so that AE doesn't have to work out whether something is pseudoscience or merely fringe. I don't see anyone arguing that that amounted to a content decision labeling all fringe science as pseudoscience. Moreover, given the second point above, this merely kicks the can down the road to AE admins.
 * Because these are separate topic areas, separate alerts are required. This means that editors editing in the sizable intersection of these areas will likely end up getting two alert templates at the same time rather than just one; if we consider one alert template unwelcoming, two would be more than twice as bad.
 * Because a significant number of editors have been alerted for PS/FS but not CAM, AE will still have to sort out if something is inside the PS/FS topic area or "just" CAM, which is little better than the status quo.
 * Splitting the log into two separate pages causes problems with tracking, as NuclearWarfare observed.

The committee should authorize DS for the single topic area of "pseudoscience, fringe science, and complementary and alterative medicine". If it desires, it can rename the Pseudoscience case, or move the DS remedy and logs under a new case name. But having two significantly overlapping DS topic areas interacts very poorly with the design of the alert system. T. Canens (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite
As an incidental issue, anyone who thinks Cla68 is not here simply to cause problems (as alleged above) might want to read Talk:Homeopathy, where a user is trying to include a source which is not only a blog, but a blog by a known Homeoopathy POV-pusher who has been described as completely unreliable by a court. Cla68 thinks his opinion should be included in the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
I previously edited the acupuncture article but walked away because it is too toxic and simply, no fun.

I pretty much echo what wrote above but want to focus it a bit.

Arbcom deals with behavior and not content.

The behavior issues at play are some of the thorniest around, namely WP:ADVOCACY. - to put it in policy terms, patterns of editing that violate WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is very hard as you all know b/c you can never be uncivil or edit war but be a rank advocate, and just keep flying in WP.

On the one hand we have dedicated advocates for acu and other alt medicine approaches (they are well identified above and several profess their advocacy). They have been more present and more strident lately and I am not surprised to see this Arbcom request. On the other hand we have the group I will define as "quack fighters" who perform an invaluable service to WP in cleaning up quackery and pseudoscience when it is added to WP. They are advocates for evidence-based medicine which is inline with PSCI; Wikipedia would be a wasteland of bad content but for their work. As mentioned their advocacy aligns (generally) with the WP:PSCI policy but I have to say that sometimes their perspective goes too far and becomes advocacy for the EBM movement even in the realm of conventional medicine. But that is another matter.

What has happened at the Acupuncture article is rock meeting hard place. It is ugly.

If Arbcom takes this on, it should be on the basis of patterns of behavior that violate WP:NOTADVOCATE around alternative medicine, in light of WP:PSCI. It should expand on the previous PSCI decision by dealing specifically with WP:NOTADVOCATE and perhaps also explicitly with the broader field of "alternative medicine". Acupuncture is just a sliver of alt med and can serve as the useful anvil on which to work things out but the decision should read on TCM, Ayurveda, Energy medicine etc etc. Very, very hard. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps
One thing I would encourage arbcom to act on is the question of how to handle a case where WP:COI and WP:OWN seem to be in conflict. There is the case right now where, demonstrably, many of the "pro-acupuncture" or "pro-TCM" side of this disagreement can be identified (in one way or another) as people who benefit monetarily from acupuncture or traditional Chinese medicine beliefs. Having editors who make money due to the general acceptance of a certain ideas who also edit articles about those ideas is not in-and-of-itself an issue for many non-controversial topics on Wikipedia. For example, although I make most of my money through teaching physics, I think I'm correct in measuring the temperature of the Wikipedia community that editing content related to physics is not a problematic activity for myself to engage in (though this is by no means a universally-held opinion since the Wikipedia community is pretty broad). On the other hand, in situations where people are babysitting articles about their businesses, arbcomm and the community seem to have stepped in to say that WP:COI should be adhered to in such a way that editors who exhibit a conflict of interest should stay clear of any hint of WP:OWN problems and probably should not be active in article-space. In the case of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine (as was the case in transcendental meditation, scientology, and other related cases) there is evidence that can be presented that people whose livelihood depends on clients and supporting institutions believing some of the ideas behind TCM which others dispute. In this case, the controversy is not so one-sided as it is with those who support pseudophysics and so while arbcomm banned some cold fusion-proponents for COI problems a general principle has not yet been agreed to by the community how WP:COI and WP:OWN should interact in such situations. Arbcomm could do us a favor by providing some guidelines that would help clarify these matters.

jps (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Acupuncture (June 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by A1candidate at 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.
 * Please consider repealing these sanctions

Statement by A1candidate
This is an unfair sanction. Despite my demonstrable attempts to closely follow the relevant behavioral guidelines during a content dispute, I am now placed under severe editing restrictions and more importantly, my perfect record has been stained with a permanent log over here. According to the guidelines of core behaviorial policies such as WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:





Everyone can check my most recent contributions at the acupuncture page in order to verify that I had followed this guideline very closely. First and foremost, I made only a single (neccessary) revert to prevent a source from being distorted. Then, I sensed that temporary page protection may soon be necessary to avoid a potential edit war, so I quickly approached two administrators and asked them for the appropriate page protection (as suggested by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Next, I backed off from the article immediately and stopped making any further edits. I also started an RfC on the talk page to discuss the controversial content with other editors.

After posting an RfC to resolve the content dispute, I voluntarily restricted myself to talk page discussions only and made no further changes to the article.

I took a short break from Wikipedia, came back, and found myself under a range of discretionary sanctions lasting for a year.

This is completely unfair and I am therefore appealing the sanctions per this guideline

I dispute the validity of these sanctions and I urge the Committee to lift them.

 A1candidate  00:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
Take note of the parallel discussion at ANI. It might well have proceeded to a topic ban if Adjwilley had not imposed lesser restrictions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2
Just saw this and wanted to note I had both unarchived and removed the resolved tag to that ANI. It is currently active. I did so because I felt that the above sanctions were not placed to resolve the situation being discussed at ANI nor did they resolve the the situation being discussed at ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
1RR, not gaming the rules, refraining from battleground behavior, refraining from WP:IDHT behavior, and keeping the focus on content rather than contributors all are good practice for everyone. This leaves us with the WP:0RR at Acupuncture. On that point User:Bishonen's observation here is persuasive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Adjwilley
As I mentioned here the sanctions were not in response to the most recent events at acupuncture described above by A1candidate. The timing was more due to me finally finding a few hours to sit down and go through the history of multiple editors on the page. A1candidate is obviously very stressed right now which I believe is affecting their judgement, and I would feel bad extending this to a topic ban just because of that. I believe they have a good knowledge of the sources and could still contribute at the acupuncture talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
A1candidate shows a worrying lack of self-awareness and self-criticism, and this request underscores that. The restriction was placed by an uninvolved admin (who, it should be noticed, had just been canvassed by A1candidate to protect the article at his preferred version) in a good faith attempt to allow A1candidate to continue contributing to an article where he clearly has strong feelings, but where his editing behaviour has been widely identified as highly problematic. An identical restriction has been placed on user:QuackGuru, an equally energetic partisan with the opposite POV.

Importantly, both the restricted editors are the current most active editors of the article itself, resulting in instability and see-sawing between opposing points of view, which is ridiculous in a mature article. The consensus seems to be that "jaw jaw is better than edit war edit war", to paraphrase a well known authority on conflict, and (importantly) this restriction still allows both parties to contribute on Talk, making specific proposals for article improvement. That seems to me to be an approach at least worth trying.

When A1candidate's recent request for arbitration was declined, a view was expressed that this might well end up at arbitration in the longer term. I believe that the restriction is a solid attempt to prevent exactly that drama. If this works, it will give us an additional proven tool to manage contentious topics.

The only obvious alternative to this restriction for this user at this time, would probably be a topic ban. I think the restriction represents a creative attempt to resolve the issue without recourse to such draconian measures, so I believe that we should at least try this and see how it goes. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: You may not be familiar with Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either has not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. The name for alternative medicine that has been proven to work, is "medicine". Wikipedia is and always has been unashamedly reality-based. And note that exactly the same sanction has been applied to another prolific and disruptive editor, who has a diametrically opposed POV - even though there is general agreement that his edits are in line with policy, where A1candidate's are very often not. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
With respect, I'd like to ask that the arbs be held accountable for the proposals they are making. In this case an indefinite topic ban, one of the severest judgements that can be handed down is being proposed without explanation. Such a judgement overrides the admin Adjwilley who had the situation in hand, and seems to be the response to A1 an editor who dared to ask that the sanctions against him be reevaluated. A simple decline and warning, as this is in the hands of a competent admin, seems fairer to A1 candidate, and respectful to the capabilities of the admin. The message to those in the community who are looking for a place to go if they feel something is unfair is, if you approach the arbs you risk draconian punishment without recourse or explanation. and can expect to skip the escalating-in-between sanctions as the last and worse is applied. Editors deserve explanation and fairness and they need a place to go where they can trust those in command. This is the second instance I've felt concern about an arbitration situation; I don't want to be here, but I am concerned that indef sanctions are being handed out like lollipops with about as much explanation. Disclaimer: I have very little experience with acupuncture in RL, and left the Acupuncture article after a few comments because the environment was poisonous.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Cla68
A1 editor, you gave it a good try to NPOV that article a little, but realize that you're up against an entrenched anti-alternative medicine bias in Wikipedia, one that extends to its administration, as you're finding out the hard way. These guys are experts into maneuvering you into a position of making it look like you're a fanatic with an agenda and they aren't. I suggest finding more productive things to do with your time than editing WP or else going out and recruiting about 10-20 other people who have a more open-minded and fair attitude towards acupuncture and bring them back to edit the article with you. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

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



Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline lifting the sanction, as I don't think the requirements for overruling an admin's call have been met. To be honest, I'm tempted to upgrade the restriction to a full-on topic ban... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Salvio. If I'd support doing anything, it would be imposing by motion a full indefinite topic ban covering the union of the Pseudoscience and Acupuncture DS authorizations.  Courcelles (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline "I don't like being under sanctions" really isn't a valid reason for lifting said sanctions. Yunshui 雲 水 07:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline while supporting a motion for a full indefinite topic ban. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline I agree with salvio. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline overturning the sanctions, and like those above, I find myself questioning whether A1candidate should be participating in this topic area at all. But let's give the current sanctions a chance to work, it can always be made a full topic ban if they fail to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline' changing the sanctions. They're the only hope of avoiding a full topic ban.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per DGG. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope the appellant is not disheartened by our decision, but it is sadly apparent that this request is baseless. Decline. AGK  [•] 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by TomStar81 at 02:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by TomStar81
In lei of the fact that the ongoing 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak is causing many people to come forward with homemade remdies, "miracle" cures, alleged vaccinations, etc, (two simple examples: ) when the scientific consensus has unilaterally been that no such cure or vaccine for the virus exists, I seek to clarify whether - in this very specific case - the ruling made in the acupuncture case may be reasonably construed to apply to our article on the virus pandemic. I ask for this clarification as it becomes increasingly clear that this issue is dominating news stories in an attempt to preemptively arm discretionary sanctions for the article should those who come here seeking to add such fringe information to the article, and to get clarification whether in specific cases of this nature the acupuncture case may be construed as extended to untested and/or unproven cures, remedies, vaccinations, etc for outbreaks of diseases.

Statement by Roxy
Could the request either state what the difference between Complementary and Alternative medicine actually is, or drop the word 'complementary'. This would be in line with reality. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response GW, but nevertheless if Arbcom is going to rule on the *subjects*, they should define them in future, or ... Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Katie and Bradv just a heads up that these DS don't include only pseudoscience:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

It's pretty explicit about including WP:FRINGE science, which doesn't always have to be full on pseudoscience. This wouldn't be the first time the nuance of DS were glossed over focusing on the case name (I've done it too), so just making sure you had that info on hand with respect to your comments so far. WP:FRINGE/PS covers rough distinctions (it can be nebulous in some areas), but the take home is that there is a spectrum within fringe science rather than it being entirely synonymous with pseudoscience. Basically, if fringe stuff is a problem in the coronavirus articles, any admin should be free to use the DS for that unless we significantly change our fringe guideline. Just making sure the nuance of the DS weren't lost in the other nuances you two were trying to bring in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
Sorry again for over-correcting. I think there is consensus for General Sanctions, and that, informally, such a thing is already in effect. Not to be repetitive, but ensuring MEDRS standards remains key. That said, I believe this time correctly, I've just topic banned someone from the COVID-19 topic area citing ARBCAM. El_C 19:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

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



Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * At a glance I would say either this or Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which while it hasn't been cited in a while, appears to still have DS authorized. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That was my understanding as well. This is pseudoscience or fringe science, hence it's covered already. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this appears to already be covered by discretionary sanctions. DS are already authorized for any edit[s] about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Acupuncture) and for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted (Pseudoscience). The ruling in the Acupuncture case applies to any kind of complementary and alternative medicine, not just acupuncture-related topics., my understanding is that "complementary medicine" is specifically when alternative medicine is used alongside science-based medicine, as explained in the Alternative medicine article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting my agreement with Bradv, that COVID-19 in general does not fall under the Acupuncture or Pseudoscience DS areas; only edits or sections that related to alternative medicine or fringe science. If DS are desired for the entire topic area, I agree that a new authorization (such as the one currently proposed at AN) would be needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. I cannot think of any cases that would not fall under either "pseudoscience and fringe science" or "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" already. Regards So  Why  12:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that with the now enacted community general sanctions this request can be closed. Regards So  Why  08:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, discretionary sanctions cannot be applied to coronavirus articles simply because someone might add pseudoscientific information – there must be evidence of disruption of that nature. If we need extra administrator tools to deal with general disruption of articles related to the ongoing pandemic, we might want to consider temporarily authorizing discretionary sanctions specifically for the coronavirus topic area. – bradv  🍁  19:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting here for the record that general sanctions have now been authorized for all content related to COVID-19, broadly construed. I believe that resolves the issues raised in this request. – bradv  🍁  22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had some list discussion about having the community address this, and I think that's the best course. General sanctions can be authorized by consensus. Like Bradv, I don't see that we can use the Acupuncture or Pseudoscience cases in the coronavirus articles because those articles aren't pseudoscientific in nature. Try to get general sanctions authorized at AN first, and if that fails, then we can have a look at authorizing discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Katietalk 17:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted, this has been addressed via the community-adopted general sanctions. I believe this request can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)