Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Case closed by motion on 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Case amended by
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
Case information
Involved parties
- RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- ToBeFree (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- )
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tinybubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CatDamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prior dispute resolution
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#IDHT,_thinly_veiled_accusation_and_overall_trolling_(COVID)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#CutePeach
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#COVID:_SYNTH,_BLUDGEON_and_MEDRS_(moved_from_AE)
- Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information
- Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
- Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
- Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology
- Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
- Talk:COVID-19 pandemic
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
Preliminary statements
Statement by RandomCanadian
I don't know where, or how, to start. As you're surely aware, our
Sadly, this effort is, in some areas, hampered by persistent disruptive editing. As a cursory look at the few threads on noticeboards linked above (non-exhaustive) and the archives (and even current versions) of the listed talk pages will reveal, the problem is widespread, persistent, and not likely to reach a solution anywhere soon.
The specific topic of the virus' origin have borne the brunt of the disruption. I could link to many topic bans; SPIs; (1 2); even one already ArbCom blocked user (here). I could link to a Twitter group (they now even have a page here, lucky them), of which some members have been active here, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, canvassing and so forth, to push their preferred point of view. I could link to many, many threads and many many personal attacks, I-dont-hear-it-is, pushing of poor sources, original research, harassment (against me, but against others) and so on.
While there are already community sanctions, these aren't effective; few seem to have the patience and the energy to report offenders to relevant noticeboard, even fewer admins seem to have the courage to take actions.
I believe that is not necessary, and that ArbCom is astute enough to realise there is a problem, and that some action is required; that we're not a platform for the pushing of fringe theories; that we're not a platform for the righting of great wrongs; that yes, we are biased towards science; and that, finally, our purpose, nay, our duty to our readers is to provide them with factual, neutral, verifiable content based on the best sources we have.
Truthfully and sincerely yours,
Alex // RandomCanadian N.B. the list of parties is non-exhaustive
- @WP:SPAs. Additionally, if you wish for specific examples, here's some aspersions; here's some harassment; here some BLP violation. A cursory look will at the existing talk pages (not even the archives) will show long drawn-out discussions between experienced editors and often SPAs, trying to explain the nuances of FRINGE; NPOV; RS and the like, with no apparent end in sight. The issue has been discussed many times over; and these repeated decentralised discussions on many different talk pages are massive timesinks, in addition to the now rising trend of personal attacks by some frustrated IPs and SPAs. There's definitively something that can be done here by ArbCom, both over conduct and over content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)]
- @CatDamon: This is about long-term behaviour (not necessarily by you, but by some others) which includes harassment, other behavioural issues; and much needless, massive timesinks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: That would be a decent step, but considering that even some issues which are actually already under AC/DS seem to provoke little appetite among AE regulars (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive286#François_Robere, archived without a close or any action taken), I'm not sure if that would be sufficient. There is definitively scope for some clarifications regarding application of sourcing policies (which, as I argue, here, is a complex issue) and possibly preventive measures and editing restrictions to discourage SPAs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I considered putting the title in as simply "COVID-19", but I haven't first hand experienced disruption in other areas (the closest I've come to is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Airborne_Transmission, but that's not really disruptive, just a somewhat mildly heated RfC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JPxG: I've made my comments at the RfC and as you can see I'm not arguing for the proposed, overly broad question, so I fail to see how this is an attempt to have ArbCom impose a restriction which I'm not even supporting (I've made my position about what does and what does not require high-quality sources [which are not quite always the same thing as MEDRS] quite clear, and I think it's rather common sense, too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I considered putting the title in as simply "COVID-19", but I haven't first hand experienced disruption in other areas (the closest I've come to is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Airborne_Transmission, but that's not really disruptive, just a somewhat mildly heated RfC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: That would be a decent step, but considering that even some issues which are actually already under AC/DS seem to provoke little appetite among AE regulars (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive286#François_Robere, archived without a close or any action taken), I'm not sure if that would be sufficient. There is definitively scope for some clarifications regarding application of sourcing policies (which, as I argue, here, is a complex issue) and possibly preventive measures and editing restrictions to discourage SPAs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CatDamon: This is about long-term behaviour (not necessarily by you, but by some others) which includes harassment, other behavioural issues; and much needless, massive timesinks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Arbcom: I'm not opposed to a resolution by motion if you think that is the most effective way forward. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)]
- @CatDamon: Answered (in too much detail) on your talk page. TLDR: to the question "do we need MEDRS for this topic"? it's "we don't need them, but we prefer them [or similar sources] if available" (IMHO) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon's argument that scientific sources are too slow for this seems to be well against what I thought was settled policy, that we follow, not lead, the consensus of these sources. FeydHuxtable's comment seems to argue in the same direction as Robert; and also misrepresents the position of some editors (in addition to arguing about the "vested interests" of the scientific establishment - déjà vu, anyone?), but that's another discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CatDamon: Answered (in too much detail) on your talk page. TLDR: to the question "do we need MEDRS for this topic"? it's "we don't need them, but we prefer them [or similar sources] if available" (IMHO) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:FLAT-type problems... Something simple to discourage soapboxing, original research and advocacy (by adding even mild editing requirements) and make enforcement more readily available (instead of having, as El describes, "impenetrable timesinks" at ANI) would be more than enough. There has been a significant change in how we cover this recently, and I think that's to the credit of everyone (although the fact that the topic is obviously politicised and that many long-winded discussions are required speaks for itself, i think), but all of this good will is going to be wasted in the long-term if we don't do anything about dealing with dedicated fringe advocates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)]
- In addition, creating a centralised noticeboard for COVID (or using the existing Wikiproject page for this) might be a solution to the "repetitive discussions" part. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Normchou: I can't seriously take "Wuhan lab manufactured" as an appropriate section title, nor can I understand why you started editing these articles without taking part in the existing talk page discussions ([1] - something they've also been warned about), and now come right here to complain... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Arbs: Yet more aspersions. If this was an isolated incident, the solution would be simple, but it sadly isn't... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Arbcom: Since when is sending off-wiki emails about on-wiki disputes acceptable? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)]
- Oops, I've just noticed Tinybubi's comment below. Clearly no response of mine is required... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have no clue why jtbobwaysf insists on making groundless claims (see analysis here), nor why they insist on using opinion pieces when we have perfectly good scientific papers on the subject (which, in this case, does rebut every point of that WSJ fact-free opinion-piece). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Empiricus' rambling, gratuitous accusations should not be allowed to slide simply because this is an ArbCom page. As to his misinterpretation of my position regarding sourcing, it's even more bizarre in light of "including_non-medical_information_(no-bioinformation)_in_medicine-articles"_(MEDRS-Rule) this discussion, where he has so far failed to reply (despite a ping)! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- ]
Statement by ToBeFree
I had been invited to provide feedback about behavioral issues in this area, by editors from both sides of the dispute:
- 2021-02-12T23:38 by RandomCanadian at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, diff gone, search for "radical solution" at Special:Permalink/1006479035#Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again
- 2021-03-18T01:44:08 by CutePeach at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
- 2021-03-18T07:49:52 by CutePeach at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
- 2021-04-22T15:14:24 by CutePeach at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
I have attempted to enforce the
- COVID-19 lab leak hypothesisis extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- COVID-19 misinformation is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- Investigations into the origin of COVID-19is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- Wuhan Institute of Virology is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been semi-protected indefinitely until deletion.
- canvassing.
- topic banned from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community. The user has since been indefinitely blocked by ArbCom.[2]
- Empiricus-sextus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been topic banned from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, but I have removed this topic ban, as described in Special:Permalink/1026738150#Topic_ban_removed, with apologies.
- I have proposed to extended-confirmed protect Talk:COVID-19 misinformation in the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1020679801#Proposal:_Extended-confirmed_protect_Talk:COVID-19_misinformation_indefinitely , which has been cited as the reason for the current semi-protection of the page by El C.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- To prevent single-purpose accounts from turning the discussions into a battleground (cf. Billybostickson's ArbCom block, and Tinybubi's block described by Daniel below), and to force new editors to start with gaining experience in less contentious areas of the project, I'd support any measure that increases the amount of needed Wikipedia editing experience required for participating in this area at all, including on talk pages. This could be limited to COVID-19 origins, misinformation and conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't object to it happening to the entire topic COVID-19. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)]
- Regarding "the solution is for administrators to enforce the existing sanctions regime", that's easier said than done. For a topic ban to be justifiable, the damage needs to have already happened, usually multiple times. A battleground-mentality comment, a GS notification, further incivility, a warning, less disruptive behavior, further discussion with someone who will never get the point, then "finally" a personal attack that closes the case. Afterwards, accusations of bias, an appeal, continuation of the content dispute on the blocked user's talk page, off-wiki requests for meatpuppetry, a huge amount of drama caused by an attempt to reduce disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the block of WP:AN, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#cite_note-1, but with the recent RfC in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)]
Statement by El_C
I'm listed as a party, but 90 percent of admin action I've taken in the topic area were in the first 9 months of the pandemic. It's been about 6 months now since I've actively used my watchlist, which I feel greatly hinders my understanding of where the project is at COVID-wise (though some renewed activity at RfPP has provided me with a snapshot of sorts). And, I've been away for the last month, so obviously I know little if anything that has happened throughout that time. Anyway, while I've taken some sporadic COVID GS action recently by occasionally responding to requests on my talk page and the odd noticeboard thread, there hasn't been that many of these (not enough to keep me in the loop, is the point).
With regards to the lab leak theory, outside Wikipedia, there have been some important developments, mainly, now we have both the Trump and Biden (at present) administrations being on record as saying that it merits further investigation. Whatever American geopolitical posturing might also be at play, this doesn't change from the fact that the Chinese are opaque-as-fuck. I fear, then, that MEDRS and NOTNEWS may be used as blunt instruments to dilute this reality, although that does not mean I'm calling for standards to be loosened. But framing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory," per se. — that seems off to me. On the flip side, of course, pursuit of better balance should not give license to pro-lab leak theory activism (quite a challenge, then).
As for absorbing the COVID GS into
Empiricus-sextus: Like. Thank you for sharing your perspective, eloquently and substantively. I find the reasoning behind your position, which I feel largely expands and expounds my own, quite compelling. Respect. El_C 15:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP:GS/COVID19#Log_of_page-level_restrictions, you'll see that the lion's share of my COVID-19 GS admin actions were back in March 2020. Also, a bit of a boast: I'm also the one who first Posted about the virus at ITN (on Jan 20 2020) — diff(/self bow).
- Anyway, to reiterate, I haven't really dealt with the lab leak hypothesis per se. (I don't actually know that much about it, truth be told). The SS ban, as can be seen
above(edited: in the Tinybubi collapsed thread below), was about borderline-WP:OUTING + related-disparagement which followed an earlier ban, while the Feynstein voluntary sanction was per their own request. Update to that: yesterday, Feynstein asked for the restriction to be lifted, a request which I've granted. In that request, Feynstein also said:]Thank you very much for your help back in february, you didn't "mishandle" anything. You helped me make it end when I was in my (let's say more intense) phase and wasn't really liking how I was being treated as a conspiracy theorist
(diff). So there you have it. Anyway, thanks for the ping and for adding a critical and respectful voice to the conversation. El_C 13:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Tinybubi thread collapsed. El_C 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
A lot of
WP:CIR) interpretation regarding them. El_C 18:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC) ]
|
This is another critique of Nosebagbear's position which advances the notion that GS is superior to ACDS, a stance which they have asserted on multiple occasions. As I mentioned elsewhere recently, GS is basically ACDS-light, because with ACDS, like GS, issues may be raised at AN/ANI, but unlike it, ACDS also has AE/ARCA as forums. Unlike myself, who view these more often than not as superior forums, Nosebagbear's position seems to be that not only are AE/ARCA inferior in this regard, but that they are actually a detriment.
But this, I submit to the Committee and to participants, and to Nosebagbear themsleves, is the problem: Nosebagbear never substantiates beyond vague generalities. For example, a central reasoning behind my position (as I note in the first comment in my section here) is that AE, for example, aids complex and/or contentious cases by providing a structured format, which (like here) is subject to a word limit. This, I've argued here and elsewhere, tempers the sort of freeflowing AN/ANI threaded discussions that often turn into confusing (and confused) TLDR filibustering sessions. And that, in turn, often results in such discussions becoming virtually impenetrable to outside reviewers (what these discussions desperately need most of all).
So, Nosebagbear —whom I feel bad for putting on blast, but nonetheless feel their argument is important to address for the record— never really acknowledges with any substance, I feel. They never attempt to substantively refute these arguments (forget about evidence, just the arguments, overall), yet remains entrenched in their position, still. I'm all for reforming ACDS —and was quite active in the Committee's recent community consultation effort toward that end (where I raised, among other things, this stance on Nosebagbear's part)— but such a reform ought to be a cautious undertaking, I challenge. Arguments ought to not only be substantive, but also responsive. With respect to Nosebagbear, whom I do respect, but I also feel that some soul-searching is due in this regard. And they are not the only ones to advance this (or similar) stance, I'd stress. Let's not have this debate limited to aimless cross-currents. El_C 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, stop blocking my pings! (diff) Anyway, briefly: I'm not exactly sure what is meant by [AE's] "double evidentiary threshold." In any case, I'm happy to discuss this further with you in a forum of your choosing. Best regards, El_C 15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Alexbrn
I don't think the situation has deteriorated yet to the extent that a full case would be useful, and it may in fact create even more of a time sink for a topic which might blow over. Given that there are parallel problems for quite a few, arguably more important, aspects of COVID-19 (e.g. around treatment and vaccination) a case just on the origin of the virus would also be too specific in my view.
I would support the imposition of DS as a way of improving the situation and helping head off possible future trouble.
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
As I've been invited to comment: Based on my understanding of the issues, I personally don't think a full case will help. There are probably any number of editors whose behaviour on this topic can be characterised as problematic, but ArbCom cannot realistically topic ban them all (nor would it help IMO). For the most part, the most persistent offenders already have been, or were very close to a topic ban and then voluntarily desisted. This specific topic area doesn't have all too many admins which naturally doesn't help enforcement, but ToBeFree and El C in particular, and Boing before he handed in his mop, have helped out substantially. The case request has parallels to the Kurds case earlier this year, except that had smaller number of (and more discernible) participants, and there was a complete inability for the community to resolve the issues. Here, while enforcement is very much hanging by a thread (of a few admins on-and-off), I think more or less the community has handled it well to this point; that may change if one or two admins go inactive. Another change in the past few months has been increased editor participation on the content, and I think volume of community attention often helps with ensuring behavioural issues don't hamper (as much) our content policies being followed. Hope this statement helps.
Re SoWhy: Due to the current staffing issues of AE, I'm sceptical that opening it up as a venue will make a meaningful difference. It's at a point where one is better off trying ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: FWIW, I feel that RfC on MEDRS (which I also opposed, as I don't believe the origins of a virus constitutes medical advice or has a direct impact on the health choices someone makes) is as best tangential to the behavioural problems in the area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of what happens with this request, there are a couple of statements on this page that, combined with the rest of the authors' editing history, suggest administrative intervention may be necessary, including the one directly below. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I must disagree with Nosebagbear. Per another discussion, GS derived from ArbCom's DS. As far as anyone can tell from the history, the entire system has been an inconsistent mess since, reflected even in the misnomer "GS". ArbCom's DS is mostly functionally equivalent but better; it's tidier, has proper oversight (AN threads for clarification will archive w/ minimal participation; at least ARCAs on DS require the Committee to take action or affirmatively decide not to), and provides access to AE/ARCA. The DS topic area should not be split up, which would be unnecessarily confusing and bureaucratic. Sanctions should be transferred over for the same reasons.
The only issue with the motion is point (iii). I'd guess that this motion is copied from an old one, but (iii) is now outdated. The idea of a log of notifications for GS was scrapped when I moved it into the edit filter system last year, so alerts are logged for COVID GS the same way as any ArbCom GS. Resetting the clock on those, as implied by the motion's wording, would be immensely confusing and impractical. BDD may wish to reword that portion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @BDD: I would delete the entire provision of (iii). I think the "notifications" thing it refers to is stuff like this. But since they're now in the same edit filter log as ArbCom's 'alerts' (example), they're no longer added as notifications on the GS subpage. As worded,
Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire.
implies that the alert given to User:Gcmackay on 22 November 2020, currently expiring 22 November 2021, will become an alert as if it were given on 12 June 2021 (expiring 12 June 2022), along with all other alerts issued before the motion passes. This concept wouldn't really make sense anymore, and would be impracticable to enforce at AE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Tinybubi
- Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_35#The_Question_of_Origin
- Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_36#RfC_on_inclusion_of_lab-accident_theory
- Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2/Archive_8#Investigations_China_Lab_Theory
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User:_Britishfinance
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Sourcing_with_Frontiers_Journal_in_Public_Health
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#Are_New_York_Magazine_and_Infection_Control_Today_reliable_sources_for_the_idea_that_COVID-19_leaked_from_a_Chinese_lab?
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Subtle_vandalism_and_a_possibly_more_serious_issue_of_conduct_by_User:Thucydides411
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Edit_warring,told_to"fuck_off"_by_Arcturus
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77#COVID_lab_leak,_yet_again
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Editor(s)_encouraging_disruptive_editing
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive333#Discussion_related_to_data_access_for_deleted_sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinybubi (talk • contribs)
This is primarily a
have abused their admin tools, which are only now being recognised and rectified.Here is how it started: following an ANI started by Jtbobwaysf [3] and grievances I expressed in a more intimate setting [4], ToBeFree corrected his mistake of tbanning Empiricus-sextus, but further rectification may still be required on his part. Unless ToBeFree can provide evidence to support Gimiv’s alleged BE as Billybostickson, I ask him to lift the indef ban, so that Hut_8.5 can restore the contents of their sandbox. My discussions with ToBeFree have always been cordial, and his recent actions have restored my faith in our admin corps. But I am more concerned now with Drmies who is still taking orders from RC, meting out bans without due process. Diffs to follow.
RC, who proudly displays a big bold Fuck off on their user page, has succeeded in persuading several admins that all the IPs and new user that sign up to complain about the significant
As I said in RC’s last ANI [19], the
In another ANI related to disruption in the
Despite RC's efforts and reverts, the NPOV issues with our coverage of COVID-19 origins have improved significantly, thanks mainly to Bakkster Man and Forich. The community will be able to manage on its own, so long as we have good admins like ToBeFree who are willing to own up to their mistakes, and fairly and transparently enforce policy going forward. It's worth noting that editors have never taken their differences through WP:DR.
I am emailing Arbcom with further comment and copying in DGG, Doc James and Robert McClenon.
Tinybubi (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes El_C, I too read ScrupulousScribe's complaint about your tban of Feynstein and I 100% agree it was disgrace. You may not have known about the bullying that made Feynstein request take the tban upon himself, but SS gave you a diff to read [21]. Did you read it? This bullying was by the same people who got SS tbanned [22], and nearly tried the same thing with Arcturus [23], who retired from the incident. I don’t care what you knew then. Read the diffs and reconsider your actions.
- As for ScrupulousScribe, you reinstated a topic ban on him without explaining why, thinking that the earlier topic ban by Boing justified your action. But it did not. That is WP:BLACKSHEEP.
- We have a song in Hebrew called Wikipedia. You should help translate the lyrics and meaning for the benefit of everyone here. Tinybubi (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by CatDamon
I am also confused by the purpose of this ArbCom request case....is this in relation to the discussion here? If so, this seems a bit absurd. Taking a case to ArbCom because you don't like the result of a discussion seems unproductive and a bad standard to set. If that IS what this is about, I would recommend that thread be read- it's important context. If that isn't what this is about, some clarity would be great. Thank you all! CatDamon (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Gotcha, thank you for the clarification. Agreed, the less harassment and personal attacks the better. Hoping that those involved can come to at least some reasonable terms of agreement, and move forward constructively from there. Thanks all! CatDamon (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: I think the big question in regards to here and the point you just made about your stance here are whether the standards we're adhering to when citing statements regarding "disease and pandemic origins" should simply be the default WP:RS, or WP:MEDRS. I am not sure those participating in the RfC were arguing or would recognize the category you put forth of "high-quality" or "our best sources" and the designation really does seem subjective. Hoping that could help clarify why I (and likely others) are a bit confused with the designations- particular with respect to what was covered in the RfC. Thanks all! CatDamon 22:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by DanielNotwithstanding this request here, I took action as an administrator and in line with our blocking policy, to remove the editing privileges of Tinybubi for 48 hours for this. My talk page notification is here. I submitted this to ANI for review at the same time, in the relevant section. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC) ]
Statement by BerchanhimezI doubt I'll have time to participate greatly in a case (and I don't particularly desire to be a named party and thus obligated to participate), but I'll point out a few things I think should be noted. No, GS aren't working - because AE isn't an option, and because administrators don't want to touch it with a 39.5 foot pole (similar to AP2). Threads about obviously disruptive editors on ANI draw little outside attention, and even when the disruption continues in the thread itself action isn't taken. Perhaps having it be ArbCom sanctions would help as AE would be an option, but I'm unsure. I think what's really necessary is likely an extended confirmed restriction, similar to Arab-Israeli and India-Pakistan arrangements. Unfortunately, time and time again, it's been obvious that the vast, vast majority of newer editors wanting to edit in the COVID area have simply biomedical information - this could be done with a simple statement that in ArbCom's opinion, MEDRS is required for that topic area. While that may be considered "content related", it's really not - it's related to the enforcement of our policies on reliable sources and preference for better sources over lesser - and sourcing requirements have been issued by administrators as DS before, which ArbCom could just do here instead of leaving it to admins to try and enforce. The problems in this topic area are similar to AP2 - both new and established editors hold strongly held beliefs about aspects of the pandemic - and frequently get disruptive when doing so. Removing newer editors (almost always not helpful) and enforcing as a remedy strong sourcing requirements (MEDRS being the easiest to enforce, but a more carefully crafted restriction would perhaps be okay) would help greatly in reducing disruption and allowing those of us trying to write an encyclopedia to be able to focus on that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC) ]
54129
Just put the whole of COVID-19 in its entirety under AC/DS already. As noted above, this particular aspect is too specific, but if there are simar problems in other areas (of course there are) then broadly construed is a friend. ——Serial 11:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Yo RandomCanadian, that's just my opinion on what they should do, not a suggestion that you'd done anything untoward :) all the best, ——Serial 14:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
|
Preliminary decision
Clerk notes
Origins of COVID-19: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- @RandomCanadian: I for one am not
astute enough
to determine from your statement and the linked threads what, in concrete terms, you view as the serious conduct dispute that the community has been unable to resolve. There are surely many issues in this topic area, many of which can be handled by the community and a fraction of which are plausibly better handled by the committee. I'm certainly not going to vote to accept a case on every instance of disruptive editing on the origins of COVID-19 in the last year. Please better contextualize the dispute. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC) - I won't have time until the weekend to dive into the large number of diffs already presented, but I will be looking through those and any other community member statements whether there are indications that the community cannot handle this topic area. I will be approaching with the bias that the community is capable of handling this, despite what I know to be frustration in at least one ANI discussion (perhaps already linked above) that AE can't hear COVID related GS enforcement requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: there is precedent with both Abortion and Gamergate (and perhaps others I don't know off the top of my head) for ArbCom assuming a community imposed discretionary sanctions and turning it into an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction so only #1 needs to be answered. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have been spending the morning reading through the links provided by RC that dispute resolution has been tried. Having gone down the list and just read Biomedical information are there any diffs of conduct issues on the other talk pages? All I see at Biomedical research is a content dispute going through a very reasonable process. If so please present those rather than links to entire talk pages. Otherwise I plan to skip the other talk pages and finish my reading with the 3 FTN discussions linked. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: am I correct that you're suggesting a full case rather than just converting the GS to DS? If so, can you clarify what you would see the scope of that case being? How Fringe is applied? An analysis of the behavior of certain editors in the COVID topic area? I want to make sure I understand your thinking. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bradv: as far as I am aware we have 1 well-developed tool that we can use by making it DS - AE. Unless I'm missing something. In which case please let me know. I'm inclined to vote to accept. At a case we do have other tools available to us, specifically around user sanctions and a workshop where we can float other alternatives. Before voting to accept I'd want to make sure that the parties are the right parties if we do open the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: at the moment Empiricus is, by my count, at 613 words (582 when you posted) which is over the 500 words alloted but other editors here are also over their allotted word counts, including you at 1199. The Committee often chooses to relax word counts some at the case request stage to ensure we have all the information necessary about whether or not to accept a case. At ArbCom the conduct of all parties is examined and I don't see anything in Empiricus' writing that is out of bound of the norms of this stage. If we proceed to a case statements like " totally dogmatic (and wrong) application of MEDRS" will need evidence (diffs) but the general pointers you've already provided to numerous long discussions is, in my mind, enough justification at this stage of the case. However, I would not want any editors to take this as any kind of permission to stretch the bounds of decorum. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bradv: as far as I am aware we have 1 well-developed tool that we can use by making it DS - AE. Unless I'm missing something. In which case please let me know. I'm inclined to vote to accept. At a case we do have other tools available to us, specifically around user sanctions and a workshop where we can float other alternatives. Before voting to accept I'd want to make sure that the parties are the right parties if we do open the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: am I correct that you're suggesting a full case rather than just converting the GS to DS? If so, can you clarify what you would see the scope of that case being? How Fringe is applied? An analysis of the behavior of certain editors in the COVID topic area? I want to make sure I understand your thinking. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have been spending the morning reading through the links provided by RC that dispute resolution has been tried. Having gone down the list and just read Biomedical information are there any diffs of conduct issues on the other talk pages? All I see at Biomedical research is a content dispute going through a very reasonable process. If so please present those rather than links to entire talk pages. Otherwise I plan to skip the other talk pages and finish my reading with the 3 FTN discussions linked. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: there is precedent with both Abortion and Gamergate (and perhaps others I don't know off the top of my head) for ArbCom assuming a community imposed discretionary sanctions and turning it into an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction so only #1 needs to be answered. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- So between weekend responsibilities I have spent a good portion of the day reading through the materials presented for our consideration. I had, based on the statements here and the one section I linked to above, expected to end in favor of ArbCom assuming responsibility for this under DS so claims could be heard at AE and thought that this could be an example as to why we need more admin. However, after reading everything I have come to a different conclusion. The reason that there hasn't been admin action is because there isn't widespread community consensus for the actions requested; as evidence of this see the current RfC about whether writing about a pandemic's origin requires MEDRS. At this moment in time, the discussion seems to be either a no consensus or consensus against such a requirement. Further in reading through the discussions I see many people blocked and know still others to be topic banned. To the extent that administrative action is justified and allowed under our policies, ArbCom or otherwise, a point that I know has frustrated ToBeFree, it seems to be happen. Now that said, if there was a community consensus for turning GS/COVID19 into DS/COVID so that it fell under ArbCom's jurisdiction and rule making and thus would be eligible for hearing at AE, I would want us to agree to do it. But absent formal consensus from the community I don't see justification under ARBPOL for us to take over this general sanction. I'm not formally declining because it's possible evidence could be presented that would cause me to change my mind and because I would support a motion to enable this offer to the community but as of now I would be against us accepting this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Accept There is a problem here. It feels like the motion is a "We need to do something, converting GS to DS is something, let's convert" situation. However, that is not the only something we can do. I think a full case, with the right parties, will lead to a better outcome even if one piece of that is to convert. I understand a case is time consuming compared to a motion, but I also think it's more in line with our explicit and implicit mandates. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- So between weekend responsibilities I have spent a good portion of the day reading through the materials presented for our consideration. I had, based on the statements here and the one section I linked to above, expected to end in favor of ArbCom assuming responsibility for this under DS so claims could be heard at AE and thought that this could be an example as to why we need more admin. However, after reading everything I have come to a different conclusion. The reason that there hasn't been admin action is because there isn't widespread community consensus for the actions requested; as evidence of this see the current RfC about whether writing about a pandemic's origin requires MEDRS. At this moment in time, the discussion seems to be either a no consensus or consensus against such a requirement. Further in reading through the discussions I see many people blocked and know still others to be topic banned. To the extent that administrative action is justified and allowed under our policies, ArbCom or otherwise, a point that I know has frustrated ToBeFree, it seems to be happen. Now that said, if there was a community consensus for turning GS/COVID19 into DS/COVID so that it fell under ArbCom's jurisdiction and rule making and thus would be eligible for hearing at AE, I would want us to agree to do it. But absent formal consensus from the community I don't see justification under ARBPOL for us to take over this general sanction. I'm not formally declining because it's possible evidence could be presented that would cause me to change my mind and because I would support a motion to enable this offer to the community but as of now I would be against us accepting this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- What I'm most interested in hearing about is: are the COVID GS working? Is there a compelling reason that we need to take this on and maybe institute DS? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the problem is GS not working because of a lack of enforcement, I'm interested to hear whether the community thinks that a possible solution could be to take over the existing GS as ArbCom DS by motion without needing a full case. This would open up AE as a place to report violations. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't had the time to read all the relevant material here just yet, but I am pretty much always interested in the idea that we go with motions rather than a full case if there is any indication that may be sufficient, and this may be an area where moving from community GS to ArbCom DS might be a good solution. talk) 02:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)]
- Accept, with a preference for trying to resolve this by motion first. I disagree that we require a formal community consensus in order to act on this – it's clear that this topic area is fraught with controversy, and the committee has well-developed tools that can help. – bradv🍁 23:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, even in the early days of the pandemic there was a demonstrated need for DS almost immediately. If I recall correctly, some administrators were using the Acupuncture case in order to levy sanctions on COVID-related fringe theories, which was part of the impetus for the community-imposed GS. If the community had not authorized GS on this topic area (rather perfunctorily too, iirc), I'm certain the committee would have done so if requested. (As an aside, I'm not sure what your "unfairness" comment is about, but suspect that that belongs to a discussion about DS in general rather than this case request. I'm interested to hear an explanation, although it may be better suited to a talk page somewhere.) – bradv🍁 14:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Final decision
Remedies
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Contentious topic designation
Superseeded version of (i)
|
---|
|
1) (i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and COVID-19, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
- Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstentions by motion at 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Amended 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Enforcement
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Motions and Amendments
Motion: Discretionary sanctions (June 2021)
The case request is accepted under the title COVID-19 and resolved by motion with the following remedy:
- Discretionary sanctions
(i) The community
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
- Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstentions by motion which subsequently created and closed this case at 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
Point (i) of Remedy 1 is replaced with:
(i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and COVID-19, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
Each reference to the prior
- Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motionat 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Enforcement log
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.