Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case
(Redirected from Wikipedia:COVIDDS)
Shortcuts
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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 motion on 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist case (and talk) page: Front


Case information

edit

Involved parties

edit

Prior dispute resolution

edit

Preliminary statements

edit

Statement by RandomCanadian

edit

I don't know where, or how, to start. As you're surely aware, our pale blue dot has been hit by a viral infection which has spread all across. This has lead to much constructive, spirited efforts here to cover this emerging topic with great accuracy and great diligence on-wiki.

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

Statement by ToBeFree

edit

I had been invited to provide feedback about behavioral issues in this area, by editors from both sides of the dispute:

I have attempted to enforce the verifiability and civility policies with the following logged actions per WP:GS/COVID19:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Regarding the block of Gimiv, the reason and all evidence available to me is described in my second and third paragraph at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&type=revision&diff=1026360790&oldid=1026348215&diffmode=source#Grievances_and_questions. The entire discussion before archival is at Special:Permalink/1027113433. Unless there has since been a checkuser investigation, the correct appeal venue in case of severe concerns is probably WP:AN, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#cite_note-1, but with the recent RfC in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

edit

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 WP:ACDS, that's an obvious yes from me. Such a measure, in fact, would be beneficial for any active GS, because the WP:AE noticeboard tempers TLDR filibustering in otherwise freeflowing AN/ANI threads, which often turn them into impenetrable (to outside reviewers) timesinks. My view on this is well known (in-my-mind!), so probably not much that I need to expound on that front. As for subjecting the COVID topic area (or lab leak subarea, somehow) to the WP:500-30 tenure, I don't know how confidently I'm able to advise on that, but for now, my immediate impulse would be against the Committee enacting (or even proposing) it by motion, though I do feel it is within the Committee's remit. El_C 19:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Empiricus-sextus, for sure. And thanks for elaborating further. You raise important issues, I think. Again, I'm listed as a party here, but if you look at 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)[reply]
Tinybubi thread collapsed. El_C 15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS when it comes to Tinybubi, and not just here, but also, look at their talk page. And in this very page (diff). This user emails me for help yesterday (the first time I've learned of their existence) in a nearly incomprehensible way, to the point that I don't know what I'm asked to do — yet today, they disparage me (and others), with a long-winded polemic filled with misrepresentations and aspersions, which, really, only serves to distract from the matter at hand, I feel. Perhaps it's a somewhat cunning way to preemptively designate certain admins as WP:INVOLVED...? I can't tell. But, regardless, at this time, I'm much more leaning toward a WP:PACT than an WP:AGF (by way of WP:CIR) interpretation regarding them. El_C 18:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take for example the matter of Feynstein, which both Tinybubi and ScrupulousScribe accused me of mishandling. So, this is what happened: on Feb 26, Feynstein, whom I've never met before or known about, came to my talk page to ask that I close a lab leak-related ANI thread involving them with a voluntary restriction, as they were finding the ensuing discussion to be distressing (diff). So, I did, logging it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary , per their request. Anyway... El_C 19:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost immediately after I posted the above, Tinybubi responded to my note on their talk page regarding their email to me (diff), but as I noted in response, I am no longer interested in assisting them at this time (diff). El_C 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now Tinybubi edits their lengthy comment here, to soften the part which read: RC can often be found stalking the talk page of his favorite pocket admin [Links to Drmies talk page acrhives] into a far less attacky RC can often be found on admin talk pages (diff). I guess that's not a bad thing... El_C 20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC) — Okay, I understand what happened now. Struck. El_C 20:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tinybubi, this is a volunteer project. I didn't have time to look further into it. Feynstein seems to have been in genuine distress, so I granted their request for a voluntary restriction. That's all there is to it. El_C 21:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My sanction to SS (on their talk page right now) reads:

You have been sanctioned due to having repeatedly speculated on editors' nationality and related language-proficiency in connection with a dispute involving the COVID19 topic area (permanent link). That is not okay! It now looks like the previous (narrow) COVID19 sanction was lifted prematurely, so not only restoring it, but a wider, all-encompassing prohibition is due, as well. I would be open to considering an appeal in no less than 6 months, contingent on productive editing elsewhere. [...] El_C 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what is unclear about that. El_C 21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tinybubi, you can call it a "disgrace" all you like, but the fact remains that I still don't wish to engage in an in-depth investigation into what happened to Feynstein. Honestly, I have neither the time (still) nor the inclination. If Feynstein wishes to see that restriction lifted, they are free to make a request to that effect (which I would likely grant). El_C 21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

edit

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. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

edit

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Tinybubi

edit

This is primarily a WP:ADMINCOND issue, and as Robert McClenon says, there is also interplay with content, policy and editor conduct. We need an update to WP:ADMINCOND stressing the importance of equal enforcement of policy in WP:GCONT topics. Several admins, including ToBeFree, El_C and Drmies 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 WP:NPOV issues in our coverage of COVID-19 origins is the crafty work of a WP:CABAL called DRASTIC, a group of scientists and activists who base their operations Twitter. This is why I asked ToBeFree if he had been contacted offwiki when banning Gimiv. RC throws around this Twitter canvassing accusation a LOT [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and he says he has even emailed ArbCom about this threat [16] (deleted diff 02:06, 26 May 2021). RC can often be found on admin talk pages, helping out with odd jobs, and sometimes peppering in a few reports on any new IP or user whose POV on COVID-19 origins he doesn’t like [17] [18], circumventing WP:SPI, and effecting a number of bans for BE and harassment (some of which are questionable).

As I said in RC’s last ANI [19], the WP:NOLABLEAK cabal is the real problem here, and ironically, they’ve just nominated Drastic Team for deletion and the DRASTIC cabal are nowhere to be found. There is just that one guy who doesn't even know how to !vote. Many of the voters there are voting to Redirect, without even merging the clearly WP:N and WP:DUE content into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. This cabal wants things censored.

In another ANI related to disruption in the Uyghur genocide topic area, I proposed for admins to launch an investigation [20], given the behavioral similarities with certain editors involved in the COVID-19 origins topic, which RC duly closed. I though El_C might be a good candidate to lead this investigation, after he lifts the questionable tbans on ScrupulousScribe and Feynstein, but since his post below indicates his POV was a factor in at least one of his tbans, I would nominate someone else. In the meantime, admins and arbitrators are reminded that #1 on Jimbo Wales's list of principles is Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. ToBeFree's proposal above to lock down more shows shows that despite his repentive actions, he still does not understand what the problem is here. An open community is a healthy community, rejecting undesirables, just like an immune system. A closed community will reject pathogens but also neutral stuff, and worse, helpful stuff, which is autoimmune disease.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Statement by CatDamon

edit

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Daniel

edit

Notwithstanding 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)[reply]

Statement by Berchanhimez

edit

I 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 been here to push their political POV and not build an encyclopedia, leading to time waste and frustration among those of us attempting to fight it. I'd further like to see ArbCom take action with regards to the woeful attempt by some in the community to attempt to reduce the quality of sources permitted in the area by saying that somehow the origin of an ongoing pandemic (which hasn't even finished being investigated) is somehow not 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)[reply]

To clarify, I don’t think just assuming it as DS is sufficient. Some form of either direct sourcing requirement or extended-confirmed limit on the topic area is likely necessary. If it wasn’t getting handled at ANI, I doubt it will at AE. All of this can be done by motion, however, and I agree a case likely isn’t necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the people claiming the consensus has changed to prove that - simply saying "peer review isn't fast" is not proof that the consensus has changed. Precisely why we need MEDRS here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's striking to me that with all the evidence of how long it takes to even maybe get GS applied at AN(/I) people still seem to think it "hasn't been tried" or isn't shown to not be working. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

54129

edit
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

edit

This is the right approach to deal with a rotating cast of single purpose, disruptive accounts: [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. SoWhy

Jehochman Talk 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the community passes a general sanction the Committee should take note and should consider whether to ratify it as a discretionary sanction. If there is some problem, the Committee could overturn a general sanction, such as if the discussion is poorly attended or plagued with sock puppetry. This procedure would effectively merge general sanctions and discretionary sanctions. Perhaps you want to think amount a general motion to import all existing general sanctions as discretionary sanctions. You could weed out any that seem obsolete, and you could gently recraft the wording of any that are not clear. Jehochman Talk 19:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

edit

(shamelessly stolen from many RfA statements) "Support I thought Covid was already a AC/DS." More specifically (and per above), SoWhy, Yes [I] thinks that a possible solution could be to take over the existing GS as ArbCom DS by motion without needing a full case. Thank you for that generous offer. — Ched (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

edit

Statement by Nosebagbear

edit

So the issues/problems aren't really disputable, except to scale (which, I concede, is a fundamental and crucial question). However there are really two questions as to what ARBCOM should do here

  1. Can the current GS/standard community activity hold the line, or not? If not, then:
  2. Since I don't think ARBCOM can remove GS, would broadening it to DS help?

I'm inclined to think the answer to question 1 was "not as stands, but it's readily done" - we just need to draw some more attention to it. If nothing else, the sheer creation of this case request may serve that purpose. However, I won't swear to it. But. I don't think adding it to DS will greatly enhance the effect. What it really needs is more eyeballs, not more powers, and I don't think adding it DS will add more than a crafted request to the Community.

It certainly doesn't need a full case, the logical options are "no ARBCOM action beyond requesting more community attention" and "motion to add to DS, either specifically or broadly (and request more eyeballs)". I think the former suffices, and where it suffices, DS should be avoided. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I remember reading that precedent now, I'm not sure I agree with it, but obviously it's there - however, the "possible to remove" bit doesn't render #2 moot. If #1 was a no, it would still need to be determined if converting to DS would help for it to make sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: that would be an insanely broad remit to me - it would be dragging everyone into an American Politics coverage. I disagree with it being necessary to be under DS, but if they do decide to go down that path, it needs its own. That own would also need to be precisely defined to avoid dragging in all of Covid-GS given that the case summary is clearly nuanced in the areas it is concerned about Nosebagbear (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am particularly unhappy that the proposed motion for DS would change not just the "origins of Covid-19" but everything on Covid-19, and does so without even a case. AE has its insanely unfair evidentiary margin and I would never have supported the GS had I thought it was going to be changed into DS. ArbCom would not likely have created a Covid-19 DS regime without a full case, so it should not do so here (indeed, it shouldn't even with a case). Even were it to do so, I feel post-factum changes to sanctions already levied is immensely dubious and would encourage even those who support this highly unwise proposal to strike that aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This really should be in a community discussion section on the motion, but the Clerks haven't (yet) made on - currently we can only discuss through statements, which i know is not ideal plus the word count issues. @ProcrastinatingReader: - your reply doesn't address either unfairness issues (always trumps bureaucratic ease) or that the DS wouldn't likely have been created ab initio without a case and some number of those of us in the Community who originally agreed it wouldn't have if it was going to be taken off by AC Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: not sure why your ping on me didn't work, but don't worry - if I'm feisty in my opinions than I can hardly complain about others rebutting me with the same vigour! Anyway. I didn't want to pile on the specifics since I don't know how the Clerks are treating word counts given the partial bifurcation of the discussions going on (especially as a non-party). I raised some specifics in the recent DS community consultation, and dropped what I viewed as the principal specific concern (double evidentiary threshold) on Bradv's TP at request. While many of us on this page are well aware that DS appellants can use AN, the page and templates push people who are new to the sphere down the AE pathway. Were it a normal DS discussion I wouldn't raise facets like that as they're more general - here it would be a change of circumstance, so I felt it applicable to raise those concerns. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

edit

I have edited on this topic mostly peripherally, and with more energy earlier in the year than now. (For example, I argued for the deletion of a page whose creator was later blocked for socking.) I share the nominator's concerns and generally find myself agreeing with 'bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez. The subject of COVID — not just origins, but treatments, and everything else — is the first time that I've genuinely feared that our line won't hold. The amount of energy that people are willing to bring to disrupt the encyclopedia is effectively unbounded, and there are too many bad sources, and good sources bits of which can be used in bad faith, for our regular mechanisms to carry the load. I doubt that more eyes alone will be enough to keep our article quality from deteriorating, since an inrush of editors who are neither medical experts nor familiar with fringe rhetorical tricks will just lead to pointless arguments and wiki-lawyering behind the scenes. I see from comments above that the suggestion of tak[ing] over the existing GS as ArbCom DS has already attracted some approval, and on balance, it seems like a good idea to me, too. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

edit

This matter has become highly politicized in the US, which, to my way of thinking, situates it under AP2. So apply DS to this topic under AP2 and be done. I would also suggest than an RfC over at WP:FTN that's broadly advertised could very well solve the content dispute at the heart of this matter, and thereby address a lot of the behavioral complaints. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

edit

I agree with those supporting ArbCom taking over the community GS and making Covid-19 a specific DS subject area. I don't disagree with MPants that much of the problem is the politicizing of it in the US, but there are other aspects of it which extend outside that penumbra, so a new DS regime would, I think, be a better response. I would hope that subsuming the community GS could be done via motion and not require a full case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no evidence to offer to support the following statement, and would be very hesitant to undertake the research necessary to accumulate such evidence, so I'll have to present this as simply my opinion based on observation: I believe that, in general, ArbCom-mandated Discretionary Sanctions are taken more seriously by the admins corps than Community-mandated General Sanctions are. I'm not very sure of the reasons for this -- although one may be a general disdain for the "dramah boards" which are where General Sanctions are discussed and implemented -- but I believe that it's a true thing. Admins may be hesitant to enforce GS-based blocks because they have less inherent gravitas to them then a DS-block would, with ArbCom standing behind it. (I think that is the case even though, to a certain extent, the reputation of ArbCom has taken something of a hit in the last couple of years.) If so, then it would be beneficial to the project for ArbCom to take over the Community GS and put its stamp of approval on it. I have the feeling that if this happened, we would see more enforcement of violations in the Covid subject area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

edit

I wasn't named as a party in this case request (and have never participated in any ArbCom proceedings), but I've participated in some of the discussions that led up to it; here is what I think. Most of these discussions have been noticeboard threads about content issues, and largely resemble one another (i.e. the same people tend to comment in them to make more or less the same points). On a contentious subject, where any possible article content would have some kind of political implication, it's important that we present readers a consensus of reliable sources, with a minimum of editorializing. I stand by my March 2 comment, in this thread linked from the initial post, and what I said there remains applicable. This has indeed been a massive timesink; mudslinging and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has hardly been limited to one "side", and IPs and SPAs are far from the only people who disagree.

The main thing I have to contribute here is in regard to an ongoing discussion at the WP:BIOMED supplement to WP:MEDRS. In this RfC, which has been open for less than two weeks, a proposed update to unambiguously define disease and pandemic origins as a form of biomedical information is currently (by my count) sitting at 16 supports and 41 opposes. While I realize that an RfC is not a vote, it seems rather inappropriate to ask the Arbitration Committee to enforce a particular interpretation of a guideline when over 70% of participants in a currently active RfC have opposed the adoption of that interpretation. jp×g 20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, regarding the content issue itself (which quite a few people have brought up on this page), the extent of my beliefs on the subject are that the hypothesis in question is unlikely, but there isn't conclusive evidence either way, and as of June 2021, a large number of reliable sources seem to now think it's worth investigating. I don't think that an arbitration case request page is the proper place to argue about whether it is true or false. jp×g 22:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

edit

Yet another RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, yada-yada my POV is better than your POV tug-o-war. Admins/arbs, please...the topic shouldn't matter...behavior does. Focus on easy-to-spot disruptive behavior, but if you're not seeing PAs, threats, edit warring, BLP vios, then simply stand down and let the editors figure out how to collaborate and reach an agreement. Jiminy Cricket - DS will only give first mover advantage and open the door to POV creep. Any one of the involved editors can simply call an RfC and be done with the disagreement. Maybe all involved in the disagreement should go stand in the corner for 48 hours - that will straighten the line they're walking pretty quickly. Atsme 💬 📧 23:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

edit

ArbCom should accept this case, but it may be a difficult case to deal with because of the complex interplay of policy, content, and conduct. The issue of the origin of covid-19 is one that is entangled with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and medically reliable sources. Controversy is largely but not entirely the result of a disconnect between: the medically reliable source guideline, whose purpose is to ensure that Wikipedia provides the most accurate encyclopedic summary of medical knowledge, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the even more basic function of summarizing human knowledge in accordance with a neutral point of view which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. Scientific opinion on the origin of covid is changing rapidly, more rapidly than the peer review process can provide high-quality secondary sources reflecting current thinking. ArbCom may need to consider whether the "encyclopedic lag" resulting from application of the medically reliable sources guideline, delaying the coverage of the debate over the lab leak hypothesis, is detrimental. Another aspect of this case might be reviewing the sanctions on editors who were pushing the lab leak hypothesis, whose mistake may have been being right before their time.

This case request is entitled Origins of COVID-19. ArbCom should consider expanding the scope to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is the scope of the community general sanctions. The less difficult part of this case may be deciding to expand the scope and to convert the community sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Another less difficult part of this case may be identifying any particularly disruptive editors who can be sanctioned directly rather than left to general sanctions.

ArbCom should accept this case, which involves a complex interplay of policy, conduct, and content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the concerns of User:DGG as to how the guideline on medically reliable sources is being misused contrary to neutral point of view, which outranks any guidelines because it is the second pillar of Wikipedia. We are seeing tendentious efforts to enforce a "scientific" orthodoxy that is, among its other faults, inconsistent with the nature of science, which is an intellectually open-minded search for truth. As DGG says, the guideline on fringe science is being misused to suppress discussion of scientific inquiry.
I urge ArbCom to conduct a full case hearing, but to consider preliminary steps also, including the conversion of the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. A full case is needed because there are complex policy issues and complex misconduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Normchou

edit

I argued a while ago (before I was banned from touching this topic for 3 months) that some editors' behavior (including that of one of the requesters, as recent as this and this)—which I believe was also a contributing factor to my previous ban—originated from an "economic" issue. This may be a special case of COI editing, though I am not sure if/how our community policies and procedures are equipped to handle it. A decision from the ArbCom could be one of the few solutions that are still feasible. Normchou 💬 04:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC); edited 18:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: How I ended up being topic banned for 3 months was precisely because I spent substantial time and efforts "discussing" with "experienced" editors like you on that talk page. As I have alluded to above, I am not sure if/how our community policies and procedures are equipped to handle it, because "less experienced" editors are "deservingly" getting banned for making edits and improvements to articles. Normchou 💬 19:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: If the content issue was simply an "unacceptable" grammatic error, changing "Wuhan lab manufactured" to something like "Manufactured in a Wuhan lab", rather than a single revert of three different edits, would appear to be much more constructive behavior. Yet I concur with you that there is complaint/grievance here (otherwise this would be a non-issue and I believe we should all use our time more efficiently) for what I've observed to be consistent behavior from a handful of "experienced" editors, including RC who happened to initiate this ArbCom request (more examples here, here, and here, accompanied by their seemingly unconventional use of rollback) against a variety of other users, making the editing environment truly tough. As for your speculation, I think the purpose of that complaint was to cast aspersions on RandomCanadian and maybe muddy the waters, or stack the deck, before a case starts, I am confused about it, but can only beg to differ. Normchou 💬 22:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeydHuxtable

edit

Recommend decline. The Bidden report due out in August has a good chance of reducing editing tension. Declining avoids a dangerous dilemma. If the case was accepted and we let sceptical editors have their desired result, helping them to push their "lableak fringe" POV, we risk a massive dent to Wikipedias credibility.

Much harm has been done already, with editors deploying such absurd arguments as "LOL @ conspiracy theorists questioning the word of Chinese officials…. Huh? What do you mean we're doing the same re the Biden administration? The US and other western governments are obviously politically motivated, whereas the Chinese always tell the truth!"

On the other hand, a result assisting those seeking to write content reflecting the best available WP:RS would risk severely demoralising our valuable pro science editors.

One has to feel sorry for sceptical editors, their doubling down has been common practice among scientists for over a hundred years. Even in physics, leading scientists have often been unable to change their mind in the face of superior evidence. Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (That Plank's insight has general applicability to science was later well established by Thomas Kuhn & others.) That corruption is particularly rife in life sciences is well known, as is the fact that the previous apparent scientific consensus against lableak was manufactured in Feb 2020 by someone with an undeclared COI. In a sense, all scientists have a COI on this. As per Thomas Frank: if lableak is proven, we can expect the scientist and "expert-worshiping values of modern liberalism go up in a fireball of public anger"

Despite the above, Biotech & life scientists are a huge net positive overall, as are our as sceptical & pro-science editors. Yet Covid origin is too important an issue to be decided by anything less than an objective evaluation of the evidence. The mainstream won't allow COI scientists to prevail with their "lableak fringe" POV, as if that was accepted, the policy implication would be we need must more gain of function type virology research to help us develop new vaccines against scary nature. Whereas the balance of evidence currently points to an opposite policy – scaling back such lab work, and mandating BSL4 safety levels.

Except in the highly unexpected event that credible evidence for a natural origin emerges, there will be no return to the previously mainstream "lableak fringe" story smashed by Nick Wade. Too many eminent scientists are putting the good of humanity first. For geo-strategic reasons, it's also quite likely that stronger evidence for lableak will remain out of the public domain. So the pro science crowd needn't worry too much, the mainstream narrative may well remain that there is insufficient evidence to be sure either way.

Statement by Ivanvector

edit

The community has already endorsed community sanctions for COVID-19, and I note that an indefinite extendedconfirmed community sanction was logged on 13 February for Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, and per the page's protection log the sanction remains in force; however, only one editor-level sanction has been logged since that time, other than one which seems to have been an administrative error. To me this strongly suggests that the community sanctions are not being enforced, and no conclusion can be reached regarding their effectiveness absent any attempts at enforcement. I fail to see how adding the bureaucracy of arbitration will improve that situation: the solution is for administrators to enforce the existing sanctions regime. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this some more: the formality of an AE request compels resolution and action, while individual complaints under the GS may be difficult for individual admins to evaluate and enforce. The fact that no GS enforcement seems to have been attempted in some time, and considering the comments by other admins here, suggests that this is the case, and that Arbcom adopting the community sanctions as discretionary sanctions is likely to improve the situation. Therefore I recommend that Arbcom do so by motion, as some of the Arbs have already suggested. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC) ((disclosed alt, see talk pages))[reply]

Statement by isaacl

edit

The key question in my mind is if there is anything that can be accomplished in a case or motion that cannot be accomplished by the community under its existing authorization for general sanctions. If the community thinks the format used at arbitration enforcement would be more effective, it could agree to mandate it for the subject area in question. A shortage of willing administrators to help out isn't something the arbitration committee can address; the community either needs to find some new admin candidates or encourage existing admins to assist. Enacting extended-confirmed protection for related articles can also be done by the community. More radical out-of-the-box ideas would likely gain more acceptance if they went through a community discussion process, rather than decided upon by the arbitration committee. Perhaps a village pump thread can be opened to work on options? isaacl (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Beeblebrox's statement "I don't think this is ArbCom usurping the will of the community, because we're being asked to do something...", the request isn't as of yet based on a consensus view from the community, but from some interested editors. I appreciate in some cases the community may be too deadlocked to take further actions. It's not clear to me this is the case yet, though, as the community hasn't had a big-picture discussion (following up on the imposition of community general sanctions) on how to improve the situation overall. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Empiricus-sextus

edit

Many editors, also very experienced - are very frustrated because of the quality, objectivity and neutrality, indeed also because of our credibility - by strong MEDRS source filters. The discussion on the origin has changed a lot in the last months and has also become more objective (after Trump).Today it is the case that there is no longer a consensus of the global public opinion, of many serious scientists, of several states and of major media that the laboratory hypothesis "is per se" a conspiracy theory and must be serious investigated. The framing in the Wikipedia articles and supported by China ("the truth") that the laboratory hypothesis is a conspiracy theory - is obsolete, without global consensus. That we implicit postulate a Chinese "fring theory" (laboratory thesis = conspiracy theory) - is a curiosity for me and other editors. The request can only be understood in a way that any change of the articles reflecting this new developments should be seen as disruption, trollery and violation of the guidelines and should be massively sanctioned.

After being banned, it has become clear to me that the central reason for this "structural content problem" is a misapplication of this MEDRS-Rule: "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources.”

The strict, reductive, and even dogmatic application of MEDRS practiced so far - without the explicit exceptions in MEDRS avoids a neutral article without the global discussion in science, politics and media – and produce a lot of frustration here (and work for admins). It would be sufficient if we apply our rules correctly. Editors who use our rules to cement their opinion (“the truth” without evidence, we don’t ‘have until now!!!) should be taken out of the game for a time.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C thanks for nice compliments ! I have clarified this further methodically in RfC. I agree with DGG most what you said.It is better to discuss an uncertain hypothesis than to be silent about a correct one !
With respect, but what Novem Linguae has developed is a conglomeration of subjective opinions (without strong evidence, doesn´t matter where published !) for his non possibility hypothesis, which is WP:NOR. There is no "scientific" evidence for any hypothesis and to exclude any possibility ! For possibilities, we distinguish logical (in the philosophy of Science) technical possible (lab), physically possible (bats) and logically possible (knowledge). All this is/was given in the WIV. Then there is the criterion of feasibility: Can such a virus be produced artificially? Yes, it is possible, proven by older research articles on GoF (from Wuhan Institute). So the Lab-Hypothesis is even seriously possible (= plausible). To a similar result came the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on behalf of the US government, as written yesterday "U.S. Report Found It Plausible Covid-19 Leaked From Wuhan Lab" in the WSJ - already last year ! It´s only internal report but certainly scientifically based from a serious research institution. The possibility of the Lab-Hypothesis is logical based on abductive reasoning.
Conclusions: A cardinal problem is that we do not have a balanced and neutral article on the laboratory hypothesis (which includes all incidences as far all possibilities !). Another cardinal problem is this implicit WP:NOLABLEAK as a content guideline (cabal) which is dogmatically advocated here. A third cardinal problem is the totally dogmatic (and wrong) application of MEDRS and bioinformation especially from our collegue RC which he understands very well but practices reductively. For this we need general solutions.--Empiricus (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RC - How you operate regarding sources is a core problem for many editors. I have not found your ping in "Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information" - but I have answered you in detail.--Empiricus (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

edit
RandomCanadian has been bugging me for a while with various complaints about the editing environment in this topic area, and it's gotten to the point where individual admins simply cannot restore a positive editing atmosphere. There's socking, there's edit-warring, there are interminable talk page discussions, and there's POV pushing. I think ArbCom should take this case and should set up DS for it.

One little note: Normchou, you were complaining, I think, about this edit, and I think the purpose of that complaint was to cast aspersions on RandomCanadian and maybe muddy the waters, or stack the deck, before a case starts. Well, the edit, you should be grateful for it: "Wuhan lab manufactured" is not an acceptable heading. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs: what is up with this, "Several admins, including ToBeFree, El_C and Drmies have abused their admin tools, which are only now being recognised and rectified"?. I mean, it's a pretty sad sneer, a clear example of uncollegiality on the part of User:Tinybubi. On the fun side (skipping over the grammatical error), that last bit has a decidedly Trumpian flavor to it, in all its vagueness and untruthfulness. And if you put those two together, the false and unfounded accusations and the deceitful innuendo, we have plenty of reason for a topic ban, which with DS would be a relatively easy thing to accomplish. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

edit

A refusal to follow WP policy on NPOV and RS is a behavioral issue. A refusal to recognize accepted reliable sources as being reliable when they disagree with one's preconceptions is a behavioral issue. This doesn't depend on what the issue is, or what position ultimately turns out to be the correct one.

In addition, much of the problem here relies upon the incompatibility of MEDRES with NPOV in dealing with issues of general public interest that are more than just purely medical--or the claim that an issue with political and social implications is purely a medical issue.

But a more relevant problem is the need to revisit the general position taken by arbcom on Fringe, dating back to the earliest cases. Fringe was clear in the case of subjects such as scientology and homeopathy, where the proponents made scientific claims that were totally incompatible with the unanimous or almost unanimous scientific opinion and informed general opinion also. It has since been undue extended into topics where the extreme unlikelihood of the fringe position is much less obvious. This is even more true in fields other than science. It is much more difficult to extend Fringe into the social sciences, because the body of knowledge is almost always much less consistent and solid--as illustrated by the where there have recent quite solid statistical and experimental evidence that much of the accepted experimental evidence in support of far-reaching general propositions was in error. I think it is totally unjustified to extend Fringe into politics, which is inherently a matter of opinion, and positions tha have very little support among wikipedians may have very substantial and near-majority or even majority support among the relevant public, and whee the views of informed experts are always divergent and in any case almost irrelevant as compared to the views of the actual voters. The application of Fringe to Covid deals with more than science--I do not see how anyone can realistically say that the issue of its origin is as much political as scientific (which is not a statement that it ought to be political, but just that it is.)

In this respect, there's another issue facing arbcom, which is the enforcement of Fringe by means of Discretionary Sanctions and General Sanctions, even in the areas where Fringe is least applicable. These are the instances which show the dangerousness of both GS and DS most clearly, where individual administrators are able to force their own positions on disputed topics. I do not see how changing the existing GS into DS will be at all helpful.--the same questions of arbitrary enforcement are present for both.

Not only is there fully sufficient grounds for an arb com case on the specifics here--there may even be grounds for several. And if necessary, if arb com continues to make decisions on the narrowest possible grounds which individual admins then interpret on very extensive grounds, there may be reason for the general community to work towards a change in arbitration policy and also in the power of individual administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Novem Linguae says below, this is now become a case where academic scholarship agrees with the general press, and agrees that the question is open. To the extent they are both predicting what will in the future be found to be the actual facts, a well-informed guess is preferable to an ill-informed guess, let alone a perverse one, but it remains a guess. I wouldn't call the most serious and respectable newspapers necessarily as "popular" in a negative sense; nor would I say, as a biomedical scientist myself, that scientists as a class are always open to new ideas; the medical profession can be just as conservative and self-interested as any profession. I would say that generally scientists are much more reliable than many elements of the general press taken as a whole upon questions of science, but to treat informed public opinion as in some way inferior is excessive self-confidence. To treat medicine as in some way immune to politics is to take a very narrow view of reality. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and in further response to what they say below, i will just mention the inherent time lag in producing review articles, and that great many apparently firm medical consensuses change as further data comes in. When a key part of the investigations have not yet been made possible, perhaps reviews are premature. There's a difference between unlikely, and fringe. Tho I don't want to fully argue this here, the difference of this from most Fringe and pseudoscience is that early ones we so classified contradict well established general principles of science (homeopathy and chemistry are incompatible) , there is nothing in the lab leak theory that does, since similar accidents have occurred. It probably didn't happen this time, but at least it could have. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, you asked if I would prefer a full case. I would, if it is broad enough, but I think some of the issues here are too broad even for that. There have been a number of issues in different areas involving an overly-restrictive use of the general guideline of WP:RS, as well as the special rule WP:MEDRES,; I had to check just now to confirm that RS is just a guideline not policy, because it's certainly being used as decisively as if it were fundamental unquestionable policy. I don't know how much Arb Com can do here--the problems certainly have their origin as content disputes, but arb com has made decisions and remedies based on sourcing many times, I think under the general view that whether people follow policy and guidelines is behavior. I know what I hope the consensus of the community is, but I'm not sure that this is not just wishful thinking. The community might decide upon an interpretation of guidelines that would seem to contradict basic policy, and it has the right to do so--and if necessary, to resolve the discrepancy by changing policy. . It does have the right to so interpret policy and guidelines in a way that will be destructive of what would seem to be fundamental principles--as a practical matter, it does have the power to ruin WP. Arb com has the ability to interpret its role to make this difficult, but it can't actually stop it.

What I do feel sure about, is that I agree with what you've already said in your statement on having a motion, is that the substitution of DS in place of RS is very unlikely to itself do any good, since it will be applied the same way by the same administrators. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

edit

One reason the "COVID-19 origins" topic area generates strife is that this is a case where academic scholarship disagrees with the popular press. This is confusing to our editors, and it is a situation where our policies do not provide crystal clear guidance.

Another reason this topic area generates strife is that we are being subjected to off-wiki campaigns organized on Twitter. I can't say everything I want to because of OUTING, but the evidence is there. I believe several blocked editors, meats, and socks (some of whom are still active) are connected to what is occurring on Twitter, that there are COI issues, and that BLUDGEON is a frequent tactic.

I don't know what the best solution is. But I support our anti-fringe and pro-science editors in their efforts to keep misinformation out of the encyclopedia. Also, I trust the scientific and academic mainstream over the political mainstream, and I think that preferring scientific and academic sources is an important tactic for combatting misinformation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, with respect, top quality academic sources such as review articles in the fields of medicine, virology, and epidemiology are unanimously negative about the possibility of a laboratory origin of COVID-19. If you know of any review articles in the aforementioned fields that do not speak negatively of COVID-19 laboratory origin, please post them on my user talk page, as these would be a game changer in how I approach this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

edit

I think two measures could help here:

  1. Make it a DS area from Arbcom, which will facilitate reporting and taking any measures.
  2. While doing this, you could define more clearly which aspects of the subject (per your decision) are covered by WP:MEDRS, or more exactly, what counts as medical/health-related information, i.e. WP:BMI, per your decision and in this specific, narrow subject area. There was recently a discussion about WP:BMI, see here, but without any definite consensus. In my view, all political aspects of this, like claims by politicians, beliefs, and even purely biological aspects (such as evolution of the virus) etc. would not be covered by WP:MEDRS - as clearly stated in WP:BMI. Hence, the claims about leaking the virus from the lab would be possible to cover using sources like articles in NYT, etc. However, many participants do not share such view. If you could codify some rules here, that would minimize disputes and disagreements.
P.S. I think WP:BMI is well written. For example, it narrowly and precisely defines what it means by "Population data and epidemiology" ("Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis") and even what is "Biomedical research" in such context (i.e. "Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them"). This is for a good reason. For example, if a virus was historically studied in a lab in Wuhan or not would not affect decisions by people who are "seeking health information" in WP (the sole reason for creating WP:MEDRS that disallows using peer reviewed original publications). Readers would have to do their vaccinations regardless to such info. However, the information that the vaccinations are safe would have to be covered by WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikehawk10

edit

This topic area been a bit of a disaster across Wikipedia and has been a time-sink that has appears to have plaged even many experienced users. Efforts made thus far have not been enough; the sheer amount of RfCs, ANI complaints (including one in which an article talk page in the topic area was semi-protected for a year), and sockpuppetry present does not appear to have fixed these problems. But, it's not clear to me that these are problems that arbitration can fix; the vast majority of the RfCs are regarding content disputes, ANI has been a venue that seems to have been able to handle this well on a case-by-case basis, and sockpuppetry isn't something that can be fixed by the arbitration committee in any meaningful way without modification to existing policies.

Inasmuch as editors bring up specific actions relating to the conduct of admins, I really am not an expert in the policy of this area. If this could be earnestly reviewed by the community, then admin behavior would best be handled on WP:ANI or WP:AN. If policies would make such a review difficult, then it would make sense for arbitration to be the right venue, and taking this case may make sense for the sake of due process, but only if the arbitrators suspect that there may be legitimate issues there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

edit

I guess my question is why. If the issue is lack of admin involvement I am not sure what moving to the arbcom sanction would do. The proper venue for GS would be AN and I have not really seen anything much brought there that was not handled by the admins there. Also judging by the track record of AE that has even LESS admin involvement than AN with a worse track record in my opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would like to add, I disagree with the assertion that we would not require community consensus to overturn a community sanction like GS. No one wants to see Arbcom over riding broadly supported community consensus for no discernable reason. The logic I am seeing is basically we need AE because AN isn't working, regardless of the fact that AN has not actually been tried. That even knowing the poor track record of AE is kind of baffling to be honest. Especially considering the tools used are functionally no different. I have to see Bradv's comment is rather tone deaf to the actual situation, while I think Barkeep49 hit the nail on the head so to speak. Action is not required if all reasonable venues have not actually be tried. PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jtbobwaysf

edit

RandomCanadian is an abusive POV editor that is engaging in WP:SEALION on this subject, and it seems is virtually a WP:SPA on the issue of the anti-lab leak theory. The user deserves a T-Ban. The massive quantity of edits on the subject makes me wonder if the user is a paid editor or just has WP:OWN issues? The user claims to have been an IP address for many years and then went to full-on confirmed editor with experience on all types of noticeboard pages. User should be banned from this range of pages. There is such excessive coverage at this point in time relating to the lab-leak theory that this WP:BATTLE that we are all witnessing here on the covid pages is absurd and should be put to a stop. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here on the editor for opening yet another discussion and instead have all the experienced editors here on this noticeboard see we are all listening to a sealion yelping. Just yesterday WSJ titled: "Opinion- The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus." I understand an opinion piece isn't an RS, but it is now clear there are hundreds of sources on this, and we dont need to meet MED-RS, see Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. that clearly there is no consensus to change MEDRS to censor all the lab-leak theory content. Whether the theory is true or not, I dont know and I think the key point is nobody knows. Note RC's bludgeon of this one RFC as an example. Wikipedia editors dealing with the constant battle on this subject is tedious at best. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

edit

This case raises an interesting general issue. The core purpose of arbitration is to resolve specific conduct disputes involving specific editors. At some point the committee acquired the ancillary function of designating topics that especially contentious. Where that happens as part of a conventional arbitration case it's sort of reasonable, although it has been pointed out before that we now have large swathes of the encyclopaedia under DS ostensibly because of disputes that happened years ago amongst editors who have all moved on. But when people come to arbitration essentially saying, "this topic is a nightmare, help!" I don't think it works well at all, because the only weapon ArbCom has in these cases are DS, which a) the community can now impose; and b) going by the recent consultation, don't actually work all that well. Specifically this case reminds me of Medicine, which in retrospect did not really lead to anything positive. I think the committee should reject it. Unfortunately some topics are just inherently contentious and editing in them will always be fraught. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

edit

This isn't really ripe for ArbCom to accept a full case. But – there's a content dispute that the community needs to figure out. And let's see, it's about some science that's currently very much in the news, and editors are having a hard time coming to an agreement about how the content should be worded, partly because there are strong political interests that influence some editors' views and get in the way of reaching consensus (including some conspiracy theories).

Where have I heard something like this before?

I said it before, in ArbCom's RfC about DS, and I'll say it again now. One of Wikipedia's real successes in resolving a conflict just like this was WP:GMORFC. Back then, the content dispute was over what to say about GM crops' safety for human consumption, and now, it's where the virus came from. And a community RfC (obviously, not an ArbCom edict) was able to come up with wording that has held up for a half decade, changing a battleground into a largely sleepy content area. And it worked because DS permitted some admins to make the RfC consensus binding.

That's what is needed now. ArbCom should not have a case. And ArbCom should not enact DS across the entire topic area, at least not at this time – so the motion should not be passed. But ArbCom should pass a different, narrower, motion, enacting DS only for any RfCs conducted by the community within the topic area. You don't need to tell the community that we should have an RfC. You should not advise on what the RfC(s) should be about, or how they should be conducted. Leave all of that to the community. Just say that any RfCs that the community might want to have within the next year (or with some expiration date) will include the ability of admins to use DS for the RfC and its results. And leave the rest to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

edit

I'm in general agreement that at the core, this isn't something yet ripe for Arbcom to take, but elevating GS to DS specific to the area will help in dealing with problematic editors that disrupt useful discussions. But we have at essence issues rising from a strong key sourcing policy related to biomedical info (MEDRS) vs information from reliable news sources that is discussing the political aspects of the biomedical info, all within a framework that we're also NOT#NEWS. To some degree, we are absolutely right to be putting our foot down and sticking currently to the MEDRS that the lab-leak theory is currently not supported by available science, but we do have to be able to explain why a fair number of both scientists and politicians around the world are looking at it again, without rushing to call it a conspiracy theory or the like. In other words, we need more discussion on situations like, with more open minds on both sides and considering that we are trying to write from the 60,000 ft/10-20 year point of view. Hopefully GS-to-DS will help with making such discussions more open, but if that fails to do so, it may be within Arbcom remit to establish a neutral admin or three (thinking back to the Troubles) to act as moderators and set bounds. I just can't see Arbcom otherwise stepping in to resolve the core content matter. --Masem (t) 15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

edit

Clerk notes

edit

Origins of COVID-19: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/0>

edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Final decision

edit

Remedies

edit

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

edit

Superseeded version of (i)
Former title: "Discretionary sanctions".

(i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.

Shortcuts

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 alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.

(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 abstention 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

edit

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Motions and Amendments

edit

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (June 2021)

edit

The case request is accepted under the title COVID-19 and resolved by motion with the following remedy:

Discretionary sanctions

(i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.

(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 alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.

(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)

edit

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.

As part of the 2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following motion to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement log

edit

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19&oldid=1241063026#Discretionary_sanctions"