Tinybubi: please only add material to your own section. And please add a sig+timestamp to any additions |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis]] |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive333#Discussion_related_to_data_access_for_deleted_sandbox]] |
|||
=== Statement by RandomCanadian === |
=== Statement by RandomCanadian === |
||
Line 131: | Line 119: | ||
=== Statement by Tinybubi === |
=== Statement by Tinybubi === |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive333#Discussion_related_to_data_access_for_deleted_sandbox]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tinybubi|Tinybubi]] ([[User talk:Tinybubi#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tinybubi|contribs]]) </span> |
|||
=== Statement by CatDamon === |
=== Statement by CatDamon === |
||
I am also confused by the purpose of this ArbCom request case....is this in relation to the discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins.|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! [[User:CatDamon|CatDamon]] ([[User talk:CatDamon|talk]]) 03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
I am also confused by the purpose of this ArbCom request case....is this in relation to the discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins.|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! [[User:CatDamon|CatDamon]] ([[User talk:CatDamon|talk]]) 03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:10, 6 June 2021
Requests for arbitration
Origins of COVID-19
Initiated by RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) at 01:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Involved parties
- RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- ToBeFree (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tinybubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CatDamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- diff of notification ToBeFree
- diff of notification El_C
- diff of notification Alexbrn
- diff of notification ProcrastinatingReader
- diff of notification Tinybubi
- diff of notification CatDamon
- Additional notifications on noticeboards
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#IDHT,_thinly_veiled_accusation_and_overall_trolling_(COVID)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#CutePeach
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#COVID:_SYNTH,_BLUDGEON_and_MEDRS_(moved_from_AE)
- Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information
- Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
- Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
- Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology
- Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
- Talk:COVID-19 pandemic
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
Statement by RandomCanadian
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
- @L235: You're certainly aware of the existing sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing; and that is definitively a conduct issue where ArbCom could impose tighter restrictions to discourage WP:SPAs. Additionally, if you wish for specific examples, here's some aspersions; here's some harassment; here some BLP violation. A cursory look will at the existing talk pages (not even the archives) will show long drawn-out discussions between experienced editors and often SPAs, trying to explain the nuances of FRINGE; NPOV; RS and the like, with no apparent end in sight. The issue has been discussed many times over; and these repeated decentralised discussions on many different talk pages are massive timesinks, in addition to the now rising trend of personal attacks by some frustrated IPs and SPAs. There's definitively something that can be done here by ArbCom, both over conduct and over content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CatDamon: This is about long-term behaviour (not necessarily by you, but by some others) which includes harassment, other behavioural issues; and much needless, massive timesinks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: That would be a decent step, but considering that even some issues which are actually already under AC/DS seem to provoke little appetite among AE regulars (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive286#François_Robere, archived without a close or any action taken), I'm not sure if that would be sufficient. There is definitively scope for some clarifications regarding application of sourcing policies (which, as I argue, here, is a complex issue) and possibly preventive measures and editing restrictions to discourage SPAs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I considered putting the title in as simply "COVID-19", but I haven't first hand experienced disruption in other areas (the closest I've come to is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Airborne_Transmission, but that's not really disruptive, just a somewhat mildly heated RfC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JPxG: I've made my comments at the RfC and as you can see I'm not arguing for the proposed, overly broad question, so I fail to see how this is an attempt to have ArbCom impose a restriction which I'm not even supporting (I've made my position about what does and what does not require high-quality sources [which are not quite always the same thing as MEDRS] quite clear, and I think it's rather common sense, too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I considered putting the title in as simply "COVID-19", but I haven't first hand experienced disruption in other areas (the closest I've come to is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Airborne_Transmission, but that's not really disruptive, just a somewhat mildly heated RfC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: That would be a decent step, but considering that even some issues which are actually already under AC/DS seem to provoke little appetite among AE regulars (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive286#François_Robere, archived without a close or any action taken), I'm not sure if that would be sufficient. There is definitively scope for some clarifications regarding application of sourcing policies (which, as I argue, here, is a complex issue) and possibly preventive measures and editing restrictions to discourage SPAs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CatDamon: This is about long-term behaviour (not necessarily by you, but by some others) which includes harassment, other behavioural issues; and much needless, massive timesinks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Arbcom: I'm not opposed to a resolution by motion if you think that is the most effective way forward. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CatDamon: Answered (in too much detail) on your talk page. TLDR: to the question "do we need MEDRS for this topic"? it's "we don't need them, but we prefer them [or similar sources] if available" (IMHO) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon's argument that scientific sources are too slow for this seems to be well against what I thought was settled policy, that we follow, not lead, the consensus of these sources. FeydHuxtable's comment seems to argue in the same direction as Robert; and also misrepresents the position of some editors (in addition to arguing about the "vested interests" of the scientific establishment - déjà vu, anyone?), but that's another discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CatDamon: Answered (in too much detail) on your talk page. TLDR: to the question "do we need MEDRS for this topic"? it's "we don't need them, but we prefer them [or similar sources] if available" (IMHO) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: My overall summary of the talk pages I list is "multiple repetitive discussions of the same topic on multiple pages", and one (IMHO) major component is the persistent PROFRINGE disruption by multiple SPAs (and sockpuppets - see the SPI's previously linked) or otherwise long-dormant accounts who suddenly appear, ex. Special:Contributions/CyberDiderot; Special:Contributions/Cowrider; Special:Contributions/CommercialB; Special:Contributions/Francesco_espo ... As I've summarised elsewhere, that includes the pushing of poor sources; some deliberate and accidental(?) misinterpretation of sources (see the edit summaries for the correction); off-wiki canvassing; WP:FLAT-type problems... Something simple to discourage soapboxing, original research and advocacy (by adding even mild editing requirements) and make enforcement more readily available (instead of having, as El describes, "impenetrable timesinks" at ANI) would be more than enough. There has been a significant change in how we cover this recently, and I think that's to the credit of everyone (although the fact that the topic is obviously politicised and that many long-winded discussions are required speaks for itself, i think), but all of this good will is going to be wasted in the long-term if we don't do anything about dealing with dedicated fringe advocates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, creating a centralised noticeboard for COVID (or using the existing Wikiproject page for this) might be a solution to the "repetitive discussions" part. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Normchou: I can't seriously take "Wuhan lab manufactured" as an appropriate section title, nor can I understand why you started editing these articles without taking part in the existing talk page discussions ([1] - something they've also been warned about), and now come right here to complain... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ToBeFree
I had been invited to provide feedback about behavioral issues in this area, by editors from both sides of the dispute:
- 2021-02-12T23:38 by RandomCanadian at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, diff gone, search for "radical solution" at Special:Permalink/1006479035#Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again
- 2021-03-18T01:44:08 by CutePeach at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
- 2021-03-18T07:49:52 by CutePeach at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
- 2021-04-22T15:14:24 by CutePeach at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
I have attempted to enforce the verifiability and civility policies with the following logged actions per WP:GS/COVID19:
- COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- COVID-19 misinformation is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- Wuhan Institute of Virology is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
- Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been semi-protected indefinitely until deletion.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about canvassing.
- Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community. The user has since been indefinitely blocked by ArbCom.[2]
- Empiricus-sextus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been topic banned from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, but I have removed this topic ban, as described in Special:Permalink/1026738150#Topic_ban_removed, with apologies.
- I have proposed to extended-confirmed protect Talk:COVID-19 misinformation in the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1020679801#Proposal:_Extended-confirmed_protect_Talk:COVID-19_misinformation_indefinitely , which has been cited as the reason for the current semi-protection of the page by El C.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- To prevent single-purpose accounts from turning the discussions into a battleground (cf. Billybostickson's ArbCom block, and Tinybubi's block described by Daniel below), and to force new editors to start with gaining experience in less contentious areas of the project, I'd support any measure that increases the amount of needed Wikipedia editing experience required for participating in this area at all, including on talk pages. This could be limited to COVID-19 origins, misinformation and conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't object to it happening to the entire topic COVID-19. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding "the solution is for administrators to enforce the existing sanctions regime", that's easier said than done. For a topic ban to be justifiable, the damage needs to have already happened, usually multiple times. A battleground-mentality comment, a GS notification, further incivility, a warning, less disruptive behavior, further discussion with someone who will never get the point, then "finally" a personal attack that closes the case. Afterwards, accusations of bias, an appeal, continuation of the content dispute on the blocked user's talk page, off-wiki requests for meatpuppetry, a huge amount of drama caused by an attempt to reduce disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
I'm listed as a party, but 90 percent of admin action I've taken in the topic area were in the first 9 months of the pandemic. It's been about 6 months now since I've actively used my watchlist, which I feel greatly hinders my understanding of where the project is at COVID-wise (though some renewed activity at RfPP has provided me with a snapshot of sorts). And, I've been away for the last month, so obviously I know little if anything that has happened throughout that time. Anyway, while I've taken some sporadic COVID GS action recently by occasionally responding to requests on my talk page and the odd noticeboard thread, there hasn't been that many of these to (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)
- 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)
Statement by Alexbrn
I don't think the situation has deteriorated yet to the extent that a full case would be useful, and it may in fact create even more of a time sink for a topic which might blow over. Given that there are parallel problems for quite a few, arguably more important, aspects of COVID-19 (e.g. around treatment and vaccination) a case just on the origin of the virus would also be too specific in my view.
I would support the imposition of DS as a way of improving the situation and helping head off possible future trouble. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
As I've been invited to comment: Based on my understanding of the issues, I personally don't think a full case will help. There are probably any number of editors whose behaviour on this topic can be characterised as problematic, but ArbCom cannot realistically topic ban them all (nor would it help IMO). For the most part, the most persistent offenders already have been, or were very close to a topic ban and then voluntarily desisted. This specific topic area doesn't have all too many admins which naturally doesn't help enforcement, but ToBeFree and El C in particular, and Boing before he handed in his mop, have helped out substantially. The case request has parallels to the Kurds case earlier this year, except that had smaller number of (and more discernible) participants, and there was a complete inability for the community to resolve the issues. Here, while enforcement is very much hanging by a thread (of a few admins on-and-off), I think more or less the community has handled it well to this point; that may change if one or two admins go inactive. Another change in the past few months has been increased editor participation on the content, and I think volume of community attention often helps with ensuring behavioural issues don't hamper (as much) our content policies being followed. Hope this statement helps.
Re SoWhy: Due to the current staffing issues of AE, I'm sceptical that opening it up as a venue will make a meaningful difference. It's at a point where one is better off trying ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: FWIW, I feel that RfC on MEDRS (which I also opposed, as I don't believe the origins of a virus constitutes medical advice or has a direct impact on the health choices someone makes) is as best tangential to the behavioural problems in the area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Tinybubi
- Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_35#The_Question_of_Origin
- Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_36#RfC_on_inclusion_of_lab-accident_theory
- Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2/Archive_8#Investigations_China_Lab_Theory
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User:_Britishfinance
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Sourcing_with_Frontiers_Journal_in_Public_Health
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#Are_New_York_Magazine_and_Infection_Control_Today_reliable_sources_for_the_idea_that_COVID-19_leaked_from_a_Chinese_lab?
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Subtle_vandalism_and_a_possibly_more_serious_issue_of_conduct_by_User:Thucydides411
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Edit_warring,told_to"fuck_off"_by_Arcturus
- Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77#COVID_lab_leak,_yet_again
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Editor(s)_encouraging_disruptive_editing
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive333#Discussion_related_to_data_access_for_deleted_sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinybubi (talk • contribs)
Statement by CatDamon
I am also confused by the purpose of this ArbCom request case....is this in relation to the discussion here? If so, this seems a bit absurd. Taking a case to ArbCom because you don't like the result of a discussion seems unproductive and a bad standard to set. If that IS what this is about, I would recommend that thread be read- it's important context. If that isn't what this is about, some clarity would be great. Thank you all! CatDamon (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Gotcha, thank you for the clarification. Agreed, the less harassment and personal attacks the better. Hoping that those involved can come to at least some reasonable terms of agreement, and move forward constructively from there. Thanks all! CatDamon (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: I think the big question in regards to here and the point you just made about your stance here are whether the standards we're adhering to when citing statements regarding "disease and pandemic origins" should simply be the default WP:RS, or WP:MEDRS. I am not sure those participating in the RfC were arguing or would recognize the category you put forth of "high-quality" or "our best sources" and the designation really does seem subjective. Hoping that could help clarify why I (and likely others) are a bit confused with the designations- particular with respect to what was covered in the RfC. Thanks all! CatDamon 22:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Daniel
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)
Statement by Berchanhimez
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)
- 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)
- 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)
54129
Just put the whole of COVID-19 in its entirety under AC/DS already. As noted above, this particular aspect is too specific, but if there are simar problems in other areas (of course there are) then broadly construed is a friend. ——Serial 11:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yo RandomCanadian, that's just my opinion on what they should do, not a suggestion that you'd done anything untoward :) all the best, ——Serial 14:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
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)
Statement by Ched
(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)
Statement by Deepfriedokra
- Wot 54129 sed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- and Ched and SoWhy, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nosebagbear
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
- Can the current GS/standard community activity hold the line, or not? If not, then:
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
Statement by XOR'easter
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)
Statement by MjolnirPants
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)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
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)
Statement by JPxG
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)
Statement by Atsme
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)
Statement by Robert McClenon
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)
Statement by Normchou
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)
- @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)
Statement by FeydHuxtable
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
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)
Statement by isaacl
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)
Statement by Empiricus-sextus
I was directly affected by a topic ban and was not present for a few weeks. Much not has changed, the discussions continue to go around in circles and 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 and reflecting on the whole issue, 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 solution is relatively simple - the laboratory hypothesis belongs scientifically to the topic of biosecurity and biosafety (and related fields like politics) and therefore all reliable sources (also according to MEDRS) are acceptable. As some editors also said (and I point out) it is a multidisciplinary complex that goes far beyond strict non-medical information, including politics, even economy, etc. 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 (I hope that I understand the MEDRS sentence correctly). Editors who use our rules to cement their opinion (“the truth” without evidence, we don’t ‘have until now!!!) should be informed adequately and simply perhaps be taken out of the game for a time.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Origins of COVID-19: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Origins of COVID-19: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- @RandomCanadian: I for one am not
astute enough
to determine from your statement and the linked threads what, in concrete terms, you view as the serious conduct dispute that the community has been unable to resolve. There are surely many issues in this topic area, many of which can be handled by the community and a fraction of which are plausibly better handled by the committee. I'm certainly not going to vote to accept a case on every instance of disruptive editing on the origins of COVID-19 in the last year. Please better contextualize the dispute. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC) - I won't have time until the weekend to dive into the large number of diffs already presented, but I will be looking through those and any other community member statements whether there are indications that the community cannot handle this topic area. I will be approaching with the bias that the community is capable of handling this, despite what I know to be frustration in at least one ANI discussion (perhaps already linked above) that AE can't hear COVID related GS enforcement requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: there is precedent with both Abortion and Gamergate (and perhaps others I don't know off the top of my head) for ArbCom assuming a community imposed discretionary sanctions and turning it into an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction so only #1 needs to be answered. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have been spending the morning reading through the links provided by RC that dispute resolution has been tried. Having gone down the list and just read Biomedical information are there any diffs of conduct issues on the other talk pages? All I see at Biomedical research is a content dispute going through a very reasonable process. If so please present those rather than links to entire talk pages. Otherwise I plan to skip the other talk pages and finish my reading with the 3 FTN discussions linked. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: there is precedent with both Abortion and Gamergate (and perhaps others I don't know off the top of my head) for ArbCom assuming a community imposed discretionary sanctions and turning it into an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction so only #1 needs to be answered. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- So between weekend responsibilities I have spent a good portion of the day reading through the materials presented for our consideration. I had, based on the statements here and the one section I linked to above, expected to end in favor of ArbCom assuming responsibility for this under DS so claims could be heard at AE and thought that this could be an example as to why we need more admin. However, after reading everything I have come to a different conclusion. The reason that there hasn't been admin action is because there isn't widespread community consensus for the actions requested; as evidence of this see the current RfC about whether writing about a pandemic's origin requires MEDRS. At this moment in time, the discussion seems to be either a no consensus or consensus against such a requirement. Further in reading through the discussions I see many people blocked and know still others to be topic banned. To the extent that administrative action is justified and allowed under our policies, ArbCom or otherwise, a point that I know has frustrated ToBeFree, it seems to be happen. Now that said, if there was a community consensus for turning GS/COVID19 into DS/COVID so that it fell under ArbCom's jurisdiction and rule making and thus would be eligible for hearing at AE, I would want us to agree to do it. But absent formal consensus from the community I don't see justification under ARBPOL for us to take over this general sanction. I'm not formally declining because it's possible evidence could be presented that would cause me to change my mind and because I would support a motion to enable this offer to the community but as of now I would be against us accepting this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- What I'm most interested in hearing about is: are the COVID GS working? Is there a compelling reason that we need to take this on and maybe institute DS? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the problem is GS not working because of a lack of enforcement, I'm interested to hear whether the community thinks that a possible solution could be to take over the existing GS as ArbCom DS by motion without needing a full case. This would open up AE as a place to report violations. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't had the time to read all the relevant material here just yet, but I am pretty much always interested in the idea that we go with motions rather than a full case if there is any indication that may be sufficient, and this may be an area where moving from community GS to ArbCom DS might be a good solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)