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)

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)

54129

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

Statement by Empiricus-sextus

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Drmies

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)

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)

Statement by DGG

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Novem Linguae

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)

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)

Statement by My very best wishes

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.

• Part #2 is necessary because this is main reason for disagreements and conflicts. Things like that could be decided by your discussions and by making a motion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Mikehawk10

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)

Statement by PackMecEng

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)

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)

Statement by jtbobwaysf

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)

Statement by Joe Roe

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)

Statement by Tryptofish

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)

Statement by Masem

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)