Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:08, 24 July 2021

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341

Srijanx22

Editors involved are reminded to refrain from edit warring. No other action taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Srijanx22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

17:20, 03 July 2021 Changes the result and removes peer-reviewed journal claiming to "update with a modern scholarly source", while using a truncated quote that when quoted in full refers to a different battle. See here for the full passage
05:29, 05 July 2021 Blanks result field claiming there are concerns at talk page
14:07, 05 July 2021 Same as second diff
10:24, 06 July 2021 Same as second diff
14:40, 05 July 2021 Claims a peer-reviewed journal is a "low-quality source", and provides quotes that are nothing to do with the article

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Cinderella157: has explained in depth at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Infobox that the subject of the article is the Battle of Saragarhi, quite obviously since that's the name of the article. This refers to a last stand battle where the 21 Sikh defenders fought to the death before being overwhelmed, and all 21 were killed and the attackers captured the outpost. There is no dispute whatsoever about the result, nor could there be since if all defenders are killed and an outpost captured, it's pretty cut and dried which side won and which side lost. The claimed dispute involves quotes such as "The officers and men bad now been under arms for 52 hours , and had actually been on their posts for 50 hours without a rest . The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagoari were the Mamuzais , Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais", which is a quote that proves, well, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

@Rosguill: there is absolutely no academic dispute regarding the result of the Battle of Saragarhi. The result is almost a textbook example of you don't need to cite that the sky is blue (even though there is a citation). There was a battle involving 21 Indian soldiers versus thousands of Afghan tribesmen. The Indian soldiers were all killed defending an outpost, which was captured by the attackers. There can be no conceivable challenge to that result, how could anyone think it was anything other than an Afghan victory? The only way it has been challenged is by using quotes that refer to a totally different battle that occured several days later. The lead, infobox and text of the article all make it clear exactly which battle is being referred to, giving the exact date, and the respective strengths of each army. Also the use of terms such as "Pyrrhic victory" is specifically deprecated per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Srijanx22

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Srijanx22

It is a no-brainer that Indian Defence Review is not more credible than Bloomsbury Publishing, not by a long shot. It was already agreed last year on WP:RSN that Indian Defence Review is not reliable for battles involving India.[2] And when [indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/rezang-la-stands-out/0/ the article in question] is written by an ex military man using the in-house publisher then it should be already obvious.

Overall, this is a content dispute but FWD777 is trying to make a WP:POINT after making 3 reverts in less than 24 hours to add back disputed parameter and providing superficial edit summaries. When that failed, he appears to be misusing this board for winning the content dispute. For a name, see this edit summary where he falsely claims that "Indian victory" is being added. I have already backed my edits on talk page, proving the fact that the multiple fights are all related to this subject as the article already says and I did it before this report was filed.[3] But FWD777 has misrepresented sources on the talk page and refused to read them carefully. This edit by him on talk page tells enough that he admits he is wrong about his claims. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Srijanx22

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Looking at the page history prior to the most recent dispute, I'm hard pressed to identify any stable status quo for the infobox result parameter: prior to the currernt edit war between "Afghan victory", "Indian victory" and blank, it was some variation of "British victory" or "Afghan Pyrrhic victory". Thus, while the edit warring by everyone involved was excessive and poor form, the ambiguity of the stable status quo is a mitigating factor, and at this point the page has been fully protected so I don't think further sanctions are necessary. As a side note, the RSN discussion Srijanx22 linked only has one editor opining about Indian Defense Review as far as I can tell, and falls short of establishing a consensus regarding that source's suitability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FDW777, my sense is that it's pretty clear where the disagreement comes from; academic RS call the battle a pyrrhic victory for the Afghan forces, which can potentially be interpreted as either a victory or a defeat, particularly given that we have a consensus against including qualifiers like "pyrrhic", with the waters further muddied by what appears to be a tendency in popular Indian historiography to lionize the Battle at of Sargarhi, and to present it as a victory in the context of following battles. Now, as regards the content, I'm sympathetic to your arguments and believe you have made a stronger case. However, the edits in opposition to your position are not at this time, in my view, sufficiently disruptive or tendentious to justify sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Rosguill. No one looks great here, but I think the underlying issue is a content dispute, and hopefully that can be sorted out while the page is protected. If those involved can't come to agreement, utilize dispute resolution more and the revert button less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that apart from some edit warring this looks like a content dispute, and the edit warring has been resolved without the use of discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popsmokes38

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Popsmokes38

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Popsmokes38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

13:59, 29 June 2021 At Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adds a "Controversies" section that in addition to unreferenced negative commentary, cites several references that don't mention Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. You also have to wonder how the NSA having a recording of his mother talking about black bank accounts is of any direct relevance top an article about her son
14:03, 29 June 2021 At same article, adds text describing the bites by stray dogs as an insanely massive amount of cases
03:51, 5 July 2021 Changes use of surname to given name, claiming to have "fixed more spelling errors"
04:05, 5 July 2021 Edit warring to repeat erroneous name change
01:21, 14 July 2021 Restores badly referenced "Controversies" section
01:53, 15 July 2021 Restores badly referenced "Controversies" section
19:54, 15 July 2021 Restores badly referenced paragraph in "Controversies" section
14:38, 24 June 2021 At Nawaz Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adds "convicted criminal" mention in the opening sentence before even mentioning he's a three time PM of Pakistan
15:00, 24 June 2021 At same article, changes sentence in lead from Most of Sharif's wealth originates from his businesses in steel construction to Most of Sharif's wealth may originate from Money Laundering without a reference, and it's not mentioned in the body of the article either
13:16, 29 June 2021 Edit warring to repeat previous changes
13:21, 29 June 2021 Adds unreferenced claim of which is often a tactic used by money launderers so the money can't be traced back to them to try and insinuate criminal wrongdoing
02:56, 6 July 2021 Edit warring to repeat previous changes

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has never posted to an article talk page or a user talk page. Could probably be indef blocked as a standard admin action if someone doesn't see the need to discuss for days.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Popsmokes38

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Popsmokes38

Statement by Peaceray

Popsmokes38 has edit warred, flagrantly violated BLP on Bilawal Bhutto Zardari by posting WP:OR statements unsubstantiated or partially substantiated by citations, & disregarded the MOS. Examples include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. I asked Popsmokes38 twice to discuss on the talk page to no avail. On 6 July, FDW777 placed a discretionary sanctions alert here. This editor also called me a paid agent during a BLPVIO revert in this edit summary. Peaceray (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Popsmokes38

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Many of these edits took place before the editor was made aware of discretionary sanctions on 6 July. That said, several took place afterwards, and still consisted of edit warring to reinsert material already objected to on BLP grounds and entirely inappropriate for placement in a BLP. I am also very concerned by this editor's complete lack of talk page communication on these issues. Popsmokes38 has already been blocked 36 hours for BLP violations, but I believe that a BLP topic ban is also in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to an indef block, either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the total, continuing lack of talk page engagement, I think that an indef block is appropriate, followed by a conditional unblock with restrictions imposed based on how they respond, bearing in mind that their edits thus far betray concerning attitudes vis-a-vis both BLP and India-Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible this person hasn't discovered talk pages yet, and may not have noticed such a short block. I think an indef from article space might be a good step, in case they discover article talk pages before they discover their own user talk. —valereee (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the suggested indef block given the total lack of engagement and the fact this behaviour is continuing. They've been left 32 talk page messages, if they haven't noticed any of them then that's their fault. Hut 8.5 17:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by 3Kingdoms

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

      Topic ban on the subject of the Arab–Israeli conflict, imposed at
      [4], logged at
      [5]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [6]

Statement by 3Kingdoms

I did not handle the discussion with another user in the correct manner and instead engaged in edit-warring. I know that for this topic there is a 1rr which I intend to follow to the letter. While disagree with the topic ban, I did myself no favors and accept the ban. I think over the last week since I have come back to editing that I have not edit warred or lost my cool and argued with someone. Thus I would like to have this topic ban repealed. If you feel that a total repeal is not possible at the moment could it at least be reduced from being broadly construed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To defend myself no I have not been edit-warring. In fact on repeated occasions for all I asked for a talk Page. Regarding McMeekin the issue was resvoled in my favor by another editor. The one has to deal with numerous nonaccount users users changing. Finally the person who wrote this has argued with me in the past before and has potential bias. Thank you. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have to say it is a little funny that Aquillion's complaint is that I didn't break the 3rr and when I saw that I went past on a 1rr topic I repealed by myself without anyone requesting. 3RR is 3RR if you 2r than you didn't break it. Really don't see the point of their comments. As well if people feel that I should not have it repealed fully would it be possible for it to be downgraded to only applying to current events and persons on said topics, but allowed for Historical pages. Thanks 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never claimed it was an "entitlement" just that someone pointlessly brining it up who has argued with me in the past it pretty pointless. Also User:Nableezy complaining about "condescending" remarks is pretty rich. Also wanting to ban after you know not breaking the rules that warrant a sanction is pretty silly. Also I am not sure why GN mentioned an edit summary from before the topic ban, which I already admitted to being upset at said user and thus too head strong and have stopped doing said thing. Also I don't understand why you brought up AP2 when I not been editing pages like that since coming back. Finally I think it would be best for editors where there is potential for bad blood in the case of Aquillion and Nableezy that we follow the advice of Wiki and take a period of time avoiding to cool off. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger

Statement by Nableezy

You'd think that after all these edit-warring blocks and bans one would actually maybe read our policy on edit warring and not continue with the oh so misplaced condescending 3RR is 3RR if you 2r than (sic) you didn't break it. Really don't see the point of their comments. Until this user internalizes our policies on edit-warring he should be restricted from editing. IMO the correct restriction here is a site ban for persistent edit-warring and disruptive editing, but removing restrictions is rather the wrong direction to be taking. nableezy - 23:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 3Kingdoms

For context, this topic ban was for revert-warring and 1RR violations. When 3Kingdoms previously appealed this topic ban (closed without prejudice due to being incomplete), they got banned for violating another 1RR restriction just a few days later, a ban that they just returned from a week ago. Also note that (while not in violation of the 1RR / 3RR), 3kingdoms is currently engaged in edit wars on Settler colonialism, David Stannard, and Sean McMeekin; on Settler colonialism, they had to self-revert to avoid a 1RR violation, and had another revert that was just a few minutes over the 1-day limit. They have generally revert-warred heavily since returning from their ban for a 1RR violation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm thinking that the TBAN should stay where it is. I took a look at 3Kingdoms's recent edit history based on Aquillion's comment, and Aquillion's right - 3Kingdoms is getting into minor edit wars in AP2 (another controversial topic area where DS are active). The attitude expressed in this edit summary also doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they can follow our rules and expectations surrounding edit-warring. I think Dennis Brown had it right last time 3Kingdoms was here - the topic ban just moved the issues to a different area. If they can't behave well in other controversial topic areas, I'm not seeing a good reason to lift an existing ban from a controversial topic area. If folks really want to give them some rope, I could be persuaded to allow editing in this topic area subject to a 0RR restriction, but I don't have much confidence that it would work. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3RR is not an entitlement. The recent low-intensity edit warring, while not rising to the level of requiring sanctions in itself, leaves me disinclined to accept this appeal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, topic bans should remain in place until the editor can demonstrate their ability to edit productively in another topic area. This has not yet happened. – bradv^🍁 15:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to give the ROPE with a 0RR restriction. Like GN I'm not sure it would work. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I would like to see a clean slate in other areas before lifting. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning CutePeach

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bakkster Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CutePeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Discretionary sanctions

Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19#Application notes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

20 July 2021 Added a proposed explanation of COVID-19 origins based on an unreviewed pre-print, which I selectively reverted, in addition to cleanup to other paragraphs.
21 July 2021 Re-added with no commit comment. Reverted again with clearer comment of policy concerns and reference to ArbCom sanctions in effect.
22 July 2021 Returned content with more context, but prior to receiving Talk page consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None I'm aware of

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21 June 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Per COVID-19 GS (now included under DS): "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page."

Per Pseudoscience ArbCom decision: "4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such."

Editor appears to have violated both counts, despite explicit reminder of sanctions.

@Mr Ernie: I'll note that I went one step further, removing that entire paragraph for the same reason as above: the claims about the origin were entirely based on statements which had not been peer reviewed. The dispute is not merely over the WP:GEVAL rebuttal of an unreviewed claim (about which I would have agreed with you and self-reverted), but the initial claim itself. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments by Francesco espo. I reverted the change prior to even seeing that a Talk page comment had been made by CutePeach. While I do not believe my policy concerns were directly addressed by them on Talk, more importantly consensus had not yet been reached for the contentious addition which leads me to believe the correct course of action remained reverting until that consensus was reached. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning CutePeach

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by CutePeach

Statement by ToBeFree

Procedural note: The cited text "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." is from Special:Diff/957951138 (Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19; referring to AN-Archive 320#Proposal.) and has not been copied to WP:COVIDDS. WP:ONUS is part of the verifiability policy, not specific to these sanctions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tu-quoque-style arguments have a capability to distract from the topic and tend to be unhelpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement to follow relevant policies when editing in such controversial areas is not dependent on one's willingness to report others for violations. There are two sentences beginning with "If Bakkster Man" below that contain such a condition, unnecessarily. Complaining about editors' conduct with relevant diffs is fine; doing so to weaken, question, or distract from the report is not. If the reporter's conduct is questionable, this can be worded in a neutral way without a tu quoque accusation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

If Bakkster Man is going to report editors for allegedly failing to follow ONUS, then they should probably not also be doing the exact same thing. So let's just cut right to it - this is nothing more than an attempt to remove an editor with an opposing viewpoint from the topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made those edits in discrete steps. So what's important? The process? Then you also didn't follow what you're reporting CutePeach for. The result? Well that's the same too since your version is currently what the article says for both the content CutePeach and me were concerned about. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to the discussion where consensus dictated that only peer reviewed sources apply to the claims about the origin of COVID? From what I can find the latest RFC actually opposed that. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure how tu-quoque is relevant here. I'm going by the text written under "Important Information" that's at the top of the page, saying If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. If Bakkster Man is serious enough about the restrictions in place to report editors here, then they ought to follow them as well. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective enforcement of sanctions in controversial areas is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, especially between editors having different opinions on content. Bakkster Man is reverting on the grounds of sourcing claims which have been rejected by the community several times in several places, placing unnecessary burdens upon editors to gain some (already existing) consensus for inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I agree with Mr Ernie for the most part, and I'll add that I'm not seeing any justification for removal of the material that was added in GF by CutePeach, aside from IDONTLIKEIT by the reverting editor. Did I overlook something? Tagging the material with ^{[citation needed]} or something similar instead of removing it would have been a better option, or better yet, taking the time to cite a better source, rather than bringing a case here. I consider such behavior the antithesis to collaboration. The article in question is not a BLP that requires immediate removal of material without any attempt to find a better source, or to at least discuss it amicably. The reverting editor should neither have first advantage, nor should we consider their revert automatically justified based on a technicality without first considering IAR, and CONTEXT which is paramount when determining a source's reliability. It has been argued that the lab leak hypothesis is politically motivated, and that possibly media "has fallen victim to a misinformation campaign" as stated in this BMJ article. Regardless of what side of the argument one is on, the hypothesis is notable, and so are the substantial views that have been published by reliable media. The sources used do not have to pass WP:MEDRS in this case, and I think the claim of unreliable needs closer scrutiny. Atsme 💬 📧 16:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

Beyond the rather mundane edit-warring, in clear violation of expected standards, especially in an area under DS, CP's persistent uncivility and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - evidenced both by their actions on articles and their recent ramblings on Tobias' talk page (where they accuse me, PaleoNeonate, and unspecified admins of conspiring to silence them... [8] [9]), as well as their refusal to follow the most basic content policies (AGF applies to behaviour not to article content: unsourced, poorly sourced or non-neutral and undue content must be challenged, as per WP:V and WP:NPOV, no matter what one thinks of the intentions of the editor who included it - what applies here is WP:ONUS).

Additionally, I note that CP is well aware of the issues with their editing, having notably been warned of it previously by Shibbolethink ([10]) Them continuing on this path despite this is evidence they are digging their own hole, and, unlike Jule Verne or Dante, their voyage into the abyss is unlikely to have any redeeming literary quality. A full, prolonged topic ban is likely in order. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of much ado about nothing, Francesco. I've already explained my edit here, and your take on it is not any less misleading than CP's. ToBeFree In the process of adding the diffs above (leave me a bit of time to find the most telling ones). Tell me, there's one remedy which I didn't think of until now: given CP's seemingly persistent interest in baselessly accusing editors "on the other side" of various kinds of misconduct - that's not the first time this kind of comment happened [diffs to come], I'm wondering whether an [indefinite] interaction ban could be an effective solution (in addition to or as an alternative to a fixed-term topic ban): it would at least be a honest attempt at reducing the toxicity in the topic area, since they'd now explicitly be prohibited from the kind of silly comments which make any collaboration with them very hard to imagine, like those they made on your talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I was going to add diffs, but in the time it took me to take care of what I was doing IRL, Shibbolethink seems to have done the leg-work, and I don't think duplication is necessary. If I can add one more, though, it would be what brought about the recent flare-up, which was this problematic restoration of basically the same content as the previously deleted, POVFORK draft under the same title. That, and the AE I had filed before this was an AE issue (link provided below by Shibboleth), which shows that the accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS started right from the beginning, as I was saying. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervorguilla: But that's not what CP is doing. They're not using run-of-the-mill reporting to support "Y said X". They've frequently linked to opinion pieces ([11], and, for example, back in April, they made a post full of newspapers sources to dispute statements sourced to academic journals such as those given here, and also the long ref-list after the statement in relevant articles. They repeated a very similar exercise in June, based notably on their own interpretation of a primary source and similar quoting of opinion and news writing... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervorguilla: This is a very recent example of CP using an opinion piece to dispute more acceptable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: One of CP's very first edits was to come on my talk page ([12]) and tell me how my "brinkmanship on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is alarming", accusing me of censorship and so on so forth. That is not "experienced editors trying to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable" - that's CP being unreasonable right from the start, and they haven't stopped since (compare with the recent edits on Tobias' talk page). Their behaviour is nothing short of caustic, and unbearable. Getting frustrated when your favoured outcome is rejected might be understandable, but long-term uncivility, and routinely accusing others of "misbehaviour without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations" in particular, is unacceptable. I could just as easily accuse CP and others of being Russian trolls or something - disregarding the fact there is more concrete evidence of off-wiki canvassing. I haven't, because that is unbecoming of the behaviour one should have in polite society, and we shouldn't accept persistent infringements of such basic standards simply because "it's a heated debate". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) edited 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CP's latest edits at the investigation page are quite objectionable, if not sanctimonious. They make a post explaining their edits, claiming that "Editors are reminded that deleting content for WP:NPOV concerns is WP:POVDELETION" (which by the way, doesn't say that removing such material is prohibited, is just a supplement, and in no way overrides WP:ONUS), having previously gone on to do exactly that. As shown by the flurry of activity afterwards [13], that sparked a lot of improvement (by other editors). But CP's edits were done for the wrong reasons, were done in spite of previous conversations on the same subject, and they prove that they're a high-maintenance editor who is not contributing collaboratively in this area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francesco espo

RandomCanadian inserted a secondary source (Science Based Medicine) citing an unpublished preprint (Sørensen et al), and Bakkster Man did not object to it, as he wasn’t aware it was an unpublished preprint. When CutePeach pointed this out to defend her inclusion of secondary sources (MIT Technology Review) citing a preprint, Bakkster Man had already reverted her edit and opened this case. Mr Ernie then removed the Sørensen et al as undue [14], but Bakkster Man reinstate it as due [15], but then Bakkster Man realizing his mistake and delete the whole paragraph [16]. Bakkster Man reverted CutePeach seven seconds after she explained her inclusion on the talk page, so he couldn’t have possibly read it, and he made a fool of himself here. It is clear for all to see this was premeditated.Francesco espo (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious, RandomCanadian is in the house [17], but he still doesn’t realize the Science Based Medicine source he cited cites Sorensen et all (same as Deiglish's preprint). I wonder if ToBeFree knows what’s going on. I don’t think he does. DGG are you seeing this?Francesco espo (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I think Bakkster Man is frustrated with this editor's activity in general. The specific diffs he has offered don't encapsulate all of CutePeach's problematic behavior. See below ArbE I was preparing:

15:26, 21 July 2021 User escalates dispute about gain-of-function into dispute about all of COVID origins. As they have done before. Disrupting consensus-building to WP:WIN an argument, against a hard-won agreement among editors who rarely agree (pro-leak, anti-leak, moderates). (to paraphrase) "Why can't Shibbolethink just do what I want so I can move on?"
15:10, 21 July 2021 Long, rambling SOAPBOX about how "a group of editors have banded together to…Co-opt Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE policies to WP:CENSOR the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis from Wikipedia” Repeating their WP:YESLABLEAK. Which is a straw man the size of Nicholas Cage’s Wicker Man tomb. We are the ones trapped inside. No one is trying to “remove” the lab leak theory from Wikipedia. Many editors are trying to contextualize it within the mainstream scientific view, namely that it's not as likely as a natural origin. This is exactly what WP:FRINGE, WP:RSUW tell us to do. I have not tried to “masquerade WP:NOLABLEAK as policy in numerous talk page discussions,” I and others have quoted it as a way to package WP:RSes together. This is in line with the consensus we have established in numerous talk page discussions. CutePeach wants to forego that consensus. E.g. "Please note also that Wikipedia may need to change its policy on the Daily Mail, which quotes a White House scientist on the matter". User also says this gem: “These discussion require editors like myself, who have actually read the sources to engage in the WP:BRD process, instead of giving the little time I have to create content.” How dare we ask users to engage in consensus building?
06:37, 20 July 2021 Editor removing mention of mainstream scientific view [18]. Contravening established consensus. Similar: [19] asserting individual minority opinions "outweigh all MEDRSs published on the subject to date"
03:10, 14 July 2021 “If you are going to promote your own literature as policy or guidance on Wikipedia, then you have to be able to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE, which you have failed to do on this issue.” Again, a straw man in which I am incompetent.
08:39, 14 July 2021 “Regarding the Hakim paper, it is a case of WP:MISINTERPRETATION. Have you actually read the paper?” I gave exact quotes several paragraphs prior [20]. User exemplifies WP:IDHT, WP:SEALION.
07:48, 13 July 2021 “On your next trip to China, you might want to learn a bit more about how the Chinese government actually governs.” I then tell the user to please not implicate my “competence” and intelligence in their edits, as it is not AGF, something this user has been warned about before ([21]). User then then tells me I am incompetent for accusing them of PA/ABF [22], creates an essay about it (Wikipedia:CRYNPA). I attempt to bridge divide by offering an olive branch [23]. User ignores and continues to accuse me of POV [24]. This is something I have tried to do before, failed before. This user will not listen, and is very convinced that the cabal is out to get them.
13:41, 14 July 2021 “We should not be presenting the WP:OPINIONs of scientists on either side as facts in Wikivoice.” Speaks for itself re: mainstream POVs. User is responding to admin (Johnuniq) asking for clarification on their extensive soapboxing (my interpretation). Admin still cannot figure out what user is asking [25]. A common occurrence.
08:45, 13 July 2021 User accuses me of intentionally using a non-RS that is a syndication [26], I retract the source again [27] (having already retracted it earlier, after mistakenly citing it [28]), user accuses me of intentionally using the source again [29], then beating a horse that is not only dead, it has been set on fire [30].
14:23, 4 July 2021 One of several instances in which user tries to get an admin to reverse a mopping action (in this case removal of BLPvio) that disagree with their POV. They tie up a lot of admin/editor time with SOAPBOXes [31].
06:26, 30 June 2021 Months into nearly daily accusations of problematic sourcing, they say: "I do not think "WP:RS evidence" is a requisite policy for inclusion or exclusion."
06:29, 30 June 2021 User creates many CAPITAL_LETTERS redirects/essays to use more effectively as a bludgeon. (e.g. WP:MISINTERPRETING, WP:POVOMISSION, WP:CRYNPA, WP:POVDELETION, Common Source Bias, Source bias). I'm actually not sure there is a policy against this, but it does feel pretty BATTLEGROUND-y and exemplifies how this editor escalates disputes and tries to change policy rather than striving for consensus or persuading others via discussion.
14:29, 23 June 2021 adversarial attitude, not AGF.
14:02, 23 June 2021 Casting WP:ASPERSIONS about a user “scheming” to edit in a way that “provokes” a response.
05:28, 20 June 2021 frequently requests citations for obvious summary, not synth, WP:SEALION. When presented with quotations, defaults to WP:IDHT.
05:07, 20 June 2021 alleges all virologists have a COI. A clear case of WP:FLAT. CPUSHing user's POV and trying to “neutralize” editors who disagree.
13:24, 19 June 2021 Frequently adds primary-sourced promotional material to drafts/articles to push user’s POV.
13:12, 19 June 2021 Brings content disputes to non-content dispute areas often. Casts WP:ASPERSIONS and cites ‘coordination of other editors’ as if there is a cabal.
12:56, 19 June 2021 Edit war brought on by user.
05:40, 6 June 2021 [32] [33] [34] [35] Frequently cites WP:FRINGE claims: “US government maintains the claim that the WIV was doing bioweapons research, which was perhaps for defensive purposes” for which there is no evidence. A case of WP:IDHT applies when user is challenged, or more simply, the user never admits being wrong. Simply changes the subject or emphatically declares their correctness.
12:56, 8 June 2021 Adversarial accusations against another editor for being “completely confused” about a topic and then becoming “a real expert with all the right sources” as if this somehow invalidates the user's argument.
09:38, 9 June 2021 WP:OR to push WP:FRINGE ideas and cite preferred primary sources instead of secondary sources in the scientific literature. Also WP:IDHT as the user asserts over and over again that certain scientists support their POV even when presented evidence to the contrary [36].

In summary, CutePeach has engaged in tendentious editing. This is supported by the following sub-points: A) USTHEM SOAPBOXing asserting “a campaign” exists against them/their opinions, B) General SOAPBOXing about COVID origins and how Wikipedia is not reflecting the “truth”, because of our reliance on policies that CutePeach disagrees with, C) casting ASPERSIONS in multiple directions in a pattern that appears targeted to discourage certain POVs from contributing, D) personal attacks against editors (including myself), belittling a lack of “competence” and intelligence, E) escalation of many disputes to an overall dispute about the topic and consistent BATTLEGROUNDing, F) a consistent, unrelenting argument that the mainstream scientific POV about COVID origins should not be included in our articles.

On a more personal note, dealing with this user has made me step back from Wiki, in an exact encapsulation of WP:QUIT/WP:RANDY/WP:CHEESE. The user has argued repeatedly that my PhD in Virology is a reason why I should not be trusted to edit these articles (see above). While many of the other pro-leak editors and anti-leak editors have come to consensus editing the new COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis article, this user has not. As I have described above, they, at some point, decided consensus was not the goal, and instead the goal was pushing their POV.

To make this abundantly clear: I have no problem with people who believe in the lab leak. I am happy to edit alongside such users. Several such editors and I have come to agreement in how to achieve consensus via compromise, working together. CutePeach appears emphatically...vitriolically...indignantly... not interested.

Recommend indef topic ban and short-term block.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (edited 23:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I apologize for the length of this. There are just so many diffs and long complex SOAPBOXes to explain. Please let me know if you would like my statement reduced further and I will do so immediately.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ToBeFree. I will keep monitoring, but likely will not respond to other comments unless directly requested to preserve the ability for others to add their thoughts and still maintain a readable ArbE case. I'm not saying others should do the same, I just feel bad about my really long comment :)--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: editor was previously AE'd for similar behavior, before DS were in place, so dismissed.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

It looks like CutePeach may have been attempting to find an acceptable solution through a combination of adaptive editing and good-faith discussion. (See EDITCON flowchart.) Each of the 3 listed edits does seem responsive to the ongoing discussion, if less than perfectly so.

Also, it seems intuitive that in this article the added information was not "represented as" a scientific theory but as a hypothesis. ("A proposed explanation, supported by evidence, that serves as a starting point for investigation" — Black’s Law Dictionary.) MEDDEF likewise suggests that peer-reviewed sources may not be needed here:

… were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015. This is not biomedical information, and it only requires ordinary RS

Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Here CutePeach is using ordinary news sources, though. (Not "opinion pieces".) –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

For months, I have noticed that CutePeach engages in WP:CPUSH on COVID origins talk pages. It is quite draining to read and deal with.
During a discussion with Shibbolethink, made this inappropriate edit to WP:NPA, then created the shortcuts WP:CRYPA and WP:CRYNPA to point to their new edits, then quoted these shortcuts in their discussion with Shibbolethink.[37] Adding to a policy without consensus, in order to immediately quote it in a heated discussion, seems inappropriate to me.
- This user later turned the redirect WP:CRYNPA into an essay, and it is live in the Wikipedia userspace. I doubt it enjoys wide community consensus and it should probably be userfied.
I find this user a bit abrasive to interact with.
- In one recent interaction, they told me If you are going to promote your own literature as policy or guidance on Wikipedia, then you have to be able to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE, which you have failed to do on this issue.[38], basically calling me incompetent and also accusing me of promotion.
- They told Shibbolethink On your next trip to China, you might want to learn a bit more about how the Chinese government actually governs.[39].
This user posted in my userspace after I asked them not to. [40][41][42][43] The diff order is my 1st request (on talk page), their response ignoring it, my 2nd request (in edit summary), and their second response ignoring it.

I would support some kind of sanction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

The basic problem is the persistent efforts by editors other than CutePeach to avoid covering the topic entirely, despite world wide major press coverage. As normal at WP, this had taken the form of attempts to find objections to the sourcing, even when the sources are such a would normally be accepted for topics of this nature. CP's reaction to this has sometime been a little unmeasured, ad worded more contentiously than I would have done. But in view of the nature of the utter rejection of the fundamental WP policy of WP:NPOV with which she has been contending, it's understandable, as a response to the specious arguments on the other side.

It's especially unfortunate that this AE request has been brought at the very time when the various editors involved have mostly been approaching consensus about how to handle the subject, guided by the RfC on the applicability of MEDRES. I see this as a last-ditch attempt to avoid covering what has become a major political question--or, that having failed, to avoid covering it properly. I'm not blaming the party who has brought this request, nor am I mentioning any other names. because they're by no means the only one involved, just as CP is by no means the only one who has been trying to get NPOV coverage. I think we should not escalate this, because the normal WP methods are working--even though they have been working with exceptional slowness and difficulty. I can not endorse everything CP has said, but I certainly do endorse her efforts. She perhaps needs at most a reminder that the answer to unfair tactics is not to indulge in rhetorical excesses. I would perhaps couple this with the usual and frequently necessary reminder to everyone not to personalize subject disputes at. And it is indeed a poor idea to try engage in altering the wording of basic policy during a subject dispute (it's been tried before at various times, and sometimes people have succeeded in getting away with it) --though the particular statement she added to NPA is one that I think should indeed be added--but it shouldn't have been suggested now.

There's a general pattern here I've been warning people against for many years. During a subject dispute, more experienced editors trying to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable, so one can then remove them on behavioral grounds. AE is a particularly effective place for the purpose. We shouldn't let it be used that way. A request to topic ban one's opponent in a debate should normally be rejected altogether. If one is editing and commented properly and effectively, one doesn't need it. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

As I'm on wikibreak, hopefully I don't say something here which gets me blocked. Where is this seven seconds thing coming from? AFAICT Cutepeach posted on the talk page here at 13:01:30 [44] 2 minutes after making this edit at 12:59:31 [45]. Bakkster Man made this reply at 13:07:34 [46] followed by reverting Cutepeach's change at 13:08:07 [47]. Cutepeach then asked if Bakkster Man had read the reply where they first mentioned the seven seconds bit at 13:26:36 [48]. Maybe I misunderstood what was being referred to but I'm not seeing any overlap that was seven seconds. Cutepeach's first comment seems like it could be just a simple mistake, planning to type minutes but typing seconds instead or it's possible they just confused themselves and thought it was seconds when it was minutes. Either way Cutepeach's reply is long but not that long, it seems entirely plausible it was read in 6-7 minutes especially since Bakkster Man replied to it before reverting, so if that is what's being referred to, it doesn't seem an issue.

In any case, if there really is something that happened within seven seconds I missed, I'd also note that if person A leaves an explanation and person Z reverts within seven second of this explanation, per WP:AGF it's fine to think person Z didn't read the explanation, but not assign bad faith in this. If person A took several minutes to offer an explanation it's entirely plausible person Z checked for an explanation, found none and reverted. Neither editor really did any wrong here, it's just how rapid editing can play out. It's fine to ask person Z if they read the explanation, but hopefully person Z will see it themselves anyway and either way will consider whether to self-revert. If editor A left their explanation ~ the same they made the change, then probably person Z should have been a bit more careful and checked the talk page. (Well frankly this scenario doesn't really work with 7 seconds, but with something like 30 seconds it may.) However for a single instances it's a generally minor thing provided person Z does consider whether to self-revert when alerted to the explanation. Again, it's possible person Z will come across the explanation by themselves and do the same which reduces the criticism of themselves even more.

BTW, I initially suggested it's not possible to see seconds with diffs. This is incorrect and I apologise for any confusion. You can change time stamp format in the appearance option to show seconds hence my examples here. As no one had replied to this other than ToBeFree who alerted me directly (thanks!), I modified my post accordingly roughly 3 hours and 40 minutes after originally posting at 16:35. (Possibly you can get even finer granularity via the API, I'm not sure.)

Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Commenting only on first 3 diffs provided by the filer, this seems to be just a content dispute. The info CutePeach is trying to include [49] arguably belongs to the page. This is page about COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Assuming that the hypothesis is wrong (most probably it is), we still need to list people who proposed or supported it. Yes, the edit by CutePeach is POVish and should be corrected. But apparently, it was corrected to the text which appears in the left part of this diff [50]. OK, so it now includes the following "In addition, Gorski criticises the startling claim that "the laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row". Meaning that the supporters of the "lab leak idea" are saying nonsense. Having such criticism, let it be. Why revert? That would be my reaction. Other edits and overall behavior by CutePeach can be a lot more troubling. But if so, that had to be justified with diffs by the filer from the very beginning. Perhaps admins will find diffs by user Shibbolethink (above) more convincing, but I do not have a stomach for this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning CutePeach

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm primarily waiting for CutePeach's statement, as the diffs above ([51] [52] [53]) seem to show a case of edit warring disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per WP:ONUS. I expect CutePeach to respond here and wait for a result before continuing to edit the article in question, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- RandomCanadian, as annoyingly unnecessary as that may seem to be, please provide specific diffs especially for intra-wiki conspiracy accusations, the previous warning and the "actions on articles". At the moment, the actual presented evidence at most justifies a partial block from editing the article (and perhaps its talk page as a kind of "topic block") for two weeks or so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Francesco espo has been blocked for 72 hours following incivility on this arbitration page after a warning for personal attacks (Special:Diff/1034829179; Special:Permalink/1034972247#July_2021). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the length of the diff list, I personally don't object. Interestingly, the notice at the top says "except by permission of a reviewing administrator", so I guess here it is. CutePeach is similarly welcome to use up to 1500 words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CutePeach I hate to ping you again as it appears you've been pinged here multiple times, but I'm concerned that you've been editing and haven't come in here yet. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is generally a good idea to wait for the subject of an enforcement request to comment, however I believe they have been given ample time. They are certainly aware of the request and have carried on editing without taking advantage of the opportunity to post here. I think it is reasonable to continue without their input.
I believe the diffs provided by User:Shibbolethink demonstrate a pattern of disruptive activity in the topic that violates multiple policies and expected behaviors of editors working in contentious areas. I also think it is sinking an undue amount of time from editors responding in good faith the them. I feel a ban from the topic of COVID may be justified. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 341: / Line 341: @@
 **Regarding the length of the diff list, I personally don't object. Interestingly, the notice at the top says "except by permission of a reviewing administrator", so I guess here it is. {{u|CutePeach}} is similarly welcome to use up to 1500 words. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 *{{u|CutePeach}} I hate to ping you again as it appears you've been pinged here multiple times, but I'm concerned that you've been editing and haven't come in here yet. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
+*I know it is generally a good idea to wait for the subject of an enforcement request to comment, however I believe they have been given ample time. They are certainly aware of the request and have carried on editing without taking advantage of the opportunity to post here. I think it is reasonable to continue without their input.{{pb}}I believe the diffs provided by [[User:Shibbolethink]] demonstrate a pattern of disruptive activity in the topic that violates multiple policies and expected behaviors of editors working in contentious areas. I also think it is sinking an undue amount of time from editors responding in good faith the them. I feel a ban from the topic of COVID may be justified. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Indigo">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 02:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards