Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:16, 25 June 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

Mbsyl

Mbsyl is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 22 June 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 Mbsyl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mbsyl (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

02:02, 9 May 2021 First attempt to add material to completely the wrong place (the section at Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl#Statements by officials already deals with some of the ballistics evidence)
08:53, 20 May 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
18:33, 24 May 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
06:06, 07 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
23:11, 13 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
17:40, 14 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
21:14, 16 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

01:58, 27 January 2020 One year BLP topic ban

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

At this point they are a SPA, making no other edits to any other articles, yet just turning up intermittently to try and force their disputed edit through. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Mbsyl

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 Mbsyl

this is silly. you are doing what you accuse me of, except you are "edit warring" by removing important info that is not mentioned in the article anywhere and saying that it is when it clearly isn't. whereas my "edit warring" is simply returning the information back to the article since it is NOWHERE ELSE IN THE ARTICLE. if you don't like where it is, that's a different debate, but you are just outright obsessively deleting it. you are the one who should be sanctioned.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mbsyl

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

I'm concerned that Mbysl's comment here ignores that they were directed to add content to a specific section identified by FDW777 (three different times by my count, always with a wikilink to the section). Between that and the edit warring, an indefinite topic ban seems appropriate unless there's a sharp course correction. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are indeed up to an indefinite topic ban. The editor has been sanctioned from BLP articles for a year, they have received a significant number of warnings and notifications related to the AA2 case, but they do not seem to have learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extra care must be taken in BLP articles, it is a serious responsibility for the project. The characterization of this as "silly", and their statement to the effect that removing such content is essentially the same thing as adding it tells me that there is a lack of understanding regarding our BLP policies. Given the prior topic ban and the sheer amount of time that the same issues have been going I don't expect this to change. Based on that I think that an indefinite topic ban(from the topic of BLP, broadly construed) is justified. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normchou

Normchou is indefinitely topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 22 June 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 Normchou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Normchou (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: WP:COVIDDS

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

22:12, 16 June 2021 Reverting statements about the scientific consensus several times over several days against WP:BRD. Did not engage in ongoing discussions on the talk page (1 2 3), which indicate consensus-building is resolved or at the very least ongoing.
19:10, 14 June 2021 Same as above
22:01, 16 June 2021 Same as above
23:13, 11 June 2021 Removing well-sourced content against talk page consensus as above
22:31, 11 June 2021 Removing same well-sourced content as above against talk page consensus
21:59, 16 June 2021 removing well-sourced content as above without gathering consensus
20:41, 14 June 2021 More reverts of above without talk page discussion or gathering consensus
14:46, 10 June 2021 Removing "scientific consensus" as above, after being reverted, w/o consensus (although also good edits bundled in with this imo)
19:23, 10 June 2021 Inserting POV content that is WP:UNDUE and not from scientific peer-reviewed sources
18:59, 14 June 2021 Inserting POV content that is WP:UNDUE and not from scientific peer-reviewed sources
20:42, 14 June 2021 Reinserting same content as above in other articles, despite ongoing discussions on both talk pages
17:01, 10 June 2021 Removing NPOV tags without consensus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

06:29, 26 January 2021 TBAN for 90 days for uncivil behavior [1] and making articles [2], talk pages [3][4][5][6], and ANI [7][8] into a battleground. Also received admonishment for abusing SPI [9]. He has also been accused at SPI, though checkuser was negative [10]. Other users assumed WP:MEATPUPPET. TBAN expired 26 April 2021.

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

User has been alerted several times about General sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Normchou has been disruptively editing Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 and COVID-19_misinformation since shortly after TBAN expired at the end of April. TBAN was related to uncivil behavior specifically WP:BATTLEGROUND. Worth noting that the original TBAN was after this user made an inappropriate ANI report re: "subtle vandalism" and accusing a "tribe" or "coalition" of editors of "going after" him. AKA a consensus of editors on the talk page. Editor has also received several admonishments for edit-warring in the past related to these exact same behaviors ([11] [12]). I would say that now, the editor has tried to go the other direction and avoid conflict by just ignoring discussion altogether, but still reverting and contravening/avoiding ongoing discussions and consensus-building. This is why I would say Normchou is NOTHERE. It feels to me like a case of failing to pound the facts, and so defaulting to pounding the table instead. Suggest indefinite topic-ban, but I'll take whatever I can get to make this article slightly less of a headache.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Terjen: Normchou also removed several similar statements from elsewhere, that had MEDRSes appended. If it helps, I just added several MEDRSes to the lead statement. I was following MOS:LEAD for a statement that has several repeats in the body with sources. Again, if that were the only issue, then Normchou or you or anyone could have simply added the sources from elsewhere in the article. Or engaged in the several ongoing discussions on the talk page. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 04:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I do not believe many of the things you have broadly accused me of. I am not interested in "removing" the lab leak theory from Wikipedia, only giving it the due weight of its coverage in MEDRSes and RSes, where each is applicable. I think we actually do that quite well in the Investigations article already, I see no reason to remove any "lab leak" content there. DGG, respectfully, I have seen your edits to be of high quality and your assessments to be neutral in the past, but I think you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS here. This editor is a problem because they are not interested in building a wikipedia, not because they believe something I do not.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why an indefinite TBAN?

To clarify, Normchou is not only uninterested in reaching consensus on these content questions, he is uninterested in any discussion whatsoever. His main interaction with these articles since the end of his TBAN has been to repeatedly push his POV. Furthermore, he doesn't see anything wrong with this. I'm not sure it would be any better in 90 days. His edits in other areas seem okay (prior edit wars notwithstanding). So maybe it's just COVID that's a big issue.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appendices

Errata:

Edited to add diffs instead of internal links, better quotes, summary from original TBAN-related ANI post, and reformat/reorganize. I have also tried to simplify to get under word count limits. I tried very hard to not change the substance of arguments, only to eliminate duplicate diffs and convert internal links to diffs. I apologize, this is my first report to AE, and the last report anywhere else was probably years ago. Please forgive my initially very poorly formatted comments.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying other involved users:

Notifying every editor who has edited the relevant article in the past 3 days:

Notified: User:RandomCanadian, User:Forich, User:Bakkster Man, User:Darouet, User:Stonkaments, User:CutePeach, User:Wqwt, User:NightHeron, User:K1812, and User:Aeonx. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional users who edited the talk page in the past 3 days:

Notified: User:Firefangledfeathers, User:KristinaLu, User_talk:Novem_Linguae, User:2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE, User:Drbogdan, User:Thucydides411, User:Empiricus-sextus, User:HalfdanRagnarsson, User:Adoring nanny, and User:Eccekevin. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the scientific consensus and where it currently stands:

Forgive the discussion of content not conduct.

This is not the place for content discussions. However, I really think the most useful place to look to understand the scientific consensus on the lab leak and related theories is WP:NOLABLEAK. The statements by WHO are great per MEDRS as a professional body, but there are a number of other peer-reviewed review articles in the aforementioned essay that show the consensus is "unlikely"-to-"extremely unlikely."

We have multiple discussions about this in these talk pages every few days. Someone will bring a poor quality WP:FRINGE source from a low-quality journal (typically sham peer reviewed, if at all) saying one individual scientist (generally not a virologist, I say as a PhD virologist) has "figured it out!" and "here's the new "slam dunk" evidence the lab theory is true!" And then, when you run it down, it is more WP:FRINGE nonsense, based on the same rehashed evidence. To me, it's the latest WP:PROFRINGE editing game in a long line of same. This time, the media is still caught up in it as sensational click-bait. But scientists, by and large, have not changed their opinions, because the evidence has, basically, not changed.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)(edited)--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:43, 16 June 2021 User Notified

Discussion concerning Normchou

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 Normchou

My comment is that I have been making edits in accordance with WP:5P, using WP:COMMONSENSE, but have found it extremely difficult to edit this article—which shouldn't be the case if everyone followed the community policies and guidelines on content and conduct—despite the fact that my contribs are still a substantial part of its current form [13]. I have made a similar comment/complaint on the ArbCom case request [14], which apparently has become the basis of this enforcement request, but in my opinion it has little effectiveness on resolving the underlying COI issue (more background: [15]).

Re WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Consensus can be achieved "through editing", "through discussion", and/or through other means. I have tried using the talk page before, but now feel there is so much WP:GAMING by some "experienced editors" such as RandomCanadian to push their POVs that the talk page is barely serving the purpose of "addressing legitimate concerns" or reaching consensus. Their failure to be consistent in applying their own standards ("Science is made by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, not counting opinions.") when facing different POVs says a lot about their purpose of editing this article, [16] [17], with the latter edit merely citing a "count of opinion" that happened to appear in a single peer-reviewed article.

I have no more diffs to list or talk page records to show here~~, so please feel free to accuse me of casting aspersions. I do not have the energy for doing any of that stuff and know it could backfire no matter what~~. Anyone who has edited the article for a while and who does not have a specific agenda/POV to push, however, understands that there is something unusual about editing this article, but I have nothing else to say.

I support discretionary sanctions against "unacceptable" behavior if the sanctions are applied equally to every editor who fits the pattern. I can only suggest the enforcer to scrutinize the revision history of the article and make a well-informed decision. Normchou ^💬 17:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC); edited 20:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC); edited 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote an essay to make my case clearer: User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? Normchou ^💬 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I provided an external link to this piece in my personal essay because JS was making fun of people who did not use common sense to make their judgment on the issue (cf. Maybe a pangolin kissed a turtle. Maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey and then it sneezed into my chili and now we all have coronavirus.) But given your reaction and interpretation, I guess there really is nothing more for me to say. Normchou ^💬 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Berchanhimez

The motion to replace the GS with DS has passed from what I saw, but I'm not sure if all the "formalities" have been done - if not, I would like to see this kept open so that the obviously merited sanction can be applied as a discretionary sanction, logged in the arbitration enforcement for the COVID sanctions, and "more formal" than simply under a GS. I also would like to point out that the problem here isn't so much any one individual edit - it's the covert POV pushing that is flagrantly ignoring due weight policies and attempting to use individual opinions sourced primarily to news articles, not scholarly sources. While merely holding an opinion is not grounds for sanctions, explicitly ignoring discussion and consensus building, as well as this "covert" POV-pushing by using what appears to be reliable sources to override more reliable sources, as well as their flagrant disregard for what is due and undue (by simply including anything they agree with) means that at a minimum, a topic ban from COVID-19 indefinitely should be applied. The user was notified within the past year of COVID-19 general sanctions which will transfer to the DS authority. I'll end by adding this final diff of their response to my pointing out their use of weasel words and "scare quotes" - which gives no faith that they intend to edit appropriately in this area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the formalities have been done, so I'll note they were notified 21 January 2021 of general sanctions, and per the remedy/motion: Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire. As such, this user can be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions (if uninvolved administrators see it fit, of course). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. If "scientific publication" hasn't caught up to scientific consensus (which I don't believe to be the reality here), that's not an excuse for us to violate our normal sourcing policies on scientific material, in which scholarly sources are preferred. Regardless, even if some of this content is merited in some articles in some way, the way this editor has gone about it is absolutely not constructive. Personal beliefs about "scientific consensus" do not trump the fact that it is still an immense minority of scientists giving this credence, and as such, any opposing opinions should be carefully inserted in articles, if at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

~~per WP:AC/DS~~

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." Since the motion being passed was just posted, I don't see how we can retroactively sanction someone. — Ched (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC) (edited: — Ched (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Adoring Nanny

The conflict in this area is driven by the fact that some users are trying to maintain in article space the idea that there is a scientific consensus on the origin of covid. As of today, that is not the case.[18][19][20][21][22][23] All but the last of the above sources all dated within the last month. The scientific publishing process has not kept up with the discussion in the real world. Furthermore, there is press discussion that scholarly papers which take the lab leak hypothesis seriously are being rejected for political reasons[24]. In short, Wikipedia policies (such as "academic sources > news reports") are flying in the face of reality. In other words, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, there is a scientific consensus that there was no lab leak. As a matter of reality, there is no such consensus. I don't know if we want to reflect our policies or reality. That's above my pay grade.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question of what definition of "consensus" to use is sufficiently glaring that I just wrote an essay WP:DEFINECONSENSUSESSAY. In particular, when an article uses the word "consensus", does it refer to a Wikipedia-consensus or a dictionary.com-consensus? I'd think it refers to a dictionary.com-consensus. But I could be wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakkster Man: The complaint makes a big deal of an alleged "scientific consensus" that the zoonosis hypothesis is true. Therefore, it seems reasonable to reply to that issue. I am particularly bothered by the leaking of the definition of "what constitutes a consensus for purposes of a Wikipedia discussion" to become a definition of "what is a consensus in the real world". Most readers will understand the word "consensus" with a dictionary.com type meaning, not with a Wikipedia-policy type meaning. Therefore, they will consider a sentence like "There is a scientific consensus that COVID-19 is a zoonosis" to be lunacy. By sanctioning NormChou, we are therefore addressing a less-serious problem, while making the more-serious problem worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I agree that the lack of discussion from NormChou is a problem. But last time he was sanctioned in part for too much discussion. So it's not the case that he is ignoring community input. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Are you arguing that there is a scientific consensus by the dictionary.com definition of "consensus"? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: A statement that the virus is natural is different form a statement that there is a consensus that the virus is natural. NormChou is therefore on the verge of being sanctioned for reverting something that isn't even in the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the specific text under dispute for several of the diffs in the initial report has been softened after some discussion between me and User:Shibbolethink. It is very much to the credit of User:Shibbolethink that (s)he was willing to make that change while this report is pending. At the same time, one takeaway is that User:Normchou was at least partly correct about the content issue. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

The disregard for Wikipedia's policy and general preference for lower quality sources, including interpretation of primary sources, is not unique. Particularly troubling elements are the refusal to participate in talk page discussions (the only edits by Normchou on that talk page date from back in January - and they're not much more charming), and the ignoring of sources even when they're literally quoted in the edit summary. The long term, "slow" edit-warring is also disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to AN's (post above) comments about "reality", Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is a good reflection of our policies. WP:RS and WP:NPOV both imply that academic and other high quality sources are superior to newspapers, and WP:NOTNEWS details that we're not a newspaper. But anyway, this isn't the forum to litigate policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geogene: Normchou has been asked multiple times to contribute on the talk page, and has been topic banned before, and is currently disruptively engaging in a "slow-motion" edit war to cleanse the articles of terms that don't suit their opinion (generating much discussion on talk pages, where they have so far failed to participated), as well as casting accusations on other editors (see their comment), as if that would somehow justify them not using the talk page (hint: it doesn't). As for the content dispute, suffice to say that the bigger issue is the perpetual confusion between the two main aspects: the political controversy over the subject has little common ground with the vast majority of scientific inquiries into the matter, and many sources which are totally fine to report on politics are utterly inept at making proper summaries of the science (this is not new, nor unique to COVID - see this excellent comic take on the subject). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adoring nanny: Your claim that "saying there is a scientific consensus is a lunacy" is, to put it bluntly, wrong. For one, a look at actual scientific papers (even recent ones - the trend hasn't changed in the past year AFAICS) will show that. The media are prone to misrepresenting certainty (or uncertainty), especially when it involves politics (climate change denial - ringing a bell?). In either case, go read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for why we don't care, even if you are right and the scientists are wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Empiricus If this were the first time, a warning to strictly comply with the regular editing process - namely, to take disputes to the talk page and not in edit summaries, and to not make wild accusations about the intents of other editors (which is valid whether there are DS or not in a topic) - might be enough. However, at this point, that would just be a symbolic non-action which would not do anything to solve the problem. Normchou's talk page archive is also rife with signs that this isn't a new problem, and not one that a few month's break has solved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adoring nanny: This is not the place to continue the content dispute. I don't care what the dictionary definition is, I care what the scientific sources say about science. You're free, as ever, to present the same kind of high quality sources on the relevant talk pages to support your assertions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adoring nanny: NormChou is to be sanctioned for not participating in consensus building and other dubious behaviour. As for the discussion about the content dispute, please take it to the relevant talk pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Normchou has just published an essay where he, unironically, alleges that scientists are entirely unethical and that we should throw out peer-reviewed publications because of this, along with some bogus pseudo-mathematics... Clearly, they do not understand our policies and guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now thinly veiled uncivility. Also, @CutePeach: you can't explain being at over 1200 words here (which also include personal attacks against me and ProcrastinatingReader) just because "links took you over the limit". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HalfdanRagnarsson

I second Adoring nanny. Circumstances have changed more than a bit in the past few months, with new questions arising among both the general public and the scientific community. News reports from reliable sources cannot be dismissed only on the grounds of WP:MEDRS; they too are a key source of to-date information, especially on a topic like covid that is quite significant in the public eye. It is true that the volte-face of the past few months is a bit difficult to take at face value, in that what seemed like a conspiracy theory last year now appears quite credible. However, we must avoid getting into a bunker mentality. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

I remember the sudden, striking change in the article tenor when User:Rosguill topic-banned Normchou for 90 days. It became less difficult and effortful for everyone/anyone to make small contributions, because editors didn't have to push every single word through a self-appointed gatekeeper.

It appears that the long break did not produce any lasting change in the editor's (in)ability to contribute in line with consensus, and EdJohnston's warnings against edit warring in general do not seem to have had much effect. ("As an admin, I would like to avoid a block but you seem like someone who is very sure you are correct and is not easy to persuade", about this incident). Normchou's edits, taken as a whole, tend to cast doubt on scientific consensus (which is not absolute or unanimous, but which does have a broad direction at this moment) and sometimes seem to have a specific political slant as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bakkster Man

There are two issues at play. One is the contentious content dispute. This isn't really the venue for resolving that dispute, but it is definitely the backdrop of the case. Uncertainty, a quick moving nature, and allegations of 'cover-ups' in the press all make it more difficult than the standard content dispute. I suggest this means more need for conscientious consensus building and courteous editing than the average content dispute.

The direct issue is whether Normchou's edits amongst that backdrop have been constructive or disruptive. Echoing RandomCanadian, my primary concern is an apparent refusal to discuss and reach consensus through Talk pages, seemingly preferring to edit war[25][26][27][28] and attempting to make his case solely through edit summaries (sometimes arguably WP:POINTY summaries[29][30][31]). This makes consensus building more difficult than it needs to be, if not nearly impossible. Particularly contrasting the above edit war behavior with the commendable behavior of Korny O'Near regarding the same dispute[32] where he went to Talk page, participated, and we seem to have resolved the dispute with better wording[33].

Echoing WhatamIdoing, if this was a first offense I'd hope that a warning and coaching could improve user's consensus building and result in constructive editing. Having been topic banned once before makes me, unfortunately, less hopeful that the user is interested in and willing to improve behavior. Outside of DS and the previous topic ban, this behavior might be tolerable (if annoying). In the context of disruption to a delicate process of consensus building, on pages under GS/DS, and the prior ban, I regrettably agree that further sanctions are necessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny: Shouldn't the content/WP:PAG question of "consensus" be taken up in a different venue instead? Any sanction here would seem to be based on whether behavior was appropriate for reaching consensus, not whether Normchou was right or wrong in their position regarding the dispute. Two orthogonal questions; a user can be correct in their interpretation of a policy, but still violate PAGs in a way that's disruptive while attempting to make their point. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny: Understanding the content dispute helps to understand the complaint, but this AE/DS can't and won't resolve the content dispute. Resolving it should start with a request in the right spot. Even if Normchou (or any other editor) is completely correct regarding content, I would suggest they can still break dispute resolution policy and violate DS. Dispute resolution/consensus is the complaint, the content dispute is just the POV behind the alleged disruption. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Forich

I am sympathetic to Normchou, because I see his edits going in a direction than can improve the articles on Covid's origin. This makes my opinion biased, please note that. The DS rule is a remedy to behaviour described as disruptive, and that "members of a twitter group" engage in "using Wikipedia as a soapbox", among other issues listed in the original arbitration request. If Normchou has been disruptive, or if he is a member of the twitter group that misuses Wikipedia, he should receive the sanctions per DS. The first allegation , being disruptive is clearly defined. In my opinion, Normchou crossed the line on being tendentious, and ignoring community inputs. I can see why others would think he is not engaging in consensus building, but I disagree with them. On behaviour grounds, Normchou's edit summaries seem complete and reasonable to me, although he falls short on the guideline to "Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". From his statement, he felt that the Talk Page of "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" was WP:Gaming (deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia). Is Normchou using Wikipedia as a Soapbox (a medium to express stirred passions on a subject)? I don't believe so, if that was the case he would be writing long opinions and walls of text in talk pages, which is the opposite of what he has done. So, in summary, I think Normchou is guilty of showing tendentious editing, and ignorig community input, and doing it enough number of times to be perceived as disruptive. I suggest we warn Normchou on the specific behaviour of stop being tendentious and ignoring community input. His previous topic ban was made because of WP:Battleground, so I am unsure if it counts as precedent that we should take into account for the current case (it was a different case, IMO). Finally, Normchou's statement was, at times, showing disregard for the inputs of the community, which is a sign that he is not interested in fixing that part of his disruptive behaviour, and should be taken into account in the final decision. Normchou if you are reading this, retract and ammend the attitude inmediately or be prepared to face the consequences. I want to put in the record that I condemm his attitude in that regard. Also, I oppose a definitive ban even if allowed by DS. --Forich (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

I'm concerned that Shibbolethink considers these diffs [34], [35] as disruptive, claiming that Inserting POV content that is WP:UNDUE and not from scientific peer-reviewed sources. Why does Shibbolethink have a problem with reliably sourced investigative journalism? What PAG requires all content to be sourced from peer reviewed journals? And is the origin of COVID-19 purely a scientific question, or are there social and political dimensions as well? Geogene (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Empiricus

I basically agree with Adoring nanny observation. NormChou is an important corrective to one-sided, purely scientific article editing, including by incorporating new aspects of 2021 into the article. For this, as far as the laboratory is concerned, sources other than MEDRS can be used according to our guidelines. NormChou does not do anything else - it is difficult to deduce misconduct from this. Ultimately, it's just a matter of different interpretations and source preferences. That he not much discussed is certainly a problem, but "the consensus logic" of the discussion side is completely unproductive. I can understand this. On the discussion side, the zoonosis theory is treated as truth - the consensus of science, but without proof - and everything that speaks against this, especially the laboratory thesis is a conspiracy theory and is endlessly discussed. Everything what does not fit is selected, for e.g. the important statements of the G7 for a new investigation - is not included. A serious misconduct of NormChou I can`t see, if these would be a warning would be sufficient. A ban would worsen the article quality and remove the article even further from reality. He is a main author of the article and he should continue writing here, maybe seek a little bit more consensus.--Empiricus (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aeonx

I find Normchou explanation justifiable, and would be disappointed to see Arbitration/DS against Normchou result from a failure in the community to apply to good editing as a community responsibility. I am particularly concerned about the zealous editing, and presumptions of superiority in editing relating to claims about what is a lower quality source or what is/isn't undue weight or the current scientific consensus. Building on Bakkster's comment, I find that generally on the whole Normchou's edits to be NET constructive, whilst certainly not free from disruptive editing, there are positive edits which need to be valued by the community. I also oppose the view disruptive edits are always a bad thing, debate and conflicts in editing are good, they just need to be managed and conducted in a way that is conducive to achieving editorial consensus. Aeonx (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CutePeach

I appreciate Shibbolethink inviting me here but I believe he filed this case too hastily, and it seems to me he did so on the beckoning of RandomCanadian [36], who is the one who effected the regime change of sanctions to this venue [37] Just the other day, I removed politicians from Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#International_politicians'_calls_for_investigations [38] and it was subsequently restored by RandomCanadian as part of a peculiar revert that didn't affect any of the later edits made by Shibbolethink [39]. RandomCanadian’s then revert appears to be part of a well crafted scheme to provoke clashes with other editors, leading to the escalation of our content dispute to this forum where the hope is that administrators will treat it as a conduct issue. Note that this is the second time RandomCanadian restored the politicians title [40], after Normchou first took it out [41], so it was only reasonable for Normchou to counter RandomCanadian’s revert, selflessly throwing himself on a grenade aimed at me, leaving the politicians change for me or another editor to defuse. Read further for context.

Before Darouet’s changes [42] [43], this subsection was originally a section titled "International calls for investigations", which made a lot more sense as an introduction to the subject. Neither Darouet nor RandomCanadian explained their changes on the talk page, and instead reverted Normchou and myself on restorations made to this important introductory section, also without explanation on the talk page. The introduction section of the article now is a ambiguous transclusion from SARS-COV-2 which pushes the actual subject of the article below the fold, which Terjen raised in a discussion here [44]. In a possibly final act of courage as a Wikipedian, I have again removed politicians from the title [45], added the official WHO source about the World Health Assembly motion [46], and restored it as the introductory section to the article [47] (notwithstanding a revert attempt by RandomCanadian seconds after I made it). I fully expected RandomCanadian to make this revert, but didn’t know he would get to it within seconds, and now Arbcom should be able to see why editing in the COVID-19 origins topic area has become so precarious and risky for the rest of us.

If Darouet, RandomCanadian, or any other editor wishes to further revert my abovementioned edits and has valid reasons for doing so, they should start a discussion on the talk page, as per WP:BURDEN. To my knowledge, there are no RSs claiming Australia and Germany’s calls for investigations were politically motivated and the source I added shows this is standard procedure before a WHA. I also created a new Renewed Calls for Investigations section as per the G7 statements reported by CNN [48], which RandomCandian also reverted a mere minute afterwards. I would also encourage other editors here to participate in the above mentioned discussion started by Terjen, so that we can form proper consensus on how to order and structure the Origins section. Placing the background of the Origins section before a background of the Investigations does not make much sense for an article titled the way it is. CutePeach (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, did you read my well prepared and thought out statement before typing yours up in such a hurry? RandomCanadian interrupted me between edit #2 and #3 that I made just to show Arbcom how he has poisoned the well for the community. There was no edit war. CutePeach (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, instead of leaving driveby warnings on my page and ridiculing my explanation here, perhaps you should refresh your knowledge of WP:PRIMARY and specifically point #3. The first WHO document in this edit [49] was provided as a primary source supplementarily to the Science Magazine which I provided as a one of the few secondary sources that covers its statement accurately. There are hundreds of RSs and even a few MEDRS covering this WHO document, many of which do so inaccurately, and therefore Wikipedia’s coverage has been inaccurate too - requiring us to look closer at the primary source and scrutinize our secondary sources. Neither the WHO document nor the Science Magazine article say that the outcome of the WHA was for the WHO to conduct an investigation, but that the WHA requested that the WHO DG work closely with partners to determine the origins of SARS-CoV-2 - so WHO’s statement is not being presented accurately in our COVID-19 investigations article. I corrected this inaccuracy, which you nearly banned me over.

The second primary source I provided was on the "Terms of Reference” for the WHO mission that was subsequently organized by the WHO DG, where we see it is called the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 or "Joint China-WHO Study" and not a "WHO team" or "an investigation" as our article calls it, so this too is not being presented accurately. There are many very good secondary sources clarifying this small but important point, like this 60 minutes segment [50]. The WHO Mission Chief himself pointed out that study was not an investigation [51], and WP:COMMONSENSE says it lacked any of the characteristics of what Wiktionary or Wikipedia would call an investigation. I’m not sure why you wanted to ban me for making this distinction.

I would like to start a discussion asking why my edits were removed, and also about adding third primary source on the WHO DG’s response to the Joint WHO-China Study [52], for inclusion in the Reactions subsection of the WHO section, as supplement to the many secondary sources we have for it [53]. I am sure it would be a productive discussion, but I’m too tired now, so I will try to get around to it tomorrow, if you haven’t banned me by then. CutePeach (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: if Jon Stewart’s humor doesn’t do it for you, here are some more serious writeups about the COI issue from some more reputable sources [54] [55] [56]. What would you think if mud men launched a campaign right after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to persuade the public that there was nothing risky about their little Deepwater drilling exercise even though they had not yet developed the means to plug a leak at 18,360 feet depth? What would you think of petrophysicists going on TV right after the Aliso Canyon gas leak and telling everyone that there was nothing risky about their Natural gas storage in Aquifer reservoir project, even though they had not yet developed the means to detect a leak in a corroded pipe at 8,750 feet depth and plug it. What if some civil engineers tried to publish papers right after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster claiming that there was nothing risky about placing nuclear reactors in zones exposed to tsunamis and vulnerable to earthquakes? What do you think of Virologist Angela Rasmussen’s quotes in Gain of Function Research trying to persuade us that there was nothing risky about that kind of research and that the government has it all under control? In this tweet [57], Rasmussen discloses she is a " friend" with her "PHD Advisor" and "trusted mentor" Vincent Racaniello, who just so happens to be founder of Scientists for Science which advocates for self regulation and against increased government oversight. In the current climate, is it worth me risking my account to remove that non WP:NPOV quote from the article, or put in an alternative POV like Peacock did on their platform [58]? CutePeach (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom, please note that ProcrastinatingReader is an involved party in the campaign that DGG accurately describes, and he is especially distinguished for his strong POV pushing and lobbying of administrators to ban other editors involved in the topic area of COVID-19 Origins. ProcrastinatingReader voted strong delete here [59], and falsely claims here [60] that the selective quoting of Richard H. Ebright‘s general 2017 comments on Chinese labs by editors to spin them as his endorsement of the conspiracy theory, when he’s explicitly disavowed it. In fact, Ebright is the most most vocal prominent scientist calling the China-WHO Joint Study a charade and demanding a real investigation into what he calls the laboratory-accident hypothesis [61]. ProcrastinatingReader’s misrepresentation of Ebright’s view was noted by another editor in an ANI posted by RandomCanadian about me [62], and when I tried the other day to add a more recent quote from Ebright on Wuhan Institute of Virology [63], it was immediately reverted by you know who without any discussion, and now the article reflects only Ebright’s 2017 view. Ebright has been quoted extensively on the topic in many reliable sources from as early as Jan 2020 [64], saying most notably that the hypothesis must undergo a forensic and not just a scientific investigation [65], and he is a signatory two open open letters about this published in two very reputable sources [66]. [67]. CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

This just to note that I am very impressed with the lengthy diatribe of the new SPA CutePeach, and that I came this close to blocking them for their behavior on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Striking how verbose they are here and how they refused to communicate there during an edit war they instigated. Maybe I should have blocked--it might have prevented them from posting here and muddying the waters even further. If we're arbitrating, it'd be nice if someone looked at their contributions to see if a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

There is no scientific evidence that the virus did not escape from this lab or another lab by an accident. And even the artificial selection or genetic manipulations can not be disproven solely by the sequence analysis unless someone finds exact populations of bats and intermediate hosts (if any) where the virus came from. The origin of the virus (i.e. the specific population of bats, the intermediate host and patient zero) are very much unknown. I believe all non-medical aspects of this controversy should be covered per WP:RS rather than WP:MEDRS, and most aspects of it are not medical. But the actual issue here is different: can all these users work collaboratively with each other? And if they can not, what should be done about it? I can not read all these comments, but the initial diffs brought by the filer do not seem so convincing to me because the changes by Normchou can be arguably viewed as slight improvements, although the bias and the amateurish approach by Normchou are also evident. ~~I would say 1RR editing restriction at most for Normchou if admins think something needs to be done.~~My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~As about CutePeach, most their main space edits look legit (e.g. [68]), but indeed an SPA and possibly not a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think Terjen (just below) is right because the statement removed by Normchou: [69] imply the existence of consensus among virologists on three points: (a) that the virus "likely had a zoonotic origin", (b) that it is "possibly transmitted through an intermediate host", and (c) that "a laboratory origin for the virus is "extremely unlikely" . Speaking on (a), yes, sure, but it has a zoonotic origin even if the virus escaped the lab because the virus clearly originated in bats, and how exactly it infected patient zero (and who was patient zero) does not matter. Speaking on (b), the word "possibly" betrays the actual lack of consensus even about the existence of the intermediate host. Speaking on (c), "origin" in this context implies production or at least manipulation (including artificial selection) of the virus in the lab rather than just an accidental escape. The "extremely unlikely" is just a hearsay, not science, because no one even tried to estimate the actual probability (that's a number), obviously because this is not meaningful. Yes, it does seem unlikely, but only until one learns about the biological weapons program in China [70]. The remaining issue is repeated reverts by Normchou, ~~but if that counts as removal of incorrect and unsourced claim, I do not think it justifies any sanctions.~~My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I equally agree with Guy Macon (see his statement below). Normchou can not interact productively with other people who disagree with them on that subject and seem unable to self-reflect and critically evaluate her/his own statements. So yes, a topic ban might be in order. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Terjen

This is a bizarre complaint, with many of the diffs showing Normchou removing WP:UNSOURCED claims inserted by other editors, primarily the submitter of the enforcement request. WP:VERIFY explicitly allows removing material unsupported by cited sources, placing the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability with the editor who adds or restores material.

In the first three diffs [71][72][73] Normchou removes the WP:UNSOURCED claim that when WHO reported that the virus likely had a zoonotic origin they were "Echoing the consensus among virologist". This WP:OR claim of scientific consensus was repeatedly reinserted by RandomCanadian [74][75] and Shibbolethink [76][77] [78] [79], despite WP:V saying unsourced claims should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

WP:RS/AC sets the bar high for claiming academic consensus, including explicitly requiring any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. This guideline has been repeatedly referenced in the discussions on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 involving these editors. They are well aware of the requirement for reliable sourcing and are quick to demand WP:MEDRS from others. Terjen (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: WP:BOOMERANG opens for your disruptive behavior to be under scrutiny. You have been edit warring to insert unsourced POV, showing disregard for our core policies. Then you drag the challenging editor to AE proposing an indefinite TBAN to get them out of the way, despite the burden being on you to provide sourcing, not on them to discuss. Enforcing admins should not take this lightly. Terjen (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

I do not think Normchou has been editing very effectively, and I;ve told him so. But I see this as part of a campaign to drive away editors who want to cover the real-world discussion of the possibility of COVID19 being of laboratory origin. Those trying to remove or slant our coverage are pretending that the hypothesis has never been covered by any RS, ignoring that both Science and Nature have covered it, and the NYT has run a long series of articles about it. nominator here is pretending that there is consensus that it can not be covered except by MEDRS quality sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's a biased and false interpretation of MEDRS.-- the true meaning of MEDRS is that we cannot say definitely it is right without MEDRS quality sources saying so, but nobody is proposing to do that. I am not certain whether or not we have MEDRS quality sources to say it is wrong, but that's irrelevant to discussing it both as a scientific hypothesis and as a social fact. .Some of those above have taken the psition that the likelihood of the hypothesis is relevant. They're wrong. The question is whether it is discussed by RSs. The hypothesis may be wrong, but as it has been covered by RS it is hardly fringe. We shouldn;t be presenting the hyporthesis has proven right, or as proven wrong. And even when it is proven wrong, as I expect it will, it still needs to be discussed, because its a major chapter in the history of thinking about this disease. They ae now trying to remove one of the editors who oppose their narrow perspective. The motivation for their view escapes me. It can't be science, because science takes alternative hypotheses seriously until proven wrong, and even then continues to discuss them in full detail as examples. I can only suppose that they are saying that because the hypothesis was originally proposed by a group with a far-right wing bias, that it must necessarily be so wrong we should pretend it has never been proposed and that no responsible publication has ever discussed it. This is the very opposite of science, of NPOV, of WP:V-- an unprecedented perversion of the encyclopedia.

I do not think all the neutral admins to be actually neutral,. Some of them have been expressing similar views about restricting unduely our coverage of fringe topics, and of expand our definition of fringe as broaqdly as possible. I see one of them is using this ANI request to suggest the removal of anothereditor who has been expressing similar views. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

On User talk:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? Normchou called another editor a troll.[80]

The post was clearly not trolling but was instead simply an opinion that Normchou didn't agree with.

I asked Normchou not to do that.[81]

They responded by doing it again.[82]

I have warned them using stronger language.[83]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I recall the user from this ANI discussion. Today I stumbled across their essay. The "A simple calculation" section is pure disinformation, and indicates that the user is either trolling or has such a strong POV that they cannot edit usefully in this area. Their other edits on articles have been equally problematic. While I'm here, respectfully, I believe DGG may need to reconsider his statement about an alleged "campaign". An editor misrepresenting sources should be a problem for everyone. As DGG admits, I do not think Normchou has been editing very effectively. The rest seems to be an unrelated statement about coverage of the lab leak theory on Wikipedia, which can be discussed on the appropriate article talk. This is an AE section requesting admin action against a single editor. That single editor has persistently behaved problematically. They should be removed from the topic area, for their sake and everyone else's, and this time indefinitely (ie, until the user can justify to the community that they're ready to contribute productively to the topic). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Normchou

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

Ched, per the motion, notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire. Normchou was notified on 21 January 2021, which makes this request valid. – bradv🍁 00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that Normchou was topic banned for 90 days in January and the diffs provided, I think another topic ban is in order --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed by the fact that, in the face of allegations that Normchou prefers low quality sources, they chose to begin their essay with a reference to a clearly satirical bit in a comedy show. – bradv🍁 05:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Normchou's behavior is disruptive enough to warrant another topic ban, and this time a longer one. I also invite admins to look at CutePeach's commentary here, and their rather silly explanation for their completely unexplained edits and the subsequent edit war. ARE is kind of like ANI, where posting or weighing in can lead to one's own edits being examined, and CutePeach's edits in article space (both in terms of content, with primary sourcing, and in terms of behavior, the edit warring and lack of explanation) are problematic enough. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors editing articles under these sanctions are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard regarding the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Normchou has not done this. The slow motion edit warring to their preferred version is particularly disruptive. I don't have to make a judgement call on whose edit is correct to see that repeatedly making the same contested edit over the course of several days is disruptive. They know this based on their prior topic ban. Due to their behavior in the short time since its expiry I think another topic ban(from COVID-19 related topics, broadly construed) is required. I think it should be at least 6 months, but a year would probably be better. While I prefer a finite duration TBAN I do not oppose an indefinite one if that is the consensus of other administrators here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While some of Normchou's edits can be defended on various grounds, they have made no edits to Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 since 23 January 2021. Given the degree of slow-motion edit warring, that is not acceptable in a topic under general/discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha

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 Eatcha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eatcha (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

13:15, 16 June 2021 They create a section with three lines on the article The Wire (India) dedicated to a breaking news item. The addition is solely based on police accounts, is editorialised and uses a number of low quality sources. I condense this addition, remove the low quality sources and move it under a section.
15:17, 16 June 2021 They immediately revert it and start a discussion in Talk:The Wire (India) § White washing. In the discussion, I explain WP:ONUS to them and the issues related to due weight and presentation in their version. But they just end up ignoring all of it and being stuck on what sources should be considered RSes. I eventually end up removing their addition citing onus.
18:09, 16 June 2021 They immediately revert it and leave a template on my talk page. I reply to it again mentioning that the onus is on them to achieve consensus for inclusion and that communication is necessary. Their addition is removed again later by a different editor which prompts them to comment on 21:18, 16 June 2021 that they will start an RfC when they get time.

Following this encounter, I decide to go through some of their other contributions and find a whole bunch of problematic editing, ironically in the article of Uttar Pradesh Police.

This entire section called "Corruption and misconduct" was created and filled by them between September 2020 and May 2021 and includes multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME, in places non notable perpetrators and victims alike are named and in places they state in wiki-voice that a specific person committed a crime without there being a conviction. I had to cleanup the section in Special:Diff/1028876153.
I also left a message on their talk to which their reply on 21:12, 16 June 2021 is concerning where they state "I only care about trashing the police..."

12:57, 22 May 2021 Addition of a section called "Yadavisation" in the article of Uttar Pradesh Police filled with original research and poor sourcing, which more or less says that the number of Yadavs (an ethnic/caste group) in the police has increased and that they are causing lawlessness and helping criminals.
15:45, 24 May 2021 Restoration after first removal. They also template the person who had reverted them.
21:15, 16 June 2021 Restoration after second removal. They also template the person who had reverted them. I remove the addition after this. Note that their restoration occurs after all our previous conversations regarding onus and communication. During this entire period since 22 May, they don't even bother to start a talk page discussion.
I create a section with a detailed explanation of the issues with the addition in Talk:Uttar Pradesh Police § "Yadavisation" and ping them there but it just seems to prompt them to start an RfC on 03:19, 17 June 2021 for the article of The Wire (India) which is essentially a complaint against me.

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)

Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the last twelve months, at 16:04, 14 August 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Other than two articles above, I haven't checked their contributions on other articles. The editor has been on Wikipedia for a bit over an year now and still doesn't have a grasp of basic policies and proccesses, they either don't seem to read policies or they don't care about them. Their communication is just evasion and aggression, with accusations and inappropriate templating. The date and time in this report are in IST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the SPI, it was inconclusive, you can see the discussion at User talk:Tayi Arajakate/OArchive. The "SP Eatcha" account is likely just the person behind this account who has been trolling around for some time now and is most likely unrelated. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1028963604

Discussion concerning Eatcha

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 Eatcha

On my actions at Uttar Pradesh Police

Most of the contents at Uttar_Pradesh_Police#Corruption_and_misconduct are added by me.
I've tried to use reliable sources and most of the time used the word "alleged". But there are only 2 sources in India considered reliable, we never discussed other sources.
On Yadavisation of UP Police, see [my talk-page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eatcha&oldid=1028977450] and also [jstor https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Yadavisation]. I accept that I should've used more sources from JSTOR search/google books rather than google search.

On my actions at The Wire (India)

Read the last three sections at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wire_(India)&oldid=1028946432
Wikipedia lists 2 Indian news sources as reliable, both of them discuss the issue. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

-- Eatcha 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just created a Sock accountUser:‎SP Eatcha of me and reverted the accuser

I've reported the account and ask for an WP:SPI check of the sock, me, the accuser(Tayi Arajakate) and User:Far from average. I'm sure it's one of us. -- Eatcha 06:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that User:Tayi Arajakate was caught socking, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pali Upadhyay/Archive.

Acknowledgement/apology for BRD

I should have not violated WP:BRD. I accept/admit my mistake and apologize. -- Eatcha 05:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

clear commitment to refrain from violation of WP:BRD

I commit to refrain from violation of WP:BRD again. ---- Eatcha 05:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lines of a statement explaining why your previous actions were wrong

I made a mistake by not using reliable sources and the reason I didn't used reliable sources is because I never checked the list.
I also failed to open a RFC when I was asked to seek consensus for my additions and instated used the 3RR to make sure my edit was the final version, and when I finally opened the RFC, it was not neutral and was a list of edits of the accuser and why I think he was biased.
"I only care about trashing the police...", I shouldn't have used these words. I still don't like the police but I will try to make sure that I don't use these kind of phrases again.
I should have opened a thread when I was reverted for the second time on the article about discrimination in police departments. And used the sources from Academic journals instead of sources that are not considered reliable on Wikipedia.

clarifying how you will deal with editing disputes in the future

I will make sure to open a neutral RFC when ever I suspect that another editor is biased.
I will try to disengage, I acknowledge I did the opposite this time.
I will ask for 3rd opinion and post on India related noticeboards if I feel that I am being reverted unjustly.
I will not edit any article on Wikipedia for one year(until July 2022), I am taking a break form editing articles on English Wikipedia. There's no way I will break the policies again if I don't edit any article for a such a long time. Maybe it would be longer than the sanction I was about to receive, I am self-imposing the sanction for the good. I have an another account User:DNAFET, I won't use this account to circumvent the self imposed sanctions. You may block me indef, If I edit any article during this period of self-introspection.
I sincerely seek your forgiveness and hope you decide to give me another chance.

-- Eatcha 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha's response to Drmies

Why I didn't respond?

>> I didn't wanted a second edit dispute with the accuser. And I was also more concentrated on the dispute at The Wire (India).

"If you want to play here, and play in difficult areas, you will have to at least pretend to be collaborative."

>> I had no intention to challenge the removal, I could have searched for more sources (see the JSTOR links).

And really, it is NOT OK to drop socking accusations without any kind of evidence.

>> I did not make any of it myself. I agree that I should have used the word "alleged" in some places and should have used articles from famous journals rather than "unreliable" Indian newspapers.

After a brief lull, Uttar Pradesh has plunged back into the realms of lawlessness and it is aggressive favouritism and unbridled casteism, better known as Yadavisation, in the police force that is responsible for the state of affairs.
— w:The Sunday Guardian, article link

Statement by zzuuzz

Just a quick note that the User:‎SP Eatcha account is a troll joe-job, as Tayi Arajakate suggests, and I wouldn't let it influence anything here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz I saw that--you found nothing relevant? There's two drive-by accounts that removed the content and I looked at them but found nothing useful. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eatcha

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

Eatcha's response here doesn't address edit warring. In both cases, Eatcha broke with WP:BRD. Unless there is both acknowledgment of their past edit warring and a clear commitment to refrain from doing so again, a topic ban appears to be appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eatcha, by a clear commitment to refrain from doing so again, I meant something more along the lines of a statement explaining why your previous actions were wrong and clarifying how you will deal with editing disputes in the future, not rote repetition of my suggestion. If you can make a convincing promise to engage more productively, then I think a logged warning is perhaps all that is needed at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eatcha, why did you not respond to the long post on the talk page about that Yadavisation? If you want to play here, and play in difficult areas, you will have to at least pretend to be collaborative. I'm about to go look at some other edits, but this is pretty troubling, especially since now I don't have much of a choice but to accept the analysis by User:Tayi Arajakate, which (from a few spot checks) seems pretty accurate, meaning it's quite damning. And really, it is NOT OK to drop socking accusations without any kind of evidence. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astral Leap

No action. Requestor hasn't shown any reason this change would be productive. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Astral Leap (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are indefinitely banned from interacting with GizzyCatBella (WP:IBAN), one-way. [84]

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Astral Leap

To get this out of the way, I was suspected of being a sockpuppet but this was checked and rejected by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (deleted). My relations with the editor I am sanctioned from got off to a rocky start after this question following Zezen's block (AN discussion) that I was involved with.

The sanction was imposed on me after two actions on my part:

1. I made a AE report, [85], that documented a topic ban violation. However, because the editor was reported by other new users previously, and there was a pattern of these reports the topic ban was lifted so that there would be no more reports.

2. I made a ANI report, which I admit was on a minor issue (minor flags). After this was opened, El C placed in short succession on my page:

 a. warning not to do "ad-hoc prosecutions".
 b. discretionary sanction alert
 c. sanction

I think El C was quick here because he suspected me of something else.

This sanction would not be so bad, but it is bad because I am being tormented by the editor who I am sanctioned from. They are addressing me, accusing me, all this while knowing I can't respond:

1. [86]: "Astral Leap I recognize that you are under a one-way interaction ban with me, so I apologize to you AL. I know you can't defend yourself concerning my criticism...."

2. [87] this notification of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek was criticized by the clerking admin Blablubbs in the deleted discussion.

3. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (deleted, can not link) making accusations at me. Even responding to my request to be left alone, with a condescending comment on me responding to a the notification on my talk page.

The last sockpuppet accusation was not the first one. I also faced accusations by this edit in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive.

I admit my ANI report made a mountain out of a molehill of minor edit summaries. I shouldn't have done it. I will avoid making these kinds of reports against the editor or any editor.

Admins, please either lift this sanction or make it so this editor can not make comments on my either. It isn't fair that I get criticized and tormented like this and I can not respond to it.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El C

Except for today, since Feb, the appellant has made a total of 2 edits, so it's difficult to gauge the utility of the (Jan 30) ban, the context of which I admittedly no longer have a firm recollection of. El_C 10:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I’m an editor with whom the appellant has an interaction ban. Just a note of what really happened because the appellant offers a bit twisted version of it. I suffered harassment from numerous brand new accounts, which followed my every edit and kept reverting me or filing bogus reports against me. One of them was, at the time, a junior account of the appellant. Details can be found here [88] (see my closing note at that report). The appellant has been granted an interaction ban with me (and very rightly so) on 30 January 2021.[89] Soon after, on 1 February 2021, they were blocked for one week[90] and eventually, their talk page access was revoked for poking at Volunteer Marek [91] After their block expired, the appellant made a total of 5 more edits on February 15th[92] and went still. On June 9, 2021, I left a note on the appellant talk page[93] regarding the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (now deleted) notifying them that they are being mentioned there. To my surprise, the appellant responded within 4 hours making a post at the investigation and their talk page[94] despite being inactive for 4 months. Admins may want to look at the mentioned (now deleted) investigation for details on how the appellant's name has been brought up there and by whom, since I don't remember anymore. As far as tormenting accusation - this is a total boloney. I referred to the appellant only once after them receiving an IB[95], and despite me not having an interaction ban with them, I was very thoughtful. That's a quick recap; This appeal should be rejected since there are no reasons for the lift, and .... well, you draw your conclusions. If you need any more information, please ask. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade - Got it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Astral Leap

Result of the appeal by Astral Leap

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

I don't see a compelling reason to overturn this sanction --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like Guerillero, I don't see any substantial reason to overturn the interaction ban, and there is not enough editing activity to determine whether Astral Leap's judgment has improved sufficiently to warrant doing so. That said, GizzyCatBella, I do not think what you did was meant to be poking or provocative, but avoid anything that could even be interpreted that way, and understand how easy such an interpretation is when the other editor is barred from responding to you. If, for example, Astral Leap's participation at the SPI would have been helpful or desired, an SPI clerk could have taken care of making that notification, and that would have been much better that than you doing it. If they didn't think that needed to happen, what was the need for you to go and do it? Basically, absent some absolutely compelling reason to do otherwise, leave Astral Leap alone in return, or the interaction ban may need to be made mutual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Seraphimblade's first sentence and encourage Astral Leap to edit regularly and productively for a few months before appealing again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse Seraphimblade's first sentence. I'm very surprised that Astral Leap has made this request without giving any evidence. Do some constructive (and regular) editing for six months and ask again. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink‎

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 Shibbolethink‎

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shibbolethink‎ (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

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

00:26, 24 June 2021 S. acknowledges there is no source saying that DRASTIC are "promoting conspiracy theories explicitly," continues to push for article to say that in Wikivoice anyway.
18:16, 24 June 2021 BLP violation: claiming that DRASTIC could be called conspiracy theorists in Wikivoice, no source in this diff.
18:16, 24 June 2021 BLP violation: taking a specific, identified person's published comment out of context to claim that he calls himself a conspiracy theorist. The sources in this diff (El Pais, Vanity Fair, and CNET) do not support this interpretation, nor do they support calling the group conspiracy theorists in Wikivoice, as Shibbolethink favors.
20:47, 24 June 2021 Trying to rationalize his BLP original research.
19:41, 24 June 2021 Rationalizing his BLP original research, denies that he has violated BLP, invites me to file this AE request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

When I brought this to Shibbolethink's talkpage, he accused me of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WIN, and threatened to take me to AN/I, all in one diff [96].

Shibbolethink's statements here, This was an inappropriate report, and the user should take responsibility for bringing a content dispute to ArbE. As shown in my diffs, I was very happy to add disclaimers, context, etc. to my RfC. I was very happy to work with the editor, and add context to my claims. seems inconsistent with their statements before this was filed, Okay, I'm sorry to have upset you. If you'd like to report me to ANI or ArbE, be my guest. I don't believe I've done what you've just accused me of at all....EDIT SUMMARY: that's just like, your opinion, man.... [97]. Disclaimers, to make BLP and OR okay? We don't use disclaimers for that.

Which quote here do you suppose is more representative of S.'s behavior out in the field? Instead of arguing about venue, why haven't they produced sources to remedy the BLP violation? Could it be because those sources they'd need for their preferred content don't exist?

~~Shibbolethink is now editing the comments I've cited to change their meaning, in violation of WP:REDACT [98].~~ Geogene (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[99]

Discussion concerning Shibbolethink

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 Shibbolethink

This feels to me like a very clear cut case of bringing a content dispute to ARBE. But I suppose I asked for it. I would have preferred user report me to WP:BLPN or WP:DRN.

From my perspective:

I note ongoing discussion at Talk:DRASTIC about whether it's fair to describe group as "conspiracy theorists."
14:29, 24 June 2021 I agree in spirit with editor who describes group as such, but couldn't find solid sources which say it directly. Only as WP:SUMMARY.
14:29, 24 June 2021 when editor provides source that's closer to home, I propose we wait for consensus or start RfC to resolve ambiguity.
18:16, 24 June 2021 I start RfC.
19:32, 24 June 2021 Geogene accuses me of BLP violations for "grossly misinterpret[ing]" sources.
19:41, 24 June 2021 I say I'm happy to add disclaimers demonstrating where I'm engaging in uncontroversial primary sourcing and where I'm just quoting RSes. I add that clarification to my original !vote statement (20:47, 24 June 2021 & 20:59, 24 June 2021)
20:53, 24 June 2021 I also tell Geogene they should bring the dispute to the relevant noticeboards if they're confident I'm violating policy, as per WP:ASPERSIONS: "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page." I admit I was probably too hasty to reference ARBE/ANI, but I had forgotten WP:DRN existed. I think the actual appropriate place to escalate would've been WP:BLPN so I should have emphasized that more. However, very strong language that I should "delete [my] claims" made me act a little rash myself. (meaning what, the entire RfC? All the evidence I had gathered? Unclear)

I think this is the latest in a long line of casting WP:ASPERSIONS for Geogene.

Here are other examples of same and similar conduct from them:

01:11, 18 June 2021 insinuates I "have a problem" with journalists.
03:53, 2 June 2021 Accuses an entire wikiproject of canvassing because they're patrolling relevant pages.
03:29, 2 June 2021 See above.
01:20, 2 June 2021 See above.
23:39, 1 June 2021 Accuses WP:MEATPUPPET simply because users are on same wikiproject and edit similar articles/talk pages.
23:00, 1 June 2021 See above.
03:02, 1 June 2021 Editor removes comments from other users they disagree with, even though it isn't user's talk page and broke no rules. Ironically, removal cited WP:ASPERSIONS.
19:59, 1 June 2021 Editor gets admonished, agrees removal was probably wrong.
16:08, 1 June 2021 Removes a warning as "trolling" even though it's about user's conduct.
18:37, 28 May 2021 WP:POINTY and WP:ASPERSIONS. Just warn or report to WP:EWN. Don't threaten to try and silence people.
15:47, 28 May 2021 Tries to cite rollback as silencing or intimidating another editor. Relevant diff is here. Arguably a legitimate use of rollback, though haven't examined the situation closely. Enough that it probably shouldn't be called "abuse."

Conclusion: This was an inappropriate report, and the user should take responsibility for bringing a content dispute to ArbE. As shown in my diffs, I was very happy to add disclaimers, context, etc. to my RfC. I was very happy to work with the editor, and add context to my claims. Which is why this feels to me like bludgeoning or threatening me with a "BLP violation" in order to get me to remove my RfC altogether.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)--00:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Terjen: We covered this in the prior ArbE, see here.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: "all in one diff": "I would encourage you to re-read WP:ASPERSIONS. Not saying that's what you're doing, but saying if you try to use accusations like this as a WP:BLUDGEON to silence people you disagree with, then that would be a matter I would bring up to ANI or ARBE. Have a great day." I think that's extremely important context. Now I am accusing user of ASPERSIONS, because I think the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask Geogene, for the sake of not wasting everyone's time, and not clogging up admin time, would you consider withdrawing this and posting instead to WP:BLPN? Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: WP:REDACT, just added the strikethrough/underline[100]. Doesn't really matter since you're citing diffs anyway. The diffs don't change when I update the !vote. I updated the warning as per Berchanhimez's astute reasoning. WP:PRIMARY is indeed the more applicable WP:PAG.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying other involved editors

Notifying all users who edited the article/talk page in the past 72 hours:

Notified: User:SaltySaltyTears. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Zoozaz1. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:JohnFromPinckney. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:JPxG. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:RandomCanadian. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Francesco espo. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Guy Macon. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Novem Linguae. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Terjen

Shibbolethink are showing a pattern of disruptive behavior. They recently dragged Normchou to AE for a TBAN, despite having been edit warring themselves to permanently insert an unsourced POV claim of scientific consensus into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, showing disregard for core policies:

Verifiability requires such unsourced claims to not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source with the burden to provide sourcing being on the editor that wants to insert the claim. Moreover, WP:RS/AC sets the bar high for claiming academic consensus, including explicitly requiring any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. This guideline has been repeatedly referenced in the discussions on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 involving this editor, yet blatantly ignored. They are well aware of the requirement for reliable sourcing and are quick to demand MEDRS from others. Terjen (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should note it was Shibbolethink who requested/encouraged ArbE after admitting to original research/interpretation when listing examples of the conspiracies supposedly proposed by the group.[101] Terjen (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'd just like to note that none of the OP's diffs actually seem to constitute a BLP violation. The notions spread by DRASTIC are widely called "conspiracy theories" and there are sources referring to DRASTIC as "conspiracy theorists".

I'll also note that Terjen has been shown multiple reliable sources stating that the scientific consensus is that the lab leak is unlikely, and in light of that, their claims here look to be made entirely in bad faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Berchanhimez

Diff 1: starting an RfC. While BLP violations are prohibited on talk pages, it should be commended whenever someone starts a complete RfC - including all potentially viable outcomes as options - as it makes discussion much smoother. There's also no BLP issue here - the people involved are by definition anonymous and numerous - and as such there is no identifiable BLP that is being "smeared". Not to mention that as MPants brought up there are sources available, even if not directly included in the diff.
Diff 2: Not out of context at all - used the same quotation directly from the article. There's a page somewhere (maybe an essay) that explains why the rest of that quote is useless - someone's rebuttal to potentially negative information is expected and is not to be taken to mean the information is false.
Diff 3: Providing explanation of sources that is in line with those sources is not "original research". It's actually encouraged for people to provide explanation of why quotes are relevant to a discussion - and you're claiming that this user is wrong to do so?
Diff 4: Shibbolethink shouldn't have called this original research. This is a prime example of using an organization's published statements about themselves to potentially include in a WP article as attributed statements of an organization. I think that whole section is unnecessary as the rest of the sources clearly show they are considered conspiracy theorists by a vast majority of reliable sources, but there's no harm in including information that may be relevant. This also helps show the reasoning used by reliable sources to come to their conclusions, which is an important editorial consideration in some cases.

Conclusion: this is obviously a retaliatory filing after a user was topic banned (correctly and with consensus among uninvolved admins here), and just a plain disruptive enforcement request, and while I'm not sure if the OP's actions in the topic area are overall disruptive, the filing of this request highly suggests that it is perhaps the OP that should be considered for a topic ban. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zoozaz1

I'm not going to say much here nor get into the conduct of various editors, but the alleged BLP violation is simply groundless. The crux of this dispute is that the reliable sources in question state that the group is labelled as one of conspiracy theorists (by, in some cases, other reliable sources) rather than explicitly stating that it is a group of conspiracy theorists, but an editorial discussion over how best to present that slight nuance in the article can by no means be considered a BLP violation. Zoozaz1 talk 23:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG statement by RandomCanadian

The OP's diff are not proof of anything but a good faith discussion on the talk page. While we're at it, maybe a bit of boomerang throwing at the OP (both for this frivolous report and for previous disruption in the topic area) might be warranted: including their dismissal of well sourced statements, dubious claims of rollback abuse, and using popular press sources to argue about scientific topics. Not all of this is limited to the COVID area (see for example the dubious harassment and claims of off-wiki coordination at User_talk:Rp2006#Off-wiki_communications, the immediate threat to go to DR at Talk:Pit_bull#"so_there's_a_risk_that_the_scientific_literature_on_pit_bulls_has_been_influenced_by_money", ...). That looks like a possible case of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude (along with this dubious report). I'm not sure it amounts to enough to warrant a topic ban at this stage, although it suggests, at the very least, a stern warning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

As far as I can tell, Shibbolethink has never edited the assertion that DRASTIC is conspiracy theorists into the article DRASTIC. Another editor added that, and then it was amicably removed by myself and another editor as part of the normal editing/polishing/iteration process. Then Shibbolethink started an RFC on the issue, and presented good arguments that DRASTIC is conspiracy theorists. Shibbolethink's arguments are decent. He presents a CNET source and quote that calls DRASTIC conspiracy theorists: This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists., and he presents other convincing evidence. I am a bit baffled as to exactly what is a BLP violation here. Talking about what sources are saying about an organization on a talk page is not a BLP violation, and shows a misunderstanding of our BLP policies. This may be a case of WP:CRYBLP. If I may speak frankly, I believe this AE is yet another "origins of COVID-19" timesink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hob Gadling

Content dispute. It is a ridiculous waste of time to drag it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Shibbolethink

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

This is a content dispute, and those are not settled at AE, but by consensus discussion. That is already underway via the now-open RfC. I see no need for any administrative action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac

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 Loganmac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bakkster Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Loganmac (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/GamerGate#Scope of standard topic ban

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

11 May 2021 Topic banned comment on person associated to gender-related dispute or controversy: Article describes her in the lede as a "British transgender activist", edits were made shortly after another user left a comment on user's talk page regarding her editing.
7 July 2020 Topic banned comment on gender-related dispute or controversy: Expansion of a section titled "Sexual misconduct allegations against Malka and moderators exodus"
8 August 2019 Topic banned comment on gender-related dispute or controversy: Voting keep on an AfD on an article about a controversy regarding genital waxing for a transgendered woman. AfD was resolved delete.
17 July 2019 Topic banned comment on person associated to gender-related dispute or controversy: Change to article about a person banned from Twitter after an interaction with the transgender person named in the above AfD. Dispute, per the citation at the time, described as: "Shepherd, by her own admission, repeatedly misgendered Yaniv. She said she tweeted “at least I have a uterus you ugly fat man,” in response to one of Yaniv’s tweets making fun of Shepherd’s septate uterus."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac_topic-banned

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User filed at AN/I for a content dispute I was pinged to weigh in on. Another user mentioned the past sanctions given to Loganmac in the GamerGate case. The sanctions applied at the time stated: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." These sanctions have since been replaced with the similar umbrella sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality sanctions: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." Edits above appear to cross the line of the "broadly construed" topic ban. To my knowledge, the indefinite topic ban remains in effect. While the edits above are relatively old, topic bans aren't often apparent, and the editing hasn't been so pervasive as to raise flags until now.

User appears to be continuing the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that resulted in original ban, but this request is made with respect to existing sanction and topic ban.

Per suggestion, added the direct link to the original topic ban.
@Loganmac: I appreciate the reply. My understanding of the use of "broadly construed" in topic bans would place sexual assault allegations, court cases regarding transgender rights, and any article of any person associated with the topics under the ban. I agree there's other, further reaching ways to "broadly construe" the relation (this edit including a sexual assault allegation of Bill Clinton, for instance), but I thought the above 4 were close enough to that line to deserve arbitration clarification. Per WP:BROADLY: "If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first" and "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case, that is normally taken to mean that it does". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

Discussion concerning Loganmac

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 Loganmac

Hello, thanks to User:Bakkster Man for giving me an avenue to explain this situation properly. My topic ban was instrued 6 years ago. Since then I haven't made any edit to GG related articles. In my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor, this has been my only sanction and I've intended to comply ever since. I will try to address the points Bakkster Man made here.

1. I have issues in regarding this person "associated with a gender-related controversy". At the time the controversy she was involved in was over her employment at Reddit, this controversy arised over her non-disclosure of her father's child rape conviction. The bulk of news coverage of this incident didn't mention her gender. [103][104]. As far as I understood my ban, it didn't forbid me from editing articles of transgender people, if the controversy itself was unrelated to their gender. If this is so, I apologize for not understanding the language of my ban. My one addition to her article was a title [105].

2. Again, this edit, in my opinion, doesn't involve a "gender-related" controversy. This edit involved a one paragraph description of an allegation of sexual misconduct, which in no way was considered contentious. As far as I understood, allegations of groping or indecency don't fall under the umbrella of gender.

3. I fail to see the relevance into the vote resulting in Delete. Shortly after this vote, this person got her own article (Jessica Yaniv). Like I mention in my vote, my edit related to Canadian law and the human rights implications of this case (see her case at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which was mentioned by the person that nominated it for deletion the general consensus in discussions elsewhere has been that, at best, this story might warrant some minimal coverage at the page for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. [106]). She would then lose this case and was admonished for using human rights law as a "weapon" to "penalize" marginalized women with a racial animus and for filing in such a volume for financial gain. As can be seen from my edit history, I have numerous edits in human rights topics, including for example an extensive and well sourced rewrite of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo [107][108]. I have edits on Guantanamo Bay prisoners, could the fact that these people uphold Sharia Law, an anti-trans ideology, be then construed as me editing gender related articles? I have edits on Julian Assange, a person previously accused of rape[109], and associated with Chelsea Manning, a trans whistleblower... I hope by giving these three examples you see how my topic ban could apply to virtually anything. I have absolutely no editing in main space articles of Yaniv. Loganmac (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. See mostly above. Once seeing the Jessica Yaniv BC Human Rights case, I learned about Lindsay Shepherd, who did indeed have a Twitter brawl with Yaniv and was banned for this (she was quickly unbanned [110] After further review, we have unsuspended your account as it does not appear to be in violation of the Twitter Rules.). The cited diff in this article amounts to changing a sentence from "after comments about" to "after an exchange with" following WP:RS.

This enforcement request mentions an update of these sanctions "These sanctions have since been replaced with the similar umbrella sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality". While as far as I can remember, I haven't been made aware of this update in my Talk page, all of the above mentioned edits except 1., a WP:MINOR title addition, were made before the cited update opened and closed.

Since the enforcement request mentions my recent request at ANI and potential WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, I'd like to apologize if my intention of bringing an user's behaviour to the attention of admins was taken as disruptive. I had no intention of appearing to have a grudge with anyone. The reverting complaint wasn't uniquely mine [111] and was not a personal edit dispute as explained in my request. It stemmed from worries of potential WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. The enforcement requester here, Bakkster Man, agreed it's poor form to rollback an edit with "The WP:ONUS is for you to get bloody consensus", and then not make a reasonable effort to engage in that consensus building[112] My ANI request only stemmed from my 2 attempts of letting the editor know on his Talk page being immediately reverted. Since then I collaborated with editors with my addition suggestion in the talk page, which most agreed was needed in the article, and most of my suggestion have made it to the article[113] thanks to the help of several editors, including Bakkster Man and RandomCanadian, who I still applaud for their mission of fighting misinformation regardless.

Thanks for your time and apologies if I slightly surpassed a word limit. Loganmac (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I just wanted to make clear to any admins reading this, because it wasn't clear to me:

Indefinite TBAN was instituted in January 2015
Editor has been editing in the TBAN-relevant topic area as indicated in the diffs above, on and off since July of 2019, up to and including May of this year.

Personally, I think a short-to-medium term block is probably in order given the broad constraints of the TBAN. But I also don't know how these things are usually escalated from TBAN to block. Anyway, I think this is one of the most uncontroversial ArbEs there could be.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkster Man, I would suggest that you put the details of the TBAN in the section marked "Diffs of relevant sanctions." Just how I would structure it. Seems like a relevant sanction to me.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Loganmac

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

Belteshazzar 3

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 Belteshazzar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ApLundell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Belteshazzar (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

This user was topic banned from "Complimentary or Alternative Medicine, broadly construed"[114] and his appeal failed[115].

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

This user was blocked twice for violating this topic ban. This week he just came off his second ban.

Since coming back from his 3 month block, seven out of eight of his article space edits are to a controversial advocate of alternative medicine. [116][117][118][119][120][121]

And one edit to the talk page of the article that he originally got in trouble over. [122]

Individually all these edits are pretty minor, but making them with a topic ban, right after coming back from a block, is pretty clearly a way of testing the limits of his topic ban, and signaling that he continues to edit in this area despite his blocks.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 2020 First block for edit warring on Bates Method and William Bates (physician).
June 2020 Second block for edit warring on Bates Method and William Bates.
December 2020 Topic ban on Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed.
January 2021 1 month block for topic-ban violation
March 2021 3 month block for topic ban.

(Many of Belteshazzar's edit-warring edits are to Bates Method, I don't think it's a coincidence that this user's recent edits are to the article about the Bates Method's most prominent proponent besides Bates himself.)

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on December 2020 by In actu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(I apologize if I've filled out this form incorrectly. I don't normally do this. ApLundell (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I've notified the user here : [123]

Discussion concerning Belteshazzar

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 Belteshazzar

[124] Guy Macon's first two diffs were from well before I was topic banned. Belteshazzar (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Given the existence of:

Should this case be renamed "Belteshazzar 3"?

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to Bernarr Macfadden were more than just edits "to a controversial advocate of alternative medicine". They are directly related to the specific area where Belteshazzar has been disruptive in the past (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 72#Edits by Belteshazzar), which is promotion of the pseudoscientific Bates method. Macfadden is the author of:

Strong eyes; how weak eyes may be strengthened and spectacles discarded.[125]
Strengthening the eyes : a new course in scientific eye training in 28 lessons[126]

The most troubling aspect of this is the complete refusal to accept their topic ban. Again and again they have claimed that they are allowed to violate their topic ban as long as the violating edits are good edits:

"I explained in talk why my edit was good."[127]

" Again, I believe that edit was valid"[128]

"It was just a bit of copy editing. Nothing controversial."[129]

"What was bad, controversial, or pov here? [3 edits to the Vision therapy article]"[130]

Two blocks have failed to convince them that the topic ban applies to all edits on the topic with no "good edit" exception. Nonetheless, they made the same argument yesterday:

"On Talk:William Bates (physician), I was only letting someone know that he got the date of Bates' disappearance wrong."[131]

All of this has been explained again and again to Belteshazzar (just read their talk page) and yet they continue to claim that there exists an "I am allowed to violate my topic ban if the edit is good" exception. They don't seem to be able to even remember that they are topic banned from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed:

"And my edits to Bernarr Macfadden had nothing to do with eyesight, which is not even currently mentioned in the body of that article."[132]

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero:, your comment "This seems to be the only diff that crosses the line" appears to be sending the message "it is OK to edit the pages/talk pages of alternative medicine practitioners such as William Bates (physician) and Bernarr Macfadden despite being topic banned from Complementary and Alternative Medicine." Was that your intent? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Belteshazzar

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

This seems to be the only diff that crosses the line --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:39, 25 June 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 682: / Line 682: @@
 *
-==Belteshazzar==
+==Belteshazzar 3==
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

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