 | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
 | This case has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Shibbolethink ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe [1]. Thank you.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that the DS should definitely apply to at least part of the article, and probably to all of it. Since part of the page directly addresses COVID-19, any edits to those parts are certainly "edits about ... COVID-19, broadly construed". My experience with partially-covered ARBPIA articles (seemingly referred to as related content as opposed to primary article) suggests that there is a template that could be adapted for COVID DS. That said, even parts of this article that don't explicitly mention COVID-19 may be edited by Wikipedians and interpreted by readers in the context of speculation about COVID-19 origins. The predominance of the talk page discussions mention COVID. Recent coverage of GoFR, even when primarily discussing pre-COVID history or post-COVID legislation or funding, inevitably frame the facts using the current pandemic. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should) be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid, but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I would say that yes, since the DS is related to COVID-19 broadly construed and since there is a clear link between gain-of-function and COVID conspiracy theories, that article should be covered by the DS. WormTT( talk) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with WTT that gain of research definitely falls with-in the broadly construed element of this sanction. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- If it's becoming a Covid flashpoint that seems like evidence enough it's about COVID broadly construed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues. If the editing is related to COVID-19, the DS applies, even if the article itself is not mainly about COVID-19. Regards So Why 07:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I can conceive of editing related to gain-of-function research without any inherent connection to COVID, but I doubt we're seeing much of that these days. I see this as a flip side of the pseudohistory and pseudoscience issue above—they're not necessarily always overlapping, though in this case, they usually are. -- BDD ( talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above, the direct connection to COVID puts this particular issue (again, as it relates to COVID) under the broad umbrella of the case. Primefac ( talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with my fellow arbitrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Davidships at 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Davidships ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The COVID-19 standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. What was intended by "broadly construed"?
There are now hundreds of thousands of pages which mention "COVID-19", including a very large number of biographies of victims, locations where restrictions have been imposed, transport links affected (including cruise and other ships), yet it seems that under 700 have had the sanctions template added. Those do include quite minor mentions, for example MS Aegean Myth. I assume that the sanctions apply to all articles, whether or not the template has been applied to talk pages.
With this kind of article is it necessary for the template to be specifically included?
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- The same standards apply here as in other DS authorization areas:
- All pages that are wholly or mostly related to COVID-19 (broadly construed) are fully covered by DS. If only portions of a page are related to COVID-19, those portions (and edits related to those portions) are covered by DS.
- Anyone can place a {{ ds/talk notice}} template, but use common sense: if the page is only marginally related to COVID-19 and there's been no COVID-19-related disruption, it's probably fine to omit the template.
- And yes, regardless of whether the {{ ds/talk notice}} template is present on a talk page, if a page (or edit thereto) is related to COVID-19, the DS procedure applies.
- (It might be useful to make a version of the template that is specifically designed for use on pages with only a small amount of related content but that still warrants a template because that related content has been the subject of much disruption – might be something for WP:DS2021.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with all of Kevin's comments above. If we make such a template, it could take some inspiration from {{ BLPO}}. -- BDD ( talk) 18:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I neglected to endorse Kevin's points before so let me do so now. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the others above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, people still come here and read this, and yes, they may still want to follow the links. Unfortunately, this one cannot be followed:
<big>'''Case amended by [[Special:Permalink/OLDID#MOTIONSECTIONNAME|motion]]''' on 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)</big>
Can someone please supply the actual link? Looks like that was added here by Dreamy Jazz. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Done, thank you!
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
| This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
|
| This case has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Shibbolethink ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe [1]. Thank you.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that the DS should definitely apply to at least part of the article, and probably to all of it. Since part of the page directly addresses COVID-19, any edits to those parts are certainly "edits about ... COVID-19, broadly construed". My experience with partially-covered ARBPIA articles (seemingly referred to as related content as opposed to primary article) suggests that there is a template that could be adapted for COVID DS. That said, even parts of this article that don't explicitly mention COVID-19 may be edited by Wikipedians and interpreted by readers in the context of speculation about COVID-19 origins. The predominance of the talk page discussions mention COVID. Recent coverage of GoFR, even when primarily discussing pre-COVID history or post-COVID legislation or funding, inevitably frame the facts using the current pandemic. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should) be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid, but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I would say that yes, since the DS is related to COVID-19 broadly construed and since there is a clear link between gain-of-function and COVID conspiracy theories, that article should be covered by the DS. WormTT( talk) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with WTT that gain of research definitely falls with-in the broadly construed element of this sanction. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- If it's becoming a Covid flashpoint that seems like evidence enough it's about COVID broadly construed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues. If the editing is related to COVID-19, the DS applies, even if the article itself is not mainly about COVID-19. Regards So Why 07:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I can conceive of editing related to gain-of-function research without any inherent connection to COVID, but I doubt we're seeing much of that these days. I see this as a flip side of the pseudohistory and pseudoscience issue above—they're not necessarily always overlapping, though in this case, they usually are. -- BDD ( talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above, the direct connection to COVID puts this particular issue (again, as it relates to COVID) under the broad umbrella of the case. Primefac ( talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with my fellow arbitrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Davidships at 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Davidships ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The COVID-19 standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. What was intended by "broadly construed"?
There are now hundreds of thousands of pages which mention "COVID-19", including a very large number of biographies of victims, locations where restrictions have been imposed, transport links affected (including cruise and other ships), yet it seems that under 700 have had the sanctions template added. Those do include quite minor mentions, for example MS Aegean Myth. I assume that the sanctions apply to all articles, whether or not the template has been applied to talk pages.
With this kind of article is it necessary for the template to be specifically included?
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- The same standards apply here as in other DS authorization areas:
- All pages that are wholly or mostly related to COVID-19 (broadly construed) are fully covered by DS. If only portions of a page are related to COVID-19, those portions (and edits related to those portions) are covered by DS.
- Anyone can place a {{ ds/talk notice}} template, but use common sense: if the page is only marginally related to COVID-19 and there's been no COVID-19-related disruption, it's probably fine to omit the template.
- And yes, regardless of whether the {{ ds/talk notice}} template is present on a talk page, if a page (or edit thereto) is related to COVID-19, the DS procedure applies.
- (It might be useful to make a version of the template that is specifically designed for use on pages with only a small amount of related content but that still warrants a template because that related content has been the subject of much disruption – might be something for WP:DS2021.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with all of Kevin's comments above. If we make such a template, it could take some inspiration from {{ BLPO}}. -- BDD ( talk) 18:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I neglected to endorse Kevin's points before so let me do so now. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the others above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, people still come here and read this, and yes, they may still want to follow the links. Unfortunately, this one cannot be followed:
<big>'''Case amended by [[Special:Permalink/OLDID#MOTIONSECTIONNAME|motion]]''' on 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)</big>
Can someone please supply the actual link? Looks like that was added here by Dreamy Jazz. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 22:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done, thank you!
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)