< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Initiated by TOA The owner of all ☑️ at 17:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by The owner of all

Hijiri88 has engaged in violations of WP:HOUND and WP:BULLY. He claims that it is justified because of some contributions that I made that he believes are concerning. He has said he wants me to be blocked, and he has implied that I am a Nazi, by saying that I oppose an editor due to that editor's involvement in writing the essay WP:NONAZIS.

After 2 ANI threads in which he did not get his wish, Hijiri88 has continued to WP:HOUND me by focusing on my contributions and following me to pages that I have edited or contributed to discussion.

Me, him; Me, him; Me, him

Also, he has followed me to other discussions on Wikipedia My contribution Him following (Also added further links for the above cases) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 04:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88 seems to think that if he follows me long enough, he'll be able to accumulate enough evidence to somehow get me banned from Wikipedia. (Edit to add: In fact, MjolnirPants seems to be encouraging him to do exactly that. [1] ) While I go to great lengths to avoid violating Wikipedia policy, it becomes more difficult if an editor is specifically looking for a way to get me banned. He is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding his efforts to get me blocked.

Hijiri88 has an extensive block log [2] as well as several active interaction bans [3], which shows that he does not seem to be capable of avoiding conflict with other editors.

Hijiri88's history does not show any recent contributions to US politics articles/talkpages other than pages that I have edited. [4] This is true for (1), (2), (3) articles. This is evidence that he does not normally edit US politics articles but instead follows me to such articles.
One more diff: [5]
Here is some "evidence of backsliding":
  • WP:BITING a newcomer by filing a frivolous SPI case on them [6]
  • Conflict with User:Nardog [7] [8]
  • WP:GRAVEDANCEs on Francis Schonken and describes his friends as "goons" [9]
  • Use of his talk page to make repeated PAs on other users [10]
  • Additionally, he treats an indef-block as a "temporary departure" [11], which could be evidence that, for whatever reason, community sanctions are ineffective.
03:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding MjolnirPants' statement: If "NONAZIS" is really supposed to mean "no right-wing editors", then maybe its title should be changed to reflect that. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hijiri88 claims to now be on a break (which, I should note, started after this arb request was already filed), but he was able to look through his history long enough to answer this question from another editor about an article: [12] TOA The owner of all ☑️ 22:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@: The "Editor Interaction Analyser" tool has an indication of which among 2 users edited a page first. It shows that Hijiri88 had not participated in discussion or editing of any of those articles until he saw them in my contributions. [13] Regarding ANI, you are correct that the community had considered blocking me and saw fit to do nothing. However Hijiri88 won't let that issue go, he commented that he thinks my edits are offensive [14] and also suggesting that I am a white supremacist (he asserts that someone had been trying to login/hack his account and he suspects that it was me [by including it in a talk page section about me and saying it is related to "conservative" stuff, after I had described myself in the ANI discussion as a non-fascist conservative-leaning editor] [15], and elsewhere he said that he suspects that the person trying to login/hack his account is a white supremacist [16])

Statement by Hijiri88

Statement by 力

I don't see anything here. The ANI discussion don't support a pattern of hounding, and the community saw fit to do nothing. So long as all the edits are in the topic-area of American politics of the past 12 months, I don't see simply visiting the same page as hounding. The diffs given are single comments participating in talk-page polls regarding content. If there are no additional diffs to show bad activity, this should be closed quickly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the other diffs. The continuing commenting at User talk:MjolnirPants#I'd rather not post this to ANI, but... by Hijiri88 isn't a great look, but it's certainly not cause for an ARBCOM case. There's nothing else there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The additional diffs provided (as well as Hijiri's further comments on User talk:MjolnirPants) do suggest there may be a continuing issue that needs discussion. However I don't see why that should not first be community discussion at ANI. And if Hijiri really is going on a several-week WikiBreak, that discussion should probably be delayed until the break is over. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

This should be an obvious decline. It's premature and insufficient, vexatious litigation, and pot and kettle. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Wugapodes' evidence, it seems to me that a relevant question is whether there is really anything new, since the unblock decision 11 months ago, that would prompt a case now. In other words, there would have to be meaningful evidence of backsliding, over a period of nearly a year, to justify a decision to undo the unblock decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Per MPants' more detailed explanation, and contra something Wugapodes wrote, I'm pretty sure that the accusation of Nazism was made by ToA against Hijiri, on the flimsy basis of the numbers in Hijiri's username. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

The filer has a history of forum shopping and pursuing sanctions against editors they disagree with. They have previously filed an ANI request against Hijiri88 alleging that Hijiri "wants [The Owner of All] to be blocked".

The Owner of All has previously started a bogus 3RRN report against me that very nearly resulted in getting blocked themselves, then immediately after that, started an ANI discussing alleging incivility over me explaining WP's processes, during which they narrowly escaped a WP:BOOMERANG block.

After following me around for a bit, they showed up in another ANI thread, supporting sanctions against me for unsanctionable comments and followed that up with a senseless and dishonest proposal at VPP which was very clearly intended to be an end-run around their lack of success getting me sanctioned.

Note that the first link in the preceding paragraph is where TOA and Hijiri first interacted: When Hijiri noted that lots of POV-pushers have taken issue with my writing of WP:NONAZIS and come after me over it. TOA then accused Hijiri of being a Nazi over the "88" in his username, and after a drawn-out argument (during which TOA received no support from other editors), they started the thread in the very first link of my comment.

Worth noting is that this same editor has admitted to right-wing POV pushing and opposed an RfC candidate because they were not a fascist.

So I would strongly encourage ArbCom not to take this case, and I would ask that an individual admin (or a consensus of them) take a moment to reflect upon whether TOA is a net benefit to this project, and respond accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Responding to Wugapode's statement here:

The filing dispute came about because Hijiri joined a dispute to which he was not named. Hijiri attempted to disparage TOA's editing based on their political beleifs, accused them of being a sockpuppet, and insinuated that TOA was a Nazi.

It is false to claim that Hijiri insinuated that TOA was a Nazi, when in fact, they directly stated that they thought it was possible that TOA's obsession with me was a result of me writing WP:NONAZIS, based on two additional diffs Hijiri provided. Diff. This is an accusation of right-wing POV pushing, not of being a Nazi.
TOA responded by strongly imply that Hijiri was a Nazi. Diff. Note that I can provide diffs of other editors agreeing that TOA was accusing Hijiri of being a Nazi.
I'd also add that there's nothing sanctionable about venting to a sympathetic editor. I think it's telling that that got a diff, while the actual actionable claims Wugapode made did not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Wugapodes

I encourage the arbitration committee accept a case regarding Hijiri88 if not based on the original report, then based on Hijiri's continued pattern of disruption. Hijiri is currently subject to five interaction bans, two placed by the arbitration committee (see the 2015 case) and three placed by the community (Jan 2017, Jan 2019, Jan 2019 again). The older bans would be unremarkable if not for the continued imposition of IBANs and the repeated inability of Hijiri to abide by them.

Since 2013, Hijiri has been blocked for-cause 9 times. In 2013 Hijiri was blocked for violating an IBAN. In 2015 Hijiri was blocked for violating an IBAN. Hijiri was blocked a month later for another IBAN violation. Hijiri was blocked about a week later for threatening to initiate good article reassessments if an editor does not stop seeking administrative action against him. Hijiri was blocked two months later for BATTLEGROUND conduct on a Japanese history article (see 2015 ANI thread where Dennis Brown's close stated that "the threshold before a block just became very low and this is a last opportunity, the last piece of rope before very long blocks are used. We are collectively sick and tired of these drama filled reports. Either you learn to edit in a collaborative and collegiate fashion, or you will be denied the opportunity to edit at all."); ArbCom would later ban Hijiri from Japanese topics. In April 2016, Hijiri was blocked and then unblocked about a week later after committing to no longer gravedance; I want to point out that in the unblock appeal Hijiri stated "I've never received a civility block before, and if I received such a warning it must have been a long time ago, as I don't remember it". Hijiri was blocked again four months later for disruption at RfA and unblocked with the understanding that he would stay away. The block log is quiet for the next two years which would be a good sign that the preceding had brought about a more collaborative, less confrontational editing style, though in 2017 the community would impose another another IBAN.

The block log picks up again in 2019. The first is a self-requested block in response to a community imposed IBAN as part of a meatball:GoodBye that included attempted deletion of pages. Following the self-requested block, Hijiri was blocked again about 9 months later for "feuding" with another editor but was soon unblocked (see unblock discussion). Hijiri was blocked again, this time indefinitely, about 5 months later for making personal attacks resulting in a similar meatball:GoodBye exemplified at their retirement notice. Their talk page access was removed two months later for IBAN violations. Hijiri was unblocked about 11 months ago following an appeal and talk page discussion. I recommend reading the discussion as it includes !voting, appearances from previous characters in the above blocks detailing context, multiple editors discussing how much WP:ROPE remains, and whether Hijiri is a net positive or negative to the project.

The above is based on a cursory investigation from the block log and editing restrictions list. Given that the community has, since 2015, said we have limited patience left for Hijiri and still been unable to effectively prevent the need for repeated discussions and sanctions, does the committee believe the community can or will handle this most recent incident effectively if sent back to us? Given the history of action, do we believe that editors with less tenure will feel comfortable raising future concerns in public? 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Edited for length 02:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is best summed-up by Cullen: "[Hijiri] is highly intelligent and has proven to be capable of writing excellent content for the encyclopedia. I take that seriously. However, he has shown over and over again an inability to walk away from conflict, and instead dives into endless TLDR conflicts with a never ending variety of opponents." Since being unblocked, Hijiri has continued to bring up old disputes and start new ones.
The filing dispute came about because Hijiri joined a dispute to which he was not named. Hijiri attempted to disparage TOA's editing based on their political beleifs, accused them of being a sockpuppet, and insinuated that TOA was a Nazi. Regardless of opinions, "using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is forbidden by WP:NPA. This caused TOA to retaliate, and the situation spiraled. We would not be here if Hijiri had stayed away from a conflict that did not involve him. While the messenger is not ideal, the report is consistent with a continuing pattern, and it is because of the reporter's unpopular opinions that they have not been considered thoroughly. In the link provided by Power~enwiki, Hijiri openly admits to following editors around. That is textbook hounding.
Hijiri continues to engage in battleground conduct. In this discussion Hijiri begins to cast aspersions at the editor they disagree with saying "[Y]ou (deliberately?) distorted what I said in a second revert,...You then came onto the talk page and selectively picked pieces of my edit summaries...". Later Hijiri disengages and vents to MjolnirPants. Hijiri brings up previous disputes with an editor, claims another editor is harassing them, and complains about the agenda of non-native-English-speaking editors wanting pronunciation transcriptions.
As the committee previously accepted a case regarding Hijiri, the committee may revisit his conduct at any time per ArbPol. The committee should use that jurisdiction to consider (1) has the pattern of conduct sanctioned in 2015 been adequately resolved and (2) whether the remedies rescinded by motion have achieved their goals.
To briefly address some comments directed at me: I'm not convinced we need severe sanctions. Given the prior history, I believe we should take this seriously, not simply dismiss it out of hand because of who the reporting editor is or the immediate context. 02:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I note that TOA has turned up again in order to attempt to get Hijiri88 blocked. The last time was a month ago in an ANI filing [17]. I'll simply repeat User:Floquenbeam's comment from that ANI - "... you should know that my gut instinct was to page block you from ANI for, I don't know, 3 months or something. My quick current estimate of the level of responsibility for the recent interactions between the 3 of you being so unproductive: MP 5%, H88 15%, you 80%. Go work on an article or something". Sounds about right to me ... again. I suggest a one-way interaction ban. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I have two personal ideas about conduct in Wikipedia that might lead to opposite conclusions. First, I think, and I recognize that some other editors disagree, that ArbCom should sometimes review the record of editors who have long block logs. Sometimes these logs indicate that the community is divided, especially if the subject editor has been indefinitely blocked and then reinstated more than once. The subject editor has a long block log. They don't divide the community into supporters and opponents, but they do divide the community into opponents and those who think that they either are a net positive or may become a net positive. I agree with the filing editor that the subject editor seems to be unable to avoid conflicts.

Second, on the other hand, it is my opinion that, although hounding does occur, mistaken complaints of being hounded are far more common than actual hounding. Many such complaints are made by editors who do not understand the Wikipedia electronic office and cannot tolerate criticism. Other such complaints are by editors who do understand the Wikipedia environment, but cannot tolerate criticism anyway. Some such complaints are just used to confuse or distract. The editor who is filing this case has been around long enough to understand the Wikipedia environment. They do not make a real case of hounding or bullying, and they don't make much of an unreal case of hounding either (although unreal cases are at least as common as real cases).

I was about to recommend that ArbCom decline to accept this case as not even worth giving the subject editor a final warning. I have now read the statement by User:Wugapodes, who also refers to the long block log of Hijiri88. I will use my remaining 175 or so words to comment on any further statement by User:Wugapodes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional Comments

I have read the case history as detailed by User:Wugapodes, and I am persuaded that ArbCom should accept the case, although a suspension until the editor returns may be in order. I am aware that my opinion is a minority opinion. This editor is a net negative to the community, and has been since at least 2015. There is the superficial appearance that the ArbCom and the community are dealing with this editor. However, this editor continues to find enemies; and apparently interaction bans are not sufficient at minimizing the damage. ArbCom should accept a suspended case about this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

Since I recused i guess i gotta comment here, just noting for the record that User:Hijiri88 has just been updated to indicate they are taking an immediate wikibreak of undetermined duration, but from the sound of it at least several months apparently a couple weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian

I don't see anything here that rises to the level of an ArbCom case. If there are specific concerns about one (or the other, or both) of the parties, and if Wugapodes feels strongly enough about it, a community ban discussion/regular ANI discussion (depending on the severity of the offence) might be in order - but that, again, is well short of a full ArbCom case, and unless I see evidence that such steps have been attempted and that they have failed, I'm not convinced there's any reason to keep this going, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

Ah, another vexatious attempt to settle a dispute of some sort with the machine gun of arbitration. It seems we're headed towards turning this down, and that's a great idea. I do want to inform Primefac that I'm about to manufacture a conflict with them so I can get my own arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

This type of thing must be taken seriously; it's part of what makes Wikipedia a vicious place for editors. If this is as it looks TOA must be given some relief. But unless a broader sanction is being contemplated, IMO it looks like it needs an experienced admin to take a closer / confirming look and then place a 1 way iban rather than a full Arbcom case. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

This complaint is frivolous and vexatious, and Hijiri88 having an infraction log longer and more confusing than a David Foster Wallace novel isn't enough to turn a vexatious complaint into a legitimate one. I suggest ArbCom decline this. Reyk YO! 12:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Hijiri88: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Hijiri88: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/5/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • I'm leaning towards a decline on this, as I'm not seeing much more than comments in which the two named parties are both editing. Yes, there have been some back-and-forths, but if we opened an ArbCom case for every pair of individuals who had opposing viewpoints disagreeing, I think even I would be named... Will wait for more diffs and comments from others before making a final decision. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Still deciding, as Wugapodes has given me some things to consider, but I mostly wanted to comment @Drmies: bring it. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. There is nothing here requiring arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Wugapodes: If a community member wishes to present a case on Hijiri88 that meets the Committee's standards for opening a case, I invite them to do so. But ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them; if the latter was our job, we would be really bad at it. This case request, with the statements and linked discussions on the record, does not present a good candidate for an arbitration case, which is why I am voting to decline. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Wugapodes: I'll grant an additional 500 word extension, though I think this case request is not the right vehicle to present your thoughts. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @The owner of all: You can also post another 500 words if needed (for a total of 1000). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    After reading Wugapodes' statement the piece that's missing for me is a sign that the community needs ArbCom to step in to handle this. As they noted we've seen several new community sanctions since the last case and I don't see a repeated pattern of sanctions not "sticking". Further I don't see the kind of diffs that led to the most recent sanction (which always struck me as a sort of Death by cop anyway). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My gut instinct was to decline this case, it does appear that the problem is more with the filer. However, Wugapodes' statement does give me pause, it's rarely a good thing when the same individual keeps turning up at Arbcom - and yes, I'm also aware of the long block log / iban log. So there is clearly an underlying issue here and it isn't being dealt with by the community. I have no problem with the committee as a whole declining the case, but I, for one, believe we should Accept at this point. Scope would have to be considered as wider than this dispute, and the case would need to be suspended until Hijiri88's return. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning decline, not because I don't see smoke here, but because I think it could be addressed elsewhere. Unfortunate that we probably won't be hearing from Hijiri himself in time. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Decline I've leaned further. I hope this is needless to say, but my decline is not a get out of jail free card for anyone. Just that at this stage, I don't see the need for arbitration. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline. At this point, I see nothing that can't be handled by the community if required. As L235 said, if someone wants to make a case, they can still do so. Regards SoWhy 18:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland

Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Wugapodes

The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My personal position is that, if we are going to proliferate the use of 30/500 remedies, then it is best for everyone that they be standardized rather than bespoke. I don't particularly care what that standard is, but my opinion is that it is best to go with the most commonly used and recognized standard which is probably the Israel-Palestine 30/500 scheme. 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.

To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.

What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [18]:

Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.

I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.

Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@L235: and @SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [19]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella

- Unquestionably I would urge to include:

AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions

due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a great example since it just happens as we speak.[20]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user[21] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zerotalk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I also think there is no real reason to dice it up so finely as to distinguish between pages and articles, which we usually don't do for topic restrictions (like 50/300 in PIA, TBANs, etc.). So I'd support an amendment to change "articles" to "pages". There's the wrinkle about content (portions of pages, such as is the case for the page in question here), but I think the best policy is to say non-EC editors can make edit requests on article talk pages and otherwise can't participate anywhere else. Levivich 03:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

To BK's point about a full case: I didn't participate in PIA4 because I had lost confidence in that committee (which was very understaffed at that point) especially in the wake of how the committee had handled the Antisemitism in Poland case, with which I disagreed (very loudly). I have always thought, and continue to think, that a full case is needed to look at the issues in the Holocaust-related topic area. But I also feel I've presented evidence about this to previous committees. The evidence I'd present if there were a full case would be similar to the evidence I've presented in the past (but more recent, with slightly different parties). If that's not the kind of evidence that the committee thinks is relevant then I'd sit out a full case. But if the committee would have a case and wants evidence, I'd present it. I just remember spending many hours last time gathering diffs and such and then I couldn't even get most of the arbs at the time to even comment on the evidence or even address entire issues (or certain parties' conduct). I don't want to waste my time or the committee's time putting together evidence that no one wants to read or thinks matters. I'd be looking for guidance from the committee about what kind of evidence and how it's presented. In the past, arbcoms have been reluctant to provide that guidance, and that's fine, I just wanted to share how I personally felt about participating in a new case. Fundamentally I do think there are editors who need to be tbanned and the community cannot resolve it--it's failed for over a decade--but previous arbcoms have also failed and I'm just not sure if this panel feels like it could be more effective than previous panels. No offense meant by this of course, the panel are all volunteers and what we have now may simply be the best that can be reasonably accomplished by the systems we have in place. I'd just hate to waste everyone's time: in order for a case to be productive, arbcom would really have to have the ability to digest a case that is going to be much larger than normal. Way worse than Kurds or Iran or Rexx in terms of both volume and temperature IMO. It sort of requires a certain level of seriousness of problem in order to justify the work this would present for arbs, for this topic more than most. I think that level is met here and am willing to donate my time to it but I'm not sure how many other people feel similarly (both on and off the committee) and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to sign up for this. Levivich 20:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth's big-picture description of what's going on in the topic area matches my own impressions exactly. Levivich 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{Single-purpose account}}. {{csp}}, {{csm}}, {{Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:

  • In Israel-Palestine, with this definition
  • In Antisemitism in Poland, with this definition
  • For conflicts between India and Pakistan, with this definition

There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)

As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.

I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: PIA4 is short for Palestine-Israel articles 4 (the case: WP:ARBPIA4). APL is Antisemitism in PoLand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester

  • @SoWhy: Just a point of clarification, but you seem confused about the meaning of the terms 'general sanctions' and 'discretionary sanctions'. General sanctions are a broad class of remedies that can be imposed by either ArbCom or the community. The reason they are called 'general' is because they apply to a whole topic area, rather than specific editors. Discretionary sanctions are a specific type of general sanction (other types include revert restrictions and article probation). The 500/30 rule is most patently not a 'discretionary sanction', but a type of general sanction. Discretionary sanctions have very specific rules, as described at WP:AC/DS. In any case, I agree that the text at the information page is in no way binding on ArbCom, and should be clarified to reflect the possibility of specific implementation in specific cases. RGloucester 12:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: It should be the job of ArbCom to demonstrate the correct usage, rather than reinforce common misconceptions (thus promoting further confusion on this matter), and your comments are therefore not befitting your status as a member of the committee. You might consider reading the history of sanctions on Wikipedia as written by myself, or perhaps consulting the creator of the term 'general sanctions' himself, former committee member Kirill Lokshin. In either case, I would advise that you refrain from making such mistakes in future. RGloucester 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Your continued reference to the 500/30 rule as a 'DS' is indeed a mistake, and a grave one coming from a committee member. Committee-authorised DS are governed by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, a policy maintained by the committee itself. You might notice that none of the rules mentioned in the AC/DS policy page apply to the 500/30 rule as it is implemented anywhere. The most obvious example of this is that no alert is required to enforce a 500/30 rules, unlike for DS. It's simply a flat rule, like a page restriction. If you, as a committee member, are not even aware of how your own policies work, can you really be fit to adjudicate these matters? I wonder. This matter is relevant in this case, because the confusion that caused this unnecessary incident of stress for a number of veteran editors was directly caused by the failure on the part of ArbCom to establish consistent rules and use a consistent terminology than everyone can understand. Continuing to be obstinate, insisting that 500/30 is a 'DS', despite all evidence to the contrary, is really nothing more than appalling. RGloucester 15:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Given that other committee members here are repeating this 'DS' terminology, showing a complete disregard for their own policies and procedures, I would like to cite the example of the ARBPIA General Sanctions, which were only established in 2019, and clarified this very year. The ARBPIA General Sanctions, authorised by the committee, include both DS and a 500/30 rule. The decision makes a clear distinction between these two remedies, which are together (along with a revert restriction) referred to as the 'ARBPIA General Sanctions'. 500/30 rules and revert restrictions are not DS, and have never been DS, nor have they ever been governed by the WP:AC/DS policy. They are Committee-authorised general sanctions. Get your act together, please. Confusion like this will lead to people applying the WP:AC/DS policy in places in doesn't belong, leading to even more confusion over procedure. RGloucester 17:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by François Robere

If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I second what Ealdgyth said about "Icewhiz remnants". I got this exact impression earlier this week. It's like the TA is being purged. François Robere (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: In the very least you would want to review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action beyond what was focused on in the ANI discussion (option 1: limited block review). Were there "edit warring", "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" (Ymblanter's block comments)? The edits and Ymblanter's action weren't done in a vacuum. I would add to that a COI review, since the removed entry had direct and indirect relevance to the TA and some of its editors, respectively; and a review of the post-block discussions, to understand how they deteriorated from a simple policy question to a someone worrying for their lives. All of these questions have TA-wide repercussions - in other words, this case isn't unique - but it does give you a microcosm through which to view the TA at large.
If you wish to dig deeper and start a full case (option 2: complete TA audit), bear in mind you'd have to gain the community's trust. There's a deep mistrust among involved editors of ArbCom's ability to deal with the TA, owing to its history of inaction; I've heard and said as much before APL, and after APL those impressions grew stronger. If you're to start a full case, a whole bunch of editors need to be convinced that it'll be meaningful; you should be ready to answer any and all of the following questions: is the TA reflective of the overall state of the research, or is it biased in some direction? Are some editors more prone to POV-pushing and tendentious editing than others? To what extent do editors tag-team and coordinate their actions on- and off-wiki? Is the culture of discussion within the TA conducive to building an encyclopedia? Are some editors more likely to "poison the atmosphere" than others? You should be ready to long-term-ban multiple editors, if the findings justify it; no one would accept an "easy" solution like APL had.
I would also suggest several procedural changes to make the proceedings more convenient, effective, and likely to draw a range of editors who would otherwise not participate. If you wish, I can explain on your, or ArbCom's TP. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (Updated 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC))
  • @Barkeep49: I appreciate the disclosure. If a full case is what's needed to review this block, then I'd support it; it is, as I said, a microcosm of the TA, and I think it could be at effective enough, at least for a while. I still make a distinction between that and a complete TA audit, which is a much bigger undertaking. I've added a couple of annotations above to clarify what I mean by each.
I'll post on your TP tomorrow with some ideas. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth

If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Could someone post a link to the page history in question? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    In reading through the ANI I found the link to the page history in question: Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I think SoWhy does an excellent job of laying out why the DS applies only to articles at the moment. I will think more on whether I would support a change. That said, as there has now been activity about the underlying issue not only at the project page but the article itself since this request has been underway I would strongly suggest all editors, but in particular Levivich, Piotrus, and Volunteer Marek continue their discussion on the Wikipedia hoax talk page rather than continuing to edit (war) about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    @François Robere: obviously this topic area continues to be a difficult one. You mention that there are many things we could do. I would be curious to know what options we should be considering. I have a couple thoughts - namely we could expand from articles to all pages or we could open up a full case - but each of those has some drawbacks. I'd be interested in hearing some ideas I had perhaps not thought about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    @François Robere: I don't think anyone here (Arb or participating editor) fails to understand the level of persistent disruption that goes on in this topic area. In terms of things that gave me pause about being on ArbCom, this topic area was in the top 3. It sounds like your solution is to do a full case as that's what would be necessary to examine the entire context around these blocks and to see if any long term contributors need to be topic banned. Given the relative level of non-participation at PIA4, I'm a bit reluctant to support that without some broad level of clamoring from current participants. This is the 3rd ARCA in the area in the past 14 months. Are repeated ARCAs better than a full case? I'm inclined to say yes at least at this rate. That said I would welcome your ideas about how ArbCom proceeding could be improved on my talk page - as you may or may not be aware we passed a motion that allows us a bit more flexibility with cases than before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless there have been previous interpretations to the contrary, I would hold that the Antisemitism in Poland remedy as it stands now only applies to mainspace. ("articles" means mainspace unless the context demands a different interpretation.) However, I'm quite open to modifying the remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm of the same opinion as Kevin. The remedy is quite clear, it's referring to articles only - and I believe from the votes there was a bit of reluctance at the time to put in a 30/500 restriction at all, so it makes sense that the committee wished it to be as narrow as possible. I'd prefer not to extend it, for similar reasons, but if there are still issues happening regularly in the project space, I'd be open to modification. WormTT(talk) 08:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • When the restriction was passed, NYB (with whom I agreed) reluctantly supported the specific wording out of necessity. The wording was deliberately chosen to only apply to the mainspace. That other cases imposed other DS on other areas is of no relevance. Hence there is nothing to clarify beyond the clear wording of the motion. If a change is required, that can be requested but it needs to be a different request with proof that further restrictions are warranted. For the purposes of this request however, I would argue that Ymblanter acted within their rights to block VM and GCB since the claimed edit-warring exception did not apply to the page in question (VM even quoted the remedy's text verbatim when justifying their revert [22]). Pointing to the wording in WP:GS does not mitigate this fact since we are not talking about community imposed general sanctions but ArbCom imposed discretionary sanctions. Even if, a more restrictive remedy would imho always be override a more general policy page. Otherwise, there would be no way for ArbCom to tailor remedies to specific circumstances. Regards SoWhy 08:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    @RGloucester: I agree the terms are a bit confusing. GS is usually used to refer to community imposed sanctions while ArbCom imposed sanctions are usually only referred to as DS. The recent example of WP:GS/COVID-19 and the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 comes to mind, especially the point that "general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions" in the motion at WP:COVIDDS. As the discussion about that case request and the motions reveals, most people use "GS" to mean community sanctions, not all sanctions. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    @RGloucester: Usage of terms can change over time. That Kirill had a certain idea when he created the page 14 years ago(!) does not mean that the term still has the same meaning today nor that he has some kind of "power" to define what the term means today. As I pointed out, a significant number of people nowadays see general sanctions as a synonym for community-approved sanctions (which is why for example templates like {{subst:Gs/alert}} use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what is now in effect, I think that we should have a more standard 30/500 sanctions scheme so that we don't have parallel case law. I think applying the previous rules and decisions re Israel/Palestine to this area would make DS more streamlined. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement


CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
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 CutePeach

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Bakkster Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
CutePeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 20 July 2021 Added a proposed explanation of COVID-19 origins based on an unreviewed pre-print, which I selectively reverted, in addition to cleanup to other paragraphs.
  2. 21 July 2021 Re-added with no commit comment. Reverted again with clearer comment of policy concerns and reference to ArbCom sanctions in effect.
  3. 22 July 2021 Returned content with more context, but prior to receiving Talk page consensus.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None I'm aware of

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21 June 2021.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

@Mr Ernie: I'll note that I went one step further, removing that entire paragraph for the same reason as above: the claims about the origin were entirely based on statements which had not been peer reviewed. The dispute is not merely over the WP:GEVAL rebuttal of an unreviewed claim (about which I would have agreed with you and self-reverted), but the initial claim itself. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I'm uncertain why you suggest I am imposing a "requirement, against consensus, that such material come from WP:MEDRS compliant sources". I have not mentioned MEDRS in this dispute a single time, because it does not apply as you rightly point out. I've referred specifically to the much lower threshold of merely being a peer-reviewed claim, rather than WP:PREPRINTS. I'm unaware of a consensus decision on this topic, and my current understanding of WP:ONUS means we should reach consensus on it prior to re-adding content sourced by it. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding comments by Francesco espo. I reverted the change prior to even seeing that a Talk page comment had been made by CutePeach. While I do not believe my policy concerns were directly addressed by them on Talk, more importantly consensus had not yet been reached for the contentious addition which leads me to believe the correct course of action remained reverting until that consensus was reached. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@El C: Perhaps you can explain your aside more thoroughly? While I generally consider this noticeboard to avoid handling the content disputes themselves, I'm interested what role you consider a newspaper editorial to play in the discussion of reliable sourcing in an article about a scientific hypothesis. I'd appreciate any clarification you could provide in case my understanding of reliable sourcing policy is mistaken. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@El C and HighInBC: I'd like to note an additional recent instance of CutePeach seeking time to make a proposal, before moving on to other substantial edits relating to COVID-19 without informing others (including the edits at the center of this dispute). In that instance, I was in favor of removing a paragraph which no longer appeared to be related to the topic, and postponed my edits pending their proposed rewrite (which never came). While I hope this is simply good-faith forgetfulness or a lack of time management/prioritization, it does appear to be a pattern of behavior and one I've found disruptive to improving articles. Not disruptive enough for me to suggest sanctions in isolation, but I believe it's relevant to the delay seen in their response to this case. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Note regarding admin wbm1058 raising concerns over whether or not admin ToBeFree is "involved" in the dispute. I'd like to point out that while both admins have edited CutePeach's essay User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK, ToBeFree's edit was to move the essay to the correct namespace, wbm1058's edit was to correct capitalization, twice, approximately one hour prior to their statement on this AR/E request. I'm mildly concerned, as this appears more like a case of being an involved administrator (wbm1058's edits were not purely administrative in nature, while ToBeFree's were) than the original allegation made by wbm1058. I'd like other admins to weigh in whether recusal would be appropriate, particularly given the original allegation being made despite the undisclosed edits immediately prior to joining the AR/E discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I could be convinced a TBAN of "COVID origins" would be narrow enough to not be overly punitive and allow for editing on less contentious public health aspects, but I worry it would create an even blurrier line than any TBAN already would be. We will have to question whether pages like Chinese biological weapons program is related to the topic, I'm concerned that adding questions about COVID-19 misinformation or China COVID-19 cover-up would make it difficult both for CutePeach to abide by the restrictions and for others to know if they have violated them. However broad or narrow, such a topic would need to be very clearly defined. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning CutePeach

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

Statement by CutePeach

The three diffs that Bakkster Man provided in his case filing - as others here have noted - do not show any violations, as I only added high quality secondary sources which cited the prepreint, and not the preprint itself. The list of 21 diffs provided by Shibbolethink which allege a number of violations - as others here have noted - are spurious. I have been advised by one very well meaning administrator to just explain that I always meant well and to express regret for being too insistent [24] - which I was planning on doing - but a senior editor participating here accused him of advising me to feign contrition [25], so I might as well just speak my mind instead. To date, six admins here have proposed to TBAN me before even hearing my statement, citing the allegations made against me, without checking to see if they are even true, besides for ToBeFree who cited diff #20 - a struck comment that I offered an apology for, which that editor accepted. A seventh admin visited my talk page advising me to voluntarily step away, saying also that any explanation of events preceding this case wouldn’t help either. This has lead me to believe - perhaps falsely - that the problem here is that of unequal enforcement - an issue I questioned the OP of this very case about before [26]. Perhaps the one positive outcome of this case will be a heightened awareness of this problem, should it arise again.

I joined Wikipedia at a time WP:MEDRS was being abused by some editors as a sourcing restriction to WP:CENSOR the lab leak hypothesis from Wikipedia, and as this case indicates, there now seems to be an effort to use WP:SCHOLARSHIP to get the same result [27]. In the discussion that led to this case, I told Bakkster Man that he could seek clarification from ArbCom on the application of WP:SCHOLARSHIP to this part scientific part political subject [28], but instead he filed this case alleging that my edits violate WP:COVIDDS and WP:ARBPS/4A - which again, no admins proposing to TBAN me have actually addressed. When CaptainEek joined this AE, his first comment was that this dispute is emblematic of a deeper issue that lacks appropriate guidance, yet I have not seen any admins other than him, DGG and Wbm1058 provide any such guidance or attempt to de-escalate the dispute in a helpful manner. Instead, summary presumptions of guilt were made of me, and HighinBC’s proposal to TBAN me last Saturday - just as I was about to post my explanatory and apologetic statement - had an extreme chilling effect which made me throw up my arms in despair. If you guys are going to ban me, can you at least provide some guidance on the issues at hand, as filed by the OP of this case? This could perhaps help the next guy, and prevent the apparent need for further cases like this.

As a final note, I would also like to apologize to anyone who truly felt offended by anything I said, as I was quite harsh to some editors, including some who have changed their mind on covering the subject. I would like to give a special thanks to DGG for being kind throughout this process, and to ProcrastinatingReader for changing his mind on covering this subject. I wish you all the best. CutePeach (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Valereee: I always prepare my edits in Evernote and the update I made to COVID-19 investigations was (mostly) prepared before this case was opened. Contrary to what RandomCanadian claims, the contribution was received well, though my deletion of some text was a mistake. CutePeach (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I managed to read and write quite a lot today, so next I need to make some clarification requests and translate my statements from Tagalog to English. Please can you give me an idea of the expected close of this case? What is the average duration of AE cases? CutePeach (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @HighInBC: please see my note addressed to Valereee. Please note also that Shibbolethink has changed the text of his complaint since I saw it yesterday, and I haven’t even managed to read it in full. It is a very lengthy complaint, which he says he has been preparing for a long time. It would only be fair to give me time to formulate a response. CutePeach (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @CaptainEek: if you are familiar with my account, you will know I make most of my edits on weekends, and that includes writing a lot of notes for pages and edits I have yet to publish. I am a public health policy professional in a country with the highest rate of vaccine hesitancy in the world, due to the Dengvaxia controversy. This is my chief concern, but I now I can make time to reply. CutePeach (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Shibbolethink: You accuse me in your complaint of personal attacks. This is a very serious accusation which needs to be supported with evidence, so that I can either admit to it or counter it in the statement I am preparing. Please can you provide diffs to the WP:NPA violations you accuse me of? Please don’t include the time I questioned your WP:COMPETENCE for missciting papers here [29] as that was legitimate criticism, and not a personal attack. If it is found by an discerning admin that you had those papers mixed up to argue a point, and that you were continuing to argue that point countering the expert opinions given in reliable source - without providing a reliable source of your own - then my criticism should be considered legitimate, and your NPA accusations false. Please also don’t include the time I asked you to go back to China to learn how the government there works when you suggested checking the minutes of their lab, as that was in clear reference to your first visit to China, which you mentioned in your paper that you have asked me and everyone else to read. It was certainly not complimentary, for which I should apologise and not do again, but it was certainly not a personal attack. CutePeach (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Colin: ProcrastinatingReader used to be anti lab-leak and if you read here in this earlier AE, I directed extremely sharp words at him [30]. Since then, ProcrastinatingReader has obviously read some of the reliable sources describing the hypothesis in some detail, and as a good Wikipedian, he has come around to the fact that it should be covered neutrally. You will see in that AE, an editor was banned for the sin of not engaging in the BRD process with the WP:NOLABLEAK editors, quite simply because they are abusing it in their favor, which we clearly see here [31]. You seem to be completely unaware of the ploys some editors have gotten up to [32]. I have never proposed for the hypothesis and rationale to be covered as scientific theory and for that rationale to be presented as evidence, yet all the discussions I am forced to participate in are as if I am doing that. CutePeach (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @ToBeFree: you didn’t tell me I couldn’t participate in discussions while preparing my statement. I am a public health policy professional and these are very busy times for us types [33]. I work over 10 hours a day 5 days a week - which entails a lot of reading and writing - and in the little spare time I have on my weekends, I like to cook and watch a few shows, and not just read and write for Wikipedia all day. I have managed to read all of the diffs in Shibbolethink’s complaint but unfortunately most of them are illusory, misguided, or simply false. For example, Shibbolethink’s 20th diff which you cite [34] (a comment I struck), and the diff you provide [35] (a pre-strike comment), creates the illusion of a serious conduct issue, when in fact I apologised to that editor for my remarks [​​] - which he accepted [36] - and I subsequently rebuked him very sharply for dirty tactics [37] - which he accepted too [​​]. By passing judgement before having material evidence, and failing to acknowledge mine and DGG’s concerns about dirty tactics - which I complained to you about right before this case [38] - you are absconding your administrator responsibilities. Does it really make sense to you that the rewriting of an article should be left to a small group of editors who have been campaigning for over a year to delete it and ban editors who want to include it? I am truly disappointed in you and I hope you reconsider your position. CutePeach (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • El_C I spent over six hours yesterday reading all the diffs and writing my statement, and even longer on Saturday. I asked Valeree how much time I have, and she didn’t answer. Please can you advise how I request more time? I’d like till next Monday please. I’m not editing talk pages. CutePeach (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

You made those edits in discrete steps. So what's important? The process? Then you also didn't follow what you're reporting CutePeach for. The result? Well that's the same too since your version is currently what the article says for both the content CutePeach and me were concerned about. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you please link to the discussion where consensus dictated that only peer reviewed sources apply to the claims about the origin of COVID? From what I can find the latest RFC actually opposed that. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how tu-quoque is relevant here. I'm going by the text written under "Important Information" that's at the top of the page, saying If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. If Bakkster Man is serious enough about the restrictions in place to report editors here, then they ought to follow them as well. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Selective enforcement of sanctions in controversial areas is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, especially between editors having different opinions on content. Bakkster Man is reverting on the grounds of sourcing claims which have been rejected by the community several times in several places, placing unnecessary burdens upon editors to gain some (already existing) consensus for inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: re: Oh lableak, what problems thou dost cause...can anyone point me towards what the current consensus on covering it is? Or provide the key RfC's on the matter? It seems this dispute is emblematic of a deeper issue that lacks appropriate guidance. which is such a great question, and I'm really glad you asked it. There was a recent RFC which determined that it was fine to source content regarding disease and pandemic origin to normal RS (aka the normal RS policy applies). There is also a current AFD where there's overwhelming consensus that the lab leak hypothesis is a valid article. If you look closely you'll notice that a couple editors (who also happen to have commented here) take an opposite position to CutePeach. HighinBC refers to a "time sink" supposedly caused by CP, but a simple glance at the many COVID origin topics (in addition to this very filing) will reveal again those same names dropping walls of texts (in this filing alone more than 3000 words excluding the filer) of civil POV pushing about why this topic (despite overwhelming consensus) is a problem. So in essence here we have a very simple content dispute, that is, edit warring, reported by an editor who has also edit warred (1 2 3). The bottom line here is that the initial reversion by Bakkster Man here (which they followed up with 2 more reversions) is an invalid rationale for removal, as the normal RS policy applies because the content is sourced to two RS. The main issue is the requirement, against consensus, that such material come from WP:MEDRS compliant sources. I think that Bakkster Man should receive a sanction for editing against community consensus.

I think CutePeach should consider not posting a response here, as the same involved editors are openly collaborating about this filing with the same wall of text tactics that are deployed in the topic areas directly. This is a simple issue and quick look at the diffs reveals 2 editors in a minor edit war. As a final point, ToBeFree, can you please indicate your status as involved or uninvolved, given your comments in the discussion area here (the tu quoque comments), admin area here (the request for diffs which were never given and the block), talk pages, and user talk pages (the de facto topic ban) and recent admin actions? I will close by saying that we really ought not to succor weaponized content DS filings. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm (ironically) requesting an extension to the word limit. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

AE is a confusing and often Kafka-esque process even for experienced editors. CutePeach is a promising editor with only 4 months tenure here so far. There’s an overwhelming amount of words to respond to from editors loquacious both here and at the relevant article talk pages. CutePeach’s statement is sure to be picked through with a fine tooth comb so I am willing to cut them some slack for any delays. (Post made 11:41 25 July but unsigned)

A handful of talk page posts coming off the top of the head are easy and fast. Imagine being a new editor and seeing these massive, over the word limit walls of text. Where are the admins and editors who help new users? Where are the admins who help clerk AE? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This case should be tossed due to all of the procedural errors. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

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

Statement by RandomCanadian

Beyond the rather mundane edit-warring, in clear violation of expected standards, especially in an area under DS, CP's persistent uncivility and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - evidenced both by their actions on articles and their recent ramblings on Tobias' talk page (where they accuse me, PaleoNeonate, and unspecified admins of conspiring to silence them... [39] [40]), as well as their refusal to follow the most basic content policies (AGF applies to behaviour not to article content: unsourced, poorly sourced or non-neutral and undue content must be challenged, as per WP:V and WP:NPOV, no matter what one thinks of the intentions of the editor who included it - what applies here is WP:ONUS).

Additionally, I note that CP is well aware of the issues with their editing, having notably been warned of it previously by Shibbolethink ([41]) Them continuing on this path despite this is evidence they are digging their own hole, and, unlike Jule Verne or Dante, their voyage into the abyss is unlikely to have any redeeming literary quality. A full, prolonged topic ban is likely in order. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk of much ado about nothing, Francesco. I've already explained my edit here, and your take on it is not any less misleading than CP's. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: I was going to add diffs, but in the time it took me to take care of what I was doing IRL, Shibbolethink seems to have done the leg-work, and I don't think duplication is necessary. If I can add one more, though, it would be what brought about the recent flare-up, which was this problematic restoration of basically the same content as the previously deleted, POVFORK draft under the same title. That, and the AE I had filed before this was an AE issue (link provided below by Shibboleth), which shows that the accusations and WP:ASPERSIONS started right from the beginning, as I was saying. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: But that's not what CP is doing. They're not using run-of-the-mill reporting to support "Y said X". They've frequently linked to opinion pieces ([42], and, for example, back in April, they made a post full of newspapers sources to dispute statements sourced to academic journals such as those given here, and also the long ref-list after the statement in relevant articles. They repeated a very similar exercise in June, based notably on their own interpretation of a primary source and similar quoting of opinion and news writing... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: This is a very recent example of CP using an opinion piece to dispute more acceptable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@DGG: One of CP's very first edits was to come on my talk page ([43]) and tell me how my "brinkmanship on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is alarming", accusing me of censorship and so on so forth. That is not "experienced editors trying to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable" - that's CP being unreasonable right from the start, and they haven't stopped since (compare with the recent edits on Tobias' talk page). Their behaviour is nothing short of caustic, and unbearable. Getting frustrated when your favoured outcome is rejected might be understandable, but long-term uncivility, and routinely accusing others of "misbehaviour without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations" in particular, is unacceptable. I could just as easily accuse CP and others of being Russian trolls or something - disregarding the fact there is more concrete evidence of off-wiki canvassing. I haven't, because that is unbecoming of the behaviour one should have in polite society, and we shouldn't accept persistent infringements of such basic standards simply because "it's a heated debate". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) edited 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
CP's latest edits at the investigation page are quite objectionable, if not sanctimonious. They make a post explaining their edits, claiming that "Editors are reminded that deleting content for WP:NPOV concerns is WP:POVDELETION" (which by the way, doesn't say that removing such material is prohibited, is just a supplement, and in no way overrides WP:ONUS), having previously gone on to do exactly that. As shown by the flurry of activity afterwards [44], that sparked a lot of improvement (by other editors). But CP's edits were done for the wrong reasons, were done in spite of previous conversations on the same subject, and they prove that they're a high-maintenance editor who is not contributing collaboratively in this area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I was going to leave a note about the recent canvassing ([45] [46]), but that already appears to have been done by Shibbolethink. CP apparently having enough time to make a long post on their talk page, where they continue their similar, IDHT arguments, but not taking the time to engage here, despite multiple requests to do so, is also an intriguing way to go about this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sgnpkd: What was said here (excuse the intervening diff) about such accusations of sealioning still holds: making unsubstantiated accusations is not unique to CP, I see. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: So CP, accusing others of censorship (on your talk page), is now the one threatening others unless they don't self-censor? Very ironic, as in "the rules of Wikipedia apply to others but not to me (or my viewpoint)", which seems a decent take on CP's attitude here. And also yet more evidence of the difficult environment which they are creating in this already messy enough topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yet another long post by CP, where, notably, they directly accuse Shibbolethink of lying. I quote: The particular nature of this matter also puts the WP:LIE to point #19 in Shibbolethinks’s AE post, which should tell you something about the rest of his points.. That, and the fact they're using these article talk pages to continue arguing and accusing other editors, ex. from that same diff, certain bias editors who demand to go through the WP:BRD on every little comma and discuss their WP:SELFPUB opinions lest you get dragged to AE on trumped up charges of misconduct... That's all from me here, I think the point has been made and if this isn't enough evidence to warrant action then I don't think there will ever be enough. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Wbm1058: What do you do of the fact that, besides that single filippino singers page, the next four most edited pages by CP are COVID talk pages. The reason they have so few edits to mainspace pages in the area is because they're a relatively new account and most of the relevant pages have long been ECP. In fact, disregarding their edits to that one page (which aren't that impressive - this is the good old "edit count doesn't mean anything"), the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of their activity has been in the COVID area. What do you do of the fact that one of their very first edits was to come to my talk page and accuse me of various things, which they were still doing as recently as last weekend on Tobias' talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think the wiki-lawyering about what constitutes involved or not (none of the admins accused of doing so seem to have significantly edited in the topic area) is nothing more than a pedantic waste of time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Francesco espo and Johnuniq: That, excuse me, is blatant cherry-picking. The full quote, is:

In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020). Immunity, May 19, 2020[1]

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strawmen and false equivalences seem to be present in this AE just as much as they are present in the actual topic area. JPxG's comment seems to paint this as a witch hunt, while in actual case ignoring all the evidence of long-term disruption, canvassing, personal attacks and soapboxing by the reported user. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Even further cabal accusations by CP, now on L235's talk page [47]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dervorguilla: Thanks for noticing that. I had removed it from my comments since it seemed to have attracted no attention whatsoever, but I still think it's an alternative/additional measure the closer could consider if they so wish. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (2020-05-19). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. ISSN 1074-7613. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.

Statement by Francesco espo

RandomCanadian inserted a secondary source (Science Based Medicine) citing an unpublished preprint (Sørensen et al), and Bakkster Man did not object to it, as he wasn’t aware it was an unpublished preprint. When CutePeach pointed this out to defend her inclusion of secondary sources (MIT Technology Review) citing a preprint, Bakkster Man had already reverted her edit and opened this case. Mr Ernie then removed the Sørensen et al as undue [48], but Bakkster Man reinstate it as due [49], but then Bakkster Man realizing his mistake and delete the whole paragraph [50]. Bakkster Man reverted CutePeach seven seconds after she explained her inclusion on the talk page, so he couldn’t have possibly read it, and he made a fool of himself here. It is clear for all to see this was premeditated.Francesco espo (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is hilarious, RandomCanadian is in the house [51], but he still doesn’t realize the Science Based Medicine source he cited cites Sorensen et all (same as Deiglish's preprint). I wonder if ToBeFree knows what’s going on. I don’t think he does. DGG are you seeing this?Francesco espo (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Johnuniq: i think you must make your argument based on policy and not just mimic other votes otherwise it may be ignored by the closer of this AE. Just a few days after you joined the conversation with CutePeach that was started by FeralOink [[52]], CutePeach provided a few reliable sources including a paper from Baric and Graham which say the possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2 concluding that Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable [53]. As you see CutePeach provided this paper from Ralph Baric, one of the most eminent coronavirologists in the world, yet Colin and Shibbolethink didn’t respond at all, and instead voted here to ban her. A few days after you joined the conversation, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Americans like Fauci who dismissed the lab-leak theory have a conflict of interest on this matter and they quote Richard Ebright saying that the NIH funded work at the WIV was—unequivocally—gain-of-function research [54]. I see now Shibbolethink is also WP:BITEing a new editor called Nascence411 and closing their conversation on the talk page. Why so much hostility?--Francesco espo (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @ToBeFree: We are not surprised that Bishonen votes the way he does after he called us "bastards" [55], and we will deal with that separately in private with Jimmy Wales. i am curious to know why you decided to vote before hearing CutePeach, even though you didn’t tell her she can’t continue in talk pages. In your vote to ban you didn’t address the initial complaint from Bakkster Man about CutePeach adding a preprint, because as we all know, he did the exact same thing. You banned me for saying he makes a fool of himself in this matter. You also banned Empiricus-sextus and Gimiv, and now you want to ban CutePeach. I have just read the WP:INVOLVED essay and I believe you are involved. I think you should recuse yourself from this case. It is for the good of the project.--Francesco espo (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by FeralOink

Hello, Francesco espo and Mr. Ernie (or is it Dr?) and other somewhat sane people here. In the interest of transparency, I am replying here rather than on your talk page, lest I be accused of canvassing or such. Yes, that is hilarious. (Imagine an emoji with rolling eyes and another with lol face). I didn't realize that CutePeach was another lady like me. We are NOT WP:CHEESE! (Thank you for using proper adjectives pronouns, Francesco. I do appreciate that.)

They, the random Canadian (Redacted) et al are being horrible to CutePeach! She has to translate these INTERMINABLY LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG walls of text from English to Tagalog and back. I gave up on making appeals to DGG after reading what he said on the GoF article talk page here:

"How likely is it that this is a deliberate Chinese program to cause disease in the ret of the world, especially the US'. This is the easiest--it's a pure conspiracy theory..."

that it was absurd to suggest that the government of China does bioterrorism (or maybe biowarfare?) research. The US government does bioterrorism/biowarfare research, as do most of the G7 countries. If we have to edit Wikipedia based on the assumption that China is like, um, Monaco regarding self-defense and hegemony, then it is hopeless to make any meaningful contribution at all.

The gap between the real world and Wikipedia is becoming vast. Dr. Fauci is being written up for lying to Congress while giving sworn testimony about Dazak, EcoHealth, and funding to WIV, yet Wikipedia is still bickering about even mentioning the possibility that the coronavirus was a lab leak or a (unintentional or intentional) release of GoF research. Meanwhile, the article about ZyCoV-D (what an awful name, as it immediately made me think of Zyklon B, and yes, I am allowed to say that because I am Jewish) the new DNA vaccine from India, uses BusinessWire and company press releases, yet ToBeFree and NovemLingae seem to think it is totally okay with that on the ZyCoV-D talk page. And EVERYONE worships Shibbolethink! It is embarrassing cringe! Have you seen his user page, that photo standing on the ramparts of a citadel as a brave COVIDWarrior? What's with everyone's deference to him? It isn't as though there aren't other people on Wikipedia who have more experience than a third year med student who has a PhD in virology. Also, there's a blatant COI as he is co-contributor on LOTS of journal articles about humanized gerbil lungs and other chimerical experiments that sound very much like GoF research. I don't even a moral objection to GoF research per se. One day I might be thanking Shibbolethink for bio-engineering something that saves my life. It is just the context of control here that I object to.

I am extremely disgruntled and am ranting here. This isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT or what-about-ism. It is absolutely necessary to apply consistent standards regarding sources and fairness. That has all flown out the window. Lots of editors are being intolerant and horrible, uh WP:TENDENTIOUS and will not relent. Look, y'all got your way about Donald Trump, and inserted ridiculous redundant verbiage e.g. "false disproven conspiracy theories" or continuing to say that Bat Lady the (oops) Li-Meng Yan (she is admittedly less credible than Bat Lady but still) can't be believed because she was associated with Steve Bannon and he is fraudulent, evil, and wrong (citing the Daily Kos articles from 2015 as proof), so she is too. Maybe it is better that you just banish me forever now, as the cognitive dissonance dial regarding all things COVID19 on Wikipedia is dialed up to 11 on a dial that only goes up to 10. AND it is your loss, as I found Chinese IP addresses vandalizing (see sockpuppet investigation) of Genetic code, Codons, Stokeslet, and Incomplete Bessel Functions articles, and complain but no one wants to do a check user because China. How many women editors does Wikipedia have who edit Bessel Function articles?! But I have to trumpet that I know what I'm talking about on GoF talk page, and feel like I'm Donald Trump saying, "I'm a very stable genius". That is all for now.--FeralOink (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And I heard you, Shibboeththink! I am NOT WP:CHEESE.--FeralOink (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Fine, then just continue banning everyone that you object to. Don't think it hasn't been noticed! Whenever I edit anything now, I notice users with tens of thousands of edits, whose names are familiar to me from 10 um 11 years of editing Wikipedia, are now greyed out. Good luck with that. What DGG contributed here (see "3.2.11 Statement by DGG") was very reasonable and you disregard his wise words at your peril.--FeralOink (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink

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

Diffs of problematic behavior by CutePeach
  1. 15:26, 21 July 2021 User escalates dispute about gain-of-function into dispute about all of COVID origins. As they have done before. Disrupting consensus-building to WP:WIN an argument, against a hard-won agreement among editors who rarely agree (pro-leak, anti-leak, moderates). (to paraphrase) "Why can't Shibbolethink just do what I want so I can move on?"
  2. 15:10, 21 July 2021 Long, rambling SOAPBOX about how "a group of editors have banded together to…Co-opt Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE policies to WP:CENSOR the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis from Wikipedia” Repeating their WP:YESLABLEAK. Which is a straw man the size of Nicholas Cage’s Wicker Man tomb. We are the ones trapped inside. No one is trying to “remove” the lab leak theory from Wikipedia. Many editors are trying to contextualize it within the mainstream scientific view, namely that it's not as likely as a natural origin. This is exactly what WP:FRINGE, WP:RSUW tell us to do. I have not tried to “masquerade WP:NOLABLEAK as policy in numerous talk page discussions,” I and others have quoted it as a way to package WP:RSes together. This is in line with the consensus we have established in numerous talk page discussions. CutePeach wants to forego that consensus. E.g. "Please note also that Wikipedia may need to change its policy on the Daily Mail, which quotes a White House scientist on the matter". User also says this gem: “These discussion require editors like myself, who have actually read the sources to engage in the WP:BRD process, instead of giving the little time I have to create content.How dare we ask users to engage in consensus building?
  3. 06:37, 20 July 2021 Editor removing mention of mainstream scientific view [56]. Contravening established consensus. Similar: [57] asserting individual minority opinions "outweigh all MEDRSs published on the subject to date"
  4. 03:10, 14 July 2021If you are going to promote your own literature as policy or guidance on Wikipedia, then you have to be able to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE, which you have failed to do on this issue.” Again, a straw man in which I am incompetent.
  5. 08:39, 14 July 2021Regarding the Hakim paper, it is a case of WP:MISINTERPRETATION. Have you actually read the paper?” I gave exact quotes several paragraphs prior [58]. User exemplifies WP:IDHT, WP:SEALION.
  6. 07:48, 13 July 2021On your next trip to China, you might want to learn a bit more about how the Chinese government actually governs.” I then tell the user to please not implicate my “competence” and intelligence in their edits, as it is not AGF, something this user has been warned about before ([59] [60]). User then then tells me I am incompetent for accusing them of PA/ABF [61], creates an essay about it (Wikipedia:CRYNPA). I attempt to bridge divide by offering an olive branch [62]. User ignores and continues to accuse me of POV [63]. This is something I have tried to do before, failed before. This user will not listen, and is very convinced that the cabal is out to get them.
  7. 13:41, 14 July 2021We should not be presenting the WP:OPINIONs of scientists on either side as facts in Wikivoice.” Speaks for itself re: mainstream POVs. User is responding to admin (Johnuniq) asking for clarification on their extensive soapboxing (my interpretation). Admin still cannot figure out what user is asking [64]. A common occurrence.
  8. 08:45, 13 July 2021 User accuses me of intentionally using a non-RS that is a syndication [65], I retract the source again [66] (having already retracted it earlier, after mistakenly citing it [67]), user accuses me of intentionally using the source again [68], then beating a horse that is not only dead, it has been set on fire [69].
  9. 14:23, 4 July 2021 One of several instances in which user tries to get an admin to reverse a mopping action (in this case removal of BLPvio) that disagrees with their POV. They tie up a lot of admin/editor time with SOAPBOXes [70].
  10. 06:26, 30 June 2021 Months into nearly daily accusations of problematic sourcing, they say: "I do not think "WP:RS evidence" is a requisite policy for inclusion or exclusion."
  11. 06:29, 30 June 2021 User creates many CAPITAL_LETTERS redirects/essays to use more effectively as a bludgeon. (e.g. WP:MISINTERPRETING, WP:POVOMISSION, WP:CRYNPA, WP:POVDELETION). I'm actually not sure there is a policy against this, but it does feel pretty BATTLEGROUND-y and exemplifies how this editor escalates disputes and tries to change policy rather than striving for consensus or persuading others via discussion.
  12. 14:29, 23 June 2021 adversarial attitude, not AGF.
  13. 14:02, 23 June 2021 Casting WP:ASPERSIONS about a user “scheming” to edit in a way that “provokes” a response.
  14. 05:28, 20 June 2021 frequently requests citations for obvious summary, not synth, WP:SEALION. When presented with quotations, defaults to WP:IDHT.
  15. 05:07, 20 June 2021 alleges all virologists have a COI. A clear case of WP:FLAT. CPUSHing user's POV and trying to “neutralize” editors who disagree.
  16. 13:24, 19 June 2021 Frequently adds primary-sourced promotional material to drafts/articles to push user’s POV.
  17. 13:12, 19 June 2021 Brings content disputes to non-content dispute areas often. Casts WP:ASPERSIONS and cites ‘coordination of other editors’ as if there is a cabal.
  18. 12:56, 19 June 2021 Edit war brought on by user.
  19. 05:40, 6 June 2021 [71] [72] [73] [74] Frequently cites WP:FRINGE claims: “US government maintains the claim that the WIV was doing bioweapons research, which was perhaps for defensive purposes” for which there is no evidence. A case of WP:IDHT applies when user is challenged, or more simply, the user never admits being wrong. Simply changes the subject or emphatically declares their correctness.
  20. 12:56, 8 June 2021 Adversarial accusations against another editor for being “completely confused” about a topic and then becoming “a real expert with all the right sources” as if this somehow invalidates the user's argument.
  21. 09:38, 9 June 2021 WP:OR to push WP:FRINGE ideas and cite preferred primary sources instead of secondary sources in the scientific literature. Also WP:IDHT as the user asserts over and over again that certain scientists support their POV even when presented evidence to the contrary [75].
Summary of thoughts on CutePeach

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

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

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

Recommend indef topic ban and short-term block.--Shibbolethink ( ) 22:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (edited 17:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC))

Other notes
re: statement length

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

Thank you, ToBeFree. I will keep monitoring, but likely will not respond to other comments unless directly requested to preserve the ability for others to add their thoughts and still maintain a readable ArbE case. I'm not saying others should do the same, I just feel bad about my really long comment :)--Shibbolethink ( ) 23:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI: editor was previously AE'd for similar behavior, before DS were in place, so dismissed and moved to ANI.--Shibbolethink ( ) 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI: CutePeach is WP:CANVASsing, inviting editors selectively to this AE [76] [77] (without mentioning those notification here) and into discussions on talk pages based on whether or not their statements here are favorable [78]. This is not the first time I have warned this user about WP:CANVAS: [79].--Shibbolethink ( ) 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @CutePeach: I have provided diffs above, which you've indicated do not qualify as PAs in your eyes. I believe they do, based on WP:CIRNOT: "Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person." The biggest issue is the repeated use of such arguments on your part, even after being warned about this. It is unfortunate that we disagree. I leave it up to the reviewing admins.--Shibbolethink ( ) 17:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dervorguilla

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

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

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

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

@RandomCanadian: Here CutePeach is using ordinary news sources, though. (Not "opinion pieces".) –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@CutePeach: It's been suggested that an [indefinite] interaction ban could be an effective solution (in addition to or as an alternative to a fixed-term topic ban). Would you be OK with an interaction ban? (I anticipate that a few months from now you may have very little free time available to engage in those rather fruitless conversations!) –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Novem Linguae

  • For months, I have noticed that CutePeach engages in WP:CPUSH on COVID origins talk pages. It is quite draining to read and deal with.
  • During a discussion with Shibbolethink, made this inappropriate edit to WP:NPA, then created the shortcuts WP:CRYPA and WP:CRYNPA to point to their new edits, then quoted these shortcuts in their discussion with Shibbolethink.[80] Adding to a policy without consensus, in order to immediately quote it in a heated discussion, seems inappropriate to me.
    • This user later turned the redirect WP:CRYNPA into an essay, and it is live in the Wikipedia userspace. I doubt it enjoys wide community consensus and it should probably be userfied.
  • I find this user a bit abrasive to interact with.
    • In one recent interaction, they told me If you are going to promote your own literature as policy or guidance on Wikipedia, then you have to be able to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE, which you have failed to do on this issue.[81], basically calling me incompetent and also accusing me of promotion.
    • They told Shibbolethink On your next trip to China, you might want to learn a bit more about how the Chinese government actually governs.[82].
  • This user posted in my userspace after I asked them not to. [83][84][85][86] The diff order is my 1st request (on talk page), their response ignoring it, my 2nd request (in edit summary), and their second response ignoring it.

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

Statement by DGG

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

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

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

I notice several of the " uninvolved administrators" are pushing the person being accused here to finish their statement, and discussing how the details of their life and contributions show they have enough time. That's not even correct--I know that when I , for example, have something important to write here I tend to make a few minor contributions in the interval to relieve stress and ensure objectivity) I know I have never given anybody a deadline, and when on arb com, we went much more slowly to avoid the impression of harassment. . I suggest those parties move their comments out of the uninvolved section. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It is rare that an appeal against an AE decision succeeds, but one good justification for that appeal is demonstrated personal hostility from the admin closing it. I consider imposing deadline to at least verge on personal hostility. I haven't yet looked at other statements of the people in that section, since I do not know who will close it or what the result will be. I'm trying to decrease the possibilities for future or continuing conflict. The best way would be for someone to close this who has made no prior comments. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
But in any case, after this is closed one way or another, we will all have to move on, and we shouldn't do anything that would prejudice attempts to resolve the actual issue. We will not do that by continuing hostilities, tho sometimes they may seem necessary in the process here. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(I wasn't palnning to add anything, but in view of some recent comments, I do not think there is malice or conspiracy involved here at WP on this topic. I do think there is stubbornness, and lack of proportion. Personally I see the stubbornness in editors refusing to see consensus in the world has changed , as judged by the coverage relevant reliable sources on whether this possibility is fringe. This is a stubbornness I can't really account for. But there's also stubbornness in CP attacking when she should be defending--it's not an approach likely to work, and everyone who has been involved in this has told her so. This I can account for, it's a common tho unfortunate reaction when people think rightly or wrongly they are being unfairly criticized, to fight back instead of make peace. I of course am stubborn in defending what I think the true meaning of NPOV, but I'm not sure I'm right in continuing as long as I have in continuing any one particular discussion which is not likely to be fruitful. My usual course in the past has been to say what I can, answer a question or objection, and then let things take their course, and perhaps I would have done better to do so here. Some people at WP seem to be willing to engage in extended conflict--I am not, and I should have known better than to try something that makes me as uncomfortable as this no longer very polite discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

As I'm on wikibreak, hopefully I don't say something here which gets me blocked. Where is this seven seconds thing coming from? AFAICT Cutepeach posted on the talk page here at 13:01:30 [87] 2 minutes after making this edit at 12:59:31 [88]. Bakkster Man made this reply at 13:07:34 [89] followed by reverting Cutepeach's change at 13:08:07 [90]. Cutepeach then asked if Bakkster Man had read the reply where they first mentioned the seven seconds bit at 13:26:36 [91]. Maybe I misunderstood what was being referred to but I'm not seeing any overlap that was seven seconds. Cutepeach's first comment seems like it could be just a simple mistake, planning to type minutes but typing seconds instead or it's possible they just confused themselves and thought it was seconds when it was minutes. Either way Cutepeach's reply is long but not that long, it seems entirely plausible it was read in 6-7 minutes especially since Bakkster Man replied to it before reverting, so if that is what's being referred to, it doesn't seem an issue.

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

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

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

@In actu: and all admins. FWIW, I support giving CutePeach more time (maybe 1-2 weeks more) to respond with the understanding that there are to be no further edits in the area until they post their response. This could be made a formal temporary topic ban if necessary, but frankly I don't think it should be. Just tell User:CutePeach to stop editing in the area until they've dealt with the AE. If they wikilawyer or ignore that because it's not a formal topic ban, then just proceed with case. But it looks like CutePeach stopped a few days ago. If editors feel CutePeach needs to stop any editing besides their statement, I feel that's unnecessary for a short 2-3 response period, noting the most likely outcome is a topic ban which as I said we can treat as already in force, but I don't feel that strongly. I agree with those who say User:Wbm1058 wikilawyering is unhelpful. Editors cannot continue to edit in an area they will be topic banned from by delaying said topic ban by saying they need more time to respond. To be clear, I'm not saying this is what CutePeach is doing, but rather because since this is the effective outcome then it makes sense that any edits which would be affected by the topic-ban are considered forbidden rather than simply main space edits. Plenty of editors are topic banned primarily over edits on talk pages or noticeboards anyway so there's never a reason to say "no main space edits so it's fine". Finally, I would particular oppose closing this case just because of pointless comments, including mine. If people feel this case is getting unwieldy with too many editors and admins adding unhelpful comments put it on hold or something forbidding new comments until CutePeach has made a statement. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

Commenting only on first 3 diffs provided by the filer, this seems to be just a content dispute. The info CutePeach is trying to include [92] arguably belongs to the page. This is page about COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Even if the hypothesis is wrong, we still need to list people who proposed or supported it. Yes, the edit by CutePeach is POVish and should be corrected. It is POVish because she is trying to frame it as a scientifically solid claim. But this is mostly a political, not a scientific controversy. Fortunately, such POVish version was corrected to the text that appears in the left part of this diff [93]. OK, so it now includes the following "In addition, Gorski criticises the startling claim that "the laws of physics mean that you cannot have four positively charged amino acids in a row". Having such criticism, let it be. Why revert? That would be my reaction. Other edits and overall behavior by CutePeach can be a lot more troubling. But if so, that had to be justified with diffs by the filer from the very beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Here I disagree with Colin (below) that A claim on Wikipedia that covid was genetically engineered requires an academic secondary source. Such claim made, for example, by D. Trump, may not have any scientific basis whatsoever, but it still may need to be included on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking on diffs by Shibbolethink, each of them by itself (e.g. [94]) does not strike me as anything deserving a topic ban; however, they show that CutePeach is familiar with the subject. I think this is a typical pattern of someone providing a lot of diffs produced during tense discussions in a hope that at least some of them (or so many of them) will be viewed as incriminating. This is just my personal opinion, and I can be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Colin. That was a common point of contention in such discussions if we should include views by scientists (not "scientists") who suggested that "lab leak" must be investigated and explained why they think so. Some of them signed a letter in Science [95], some of them are strong experts in virology or other areas of biology, some materials appears in peer reviewed publications. This appears, for example, in #3 point in Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus) created by Shibbolethink ("manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin", although the discussions also include many others. Here is my opinion. First, Such claims, if reliably published (like here [96],[97] rather than self-published) do belong in general to these pages if properly written, i.e. with arguments provided by these scientists and with counter-criticisms by others if any. Otherwise, what is happening? We cite claims by politicians who have no idea about science, and do not cite claims by scientists who can be wrong, but at least know biology and explain why they think so (like Sergeto and Deigin). If WaPO and other RS discuss such sourced opinions by scientists [98], so should we. The summary by Shibbolethink in #3 of his template does not reflect any RfC, and excluding such sourced views is actually against WP:NPOV, which is the policy.
  • And no, WP:MEDRS does not apply here [99] - "Not passing" - that's why I do not need to ask anything on WP:MED. As correctly stated by closer, But who created something or where it was created is historical information (while what "it does to a living organism" would be a biomedical information, etc.). Basically, the result of closing was the same as I am saying in the paragraph just above, i.e. a minority viewpoint on this should be presented, but "not be presented as an absolute truth" (of course!).My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

After having drafted a report I intended to avoid participating but to eventually present a TE/soapboxing case instead if necessary in the future. I was encouraged to still post so have revised it to be less redundant with other statements.


The COVID-19 topic was recently upgraded from general sanctions to discretionary ones because of persistent disruption in the area. AN and FTN archives have a number of related threads. The lab leak story has been promoted by online groups and on Wikipedia by some regulars, but most notably by single purpose accounts. Some were confirmed to be sockpuppets, but others to also be meatpuppets, some coordinating as part of online campaigns to push their propaganda on Wikipedia, email canvassing also occurred. While some disruptive accounts were blocked or topic banned, waves of new SPAs continued to disrupt (the talk pages of the various articles are full of it with their archives). Some Twitter activist argued about creating LEAKGATE on Wikipedia and some editors were harassed.[1] Some regulars believe that there's more to it and that Wikipedia tends toward censorship (although not too surprisingly as it is part of standard narratives).

Since I read a lot of sources about it lately, I can evaluate that there's not much to it but speculation, motivated reasoning, connecting dots and an unlikely hypothesis that some scientists now advocate to investigate. The media went havoc about it lately, with right-wing, including Fox News, transforming uncertainty statements like "more information is needed" into "yes" shows,[2] and before that promoting a Bannon-promoted conspiracy theory supported by forged pseudoscientific claims and falsehoods.[3]

But reliable sources confirm that there's no more evidence than before.[4][5] We can agree that the topic is notable and everyone is recently waiting for a US intelligence report. To those who complain that it wasn't covered, it was covered by two articles, COVID-19 misinformation and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and per the above, are already a time sink for the community. Previous versions of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis were unnecessary WP:POVFORKs, some were particularly bad with obvious source misrepresentation to promote a view as more plausible than the sources did.[6] In that particular version were also shady primary papers published in dubious venues and pushed by editors with a conflict of interest.

As a reminder, Wikipedia is not to promote, but to document with proper context and analysis using independent reliable sources (the claims are not recited, but are written about from an independent view, the goal is also not false balance and "letting the reader choose for themself"). Now if AfD passes, we'll have one more article on it, but that will fortunately no longer be a POVFORK after TNT and rewriting by non-SPAs (but may also turn out to be another time sink for the community).


Unlike Bakkster's entry about a specific event I have a more general WP:TE case to present. This editor appeared on 16 March 2021 with their first edits already focused on the topic. They were suspected of being a campaign-sock (considering the others and SPA status), with the admission about Twitter we can AGF and suppose that it's more meatpuppetry. Still, it's a promotional account that appeared to know where to edit, seemed familiar with Wikipedia, uses a lot of WP:WL, had a grudge about specific editors already, then kept trying to make Wikipedia present the hypothesis as plausible, with a battleground attitude.

This includes the creation of an essay to soapbox the idea, which they have promoted at talk pages like here (arguing about "proponents of NOLABLEAK" as if there was a valid equivalence, or that the others are also motivated activists, despite the efforts by several to use the best sources available like MEDRS where possible). That very post, among others, still argues to present individual opinions and accuses others of misrepresentation without evidence. More can be read here where youtube videos are posted to suggest using one person's view.

The particular version of the leak hypothesis article they recently restored had problems and included unreliable, deprecated sources and problems with balance. This edit cited a deletion review but that was more about a potential draft. Fortunately, it was quickly rewritten by necessity per WP:TNT. They since complained about this rewrite and have tried to prevent the scientific consensus from being prominently mentioned (they have known about this consensus before but IDHT and quote mining from specific articles is used to suggest it may not be true despite all the other sources that mention it in various ways).

They went on to accuse editors of being long term disruptive censorship activists (permalink) (the latter also includes unrelated intervention and replies by someone else who also runs a website to promote it). I'm unsure, but since yesterday wondered if undisclosed COI is possible, so I left them a post explaining why there are areas I wouldn't edit myself.

I'll stop with this for now but will quote some of what I wrote at their talk page when they accused me directly: "what is more plausible RGW activism, a new editor who's obvious goal is to push an idea since the beginning, or someone who edited hundreds of pages for years? Those are aspects that are easy to assess. My account was created pre-pandemic, was not a sleeping account and has never been blocked, this hopefully means something." I wasn't aware of the WP:POINTy redirects mentioned here, but that too is obviously tendentious... —PaleoNeonate – 02:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


Ernie: And CONSENSUS on a case by case basis, of course, IRT what sources to use. As for the rest of your narrative, I'm not really surprised. The other editors here are also not the focus of this case... —PaleoNeonate – 03:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Colin: Yes I admit that when only uncriticial primary material exists it can result in a lack of full coverage of the claims (by policy too, to avoid undue promotion). —PaleoNeonate – 17:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

A general comment in relation to common claims of silencing the opponent, if that was the direction to head in, despite the evidence of promotional accounts, we would also be saying that Wikipedia is for free speech and soapboxing, that evading blocks, ignoring the TOS, sealioning are not a problem at all... I also have the impression that some editors suggesting it are not the ones who had to spend a lot of time dealing with it at those particular talk pages recently. —PaleoNeonate – 18:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC: I agree that ToBeFree's involvement has been administrative, there is no WP:INVOLVED content-oriented issue that I am aware of. —PaleoNeonate – 13:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach: In relation to using ProcrastinatingReader as an example, Plain folks and Argumentum ad populum may matter. They're also not a SPA and this report is not about them, of course. Editors come from various backgrounds and have their own beliefs, the important is to ensure that the content in the encyclopedia, instead of reflecting those, reflects the conclusions of the majority of reliable sources on the topic. This is not a "pro-believer" witch hunt afterall... —PaleoNeonate – 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this, it's concerning, although not very surprising, to see evidence of waging this anti-WP/mainstream campaign off-WP... —PaleoNeonate – 07:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Colin

I have attempted to mediate on a couple of Covid19 articles, where I have seen problematic editing, mindsets and a lack of desire to seek consensus. I don't think I've been successful to any significant degree. While I may personally attribute that to the stubbornness of those involved on all sides, it may also be my failure. IMO there are flaws with editors/editing on all sides but we're here to discuss CutePeach, not to fire off "but you smell too" cheap arguments.

CutePeach in particular is overwhelming talk pages with soapboaxing. And while all editors have at times falling into the trap of trying to argue the science from primary sources, CutePeach is particularly prone to simply arguing what they feel is "the science" with other editors, rather than proposing (or writing) text and backing that up with reliable secondary sources. Edits to articles (such as those few listed at the very top here) fall into the style we often see on bad controversy topics, where editors attempt to argue the case in front of the readers. The first link is a particularly egregious example: "SARS-COV-2 was well adapted for human transmission from its early authored a paper which included claims of possible genetic engineering, which they submitted to a journal, and were edited out in the peer review process". This hints to the readers that some scientists think covid was genetically engineered to be well adapted for human transmission, and at the same time hints at some conspiracy to cover it up. Both claims are outstanding and The World Should Know!

Despite the RFCs about MEDRS, there remains a lot of misinformation. Let's be clear. A claim on Wikipedia that covid was genetically engineered requires an academic secondary source of the first order, not some Norwegian "bourgeois magazine". The other two sources paywalled, hmm. We need to be extremely careful when discussing scientific controversy that it doesn't just become a mechanism for agenda editing to mislead. While I agree with DGG that at times editors have sought the "Wikipedia should say nothing" approach, which just leads to frustration and doesn't serve our readers, we also need to prevent Wikipedia becoming the Dail Mail, where any contentious or dubious statement by some scientists somewhere is offered credulously to our readers.

I entirely disagree with DGG's assessment that this AE is just a game play to remove an opponent. Cutepeach is an editor who's account has always been solely focussed on promoting the lab leak hypothesis on Wikipedia, and despite lots of editors attempting to explain how Wikipedia works, they aren't getting it. Cutepeach's talk page discussions belong on a social media forum and article writing belongs on a personal blog. -- Colin°Talk 10:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader: Both you and DGG make arguments that view Cutepeach as a pawn in a game, or fighter in a battle for NPOV. DGG's claim (about removing an opponent) could be made about nearly all disputes where editors argue for sanctions, and is unprovable without some kind of editor-thought-MRI-scanner technology. You argue that Cutepeach's extreme position is a necessary balance for other editors with different views, view which you frame as pro-lab-leak and vice-versa, as though there are only two sides. The BBC once made that mistake, thinking "balance" on topics like global warming or MMR meant that for every expert you interviewed, you had to have some weirdo too. They eventually saw sense on that. NPOV isn't about balance as though there are two sides to every argument. There are many sides and but often one side is noisier than is warranted by their acceptance among reliable sources. WP:NPOV is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (my bold) A SPA editor who has a clear editorial bias, is pushing a minority and political agenda, and who after months of advice is still (a) pushing their agenda in articles with bad sources and (b) trying to convince others about the "science" with walls of text (see their talk 15:56 24th), is not helping NPOV at all. I suggest instead that editors tend more to take extreme "not give an inch" positions when there is persistent agenda-editing pushing a minority POV. The walls of argument on talk is also off-putting to other editors who may take a more unbiased view. -- Colin°Talk 10:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, wrt claims about genetic engineered Covid. Read what I said carefully. I'm not going to get into a covid argument on this page. But, Trump, yes, that's a big news story about "what Trump said / reaction". Random scientist making similar claim, no. That's a well tried POV pushing tactic and there are "scientists" and "doctors" who believe and say just about anything if you google hard enough. If you still aren't sure, feel free to ask at WT:MED. -- Colin°Talk 11:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes (again), arguments about sourcing rules wrt covid are an endless meta distraction, and I don't understand why you think an AE request on another user is the place to discuss your personal opinion, which disagrees with core policy. Again, if you wish to know better why you are wrong, and specifically wrong about the RFC, please ask at WP:MED. Please try to stay focused on the topic here. -- Colin°Talk 12:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

At this point I've reported several users who happen to have pro-lab-leak editing philosophies and none vice versa. The former group has historically been substantially more disruptive, although currently I think the latter is probably more of a problem, and better at it too since they tend to be more experienced users. It really isn't that difficult to edit neutrally, and just sum up reliable sources without bringing in your own personal philosophy on the issue and let the sources speak for themselves. Over half of the regulars in this topic area seem incapable of doing that, though. The behavioural issues stem as a result. Let's be realistic, nobody in 'the other group' will be sanctioned. I think that's relevant here because if you remove every editor on one side of the issue I don't know how we can reach NPOV in this topic area.

CutePeach is certainly a single purpose account.[100] Several of their comments have no basis in policy. They also make some where they are right. I don't think they are a net negative in this topic area at this time. Their volume of commentary is also not so great such that they're an undue burden on others' time. CutePeach has, in some cases, exercised with restraint, such as when their "COVID-19 cover-up" article was draftified; policy allows them to move it back and force others to hold a deletion discussion, although they chose not to do that, presumably believing it would be more collaborative not to. Personally, I think we need to put an end to the seeking of non-standard venues for discussions in this topic area, and that starts with no more damn MFDs, no more attempts to avoid building consensus in this topic area, and no more ignoring the outcomes of consensus discussions. The path to a stable article that follows our policies, if not through self-reflection, is through discussion. The most corrosive type of editor, thus, is one that is a hurdle in allowing those discussions to take place properly (through bludgeoning, for example, or through persistent long rambling arguments and derailing of discussions). CutePeach, in my experience and at this time, does not tick those boxes. As such, I don't see how the topic area is helped by sanctioning them. I think CutePeach's voice is necessary to reach NPOV in the topic area. My main concern is their misuse of primary sources, but I think that's something they can work on.

+1 to DGG's During a subject dispute, more experienced editors [try] to push their less experienced opponents into doing something unreasonable, so one can then remove them on behavioral grounds. AE is a particularly effective place for the purpose. Similarly, I wonder whether the 'opportunity to provide a statement' is just a trick, because almost anything an inexperienced editor will say in these circumstances will only make their case worse. But not responding can also be used against them, which makes it a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Colin: CutePeach is not a pawn or a fighter. I mean exactly what I said, the general point that it's effective to remove ideological opponents in this manner and AE admins need to, as always, scrutinise the evidence carefully and not just rely on the volume of editors supporting removing the editor. I haven't reviewed all the diffs, but I do think a couple of the ones I did are not fair representations of the situation, but there are also others that can be found that are more damning, so that's neither here nor there.
    It's not that CutePeach himself/herself is necessary for NPOV, it's that at the present time only so many editors are active in this topic area, and almost every editor with an 'anti-lab-leak' view (to the best of my knowledge) has never/rarely added any reliably sourced content that contradicts their personal philosophy, and vice versa. There is absolutely reliably sourced encyclopaedic content that falls into that basket and can/should be added. The issue of SPAs has decreased compared to earlier this year, likely due to ECP and months of administrative action making clear that such disruption isn't tolerable, and as such I'm less concerned about minor annoyances from time to time. The main question for me is whether CutePeach's continued presence will lead to a better article, and at this time I personally think it will. This isn't an endorsement of all of their current behaviour, however I'm optimistic this AE will provide useful feedback to help them decrease the portions of their editing that are less productive, and perhaps they can provide such assurances. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Wbm1058: At the time ToBeFree was the only really active admin in the area, taking over from El C prior. If a user is making a complaint about conduct issues in the topic area, as CutePeach is in that diff, it was pretty normal to ping ToBeFree to look into it, since other admins didn't really care to intervene. I suspect CutePeach found ToBeFree's name any number of places, such as the preceding AN thread, or the protection log of the page they were commenting on, which had ToBeFree as the most recent protecting admin at the time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In a recent ArbCom case about an admin user, they were given the opportunity to defer discussion of their behaviour for three months (6 arbs supported one year!). Here we are lighting a fire under a non-admin user's ass to reply within one week, and consider that more than enough time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I dunno, having skimmed this statement from CutePeach I think there may be no choice but to TBAN. Perhaps my optimism is misplaced for the time being. I think it's just frustration, however, it doesn't indicate that there will be a change of behaviour, but rather indicates that disruption will continue if no action is taken, and possibly get worse. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sgnpkd

I have been on wiki for more than ten years but this is my first time posting here. I personally think the amount of persistent hostilities from RandomCanadian and Shibolethink towards an editor who have opposing view is alarming. CutePeach might try to push an idea here but one also cannot help seeing a pattern as if there is a single purpose tendency to reject all other opinions added to these articles, and to censor even factual events. It is observed that users who made construtive updates to these articles, fully backed with reliable sources, usually have their edits reverted, redacted, even got the individual wordings changed or twisted to change the meaning towards a certain view. The fact that the adminitrators are not aware of this is concerning. I would support per WP:BOOMERANG for filing a case for "offences" that Mr Ernie has pointed out above, ie. the same thing that CutePeach was accused of. The users I mentioned who have posted here should also be scrutinised for WP:SEALION. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 力

We seem to be waiting, though I'm not sure why. Two facts seem fairly clear.

  1. CutePeach is an SPA who is fairly new to the project.
  2. CutePeach has made several technical violations regarding sourcing guidelines and not waiting for consensus for controversial edits.

Beyond that, the diffs from Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man do not convince me that a block or topic-ban is necessary. Many of their diffs are simply opinions they don't like; the sea of all-caps policy links that are claimed to be violated are not actually violated. The accusations that they are promoting FRINGE views are particularly cynical; the pro-lab-leak views are considered fringe for no apparent reason other than that a few editors don't like them. If the US government, the head of the WHO, various pundits, and half the US public feel a lab leak is possible, it is surely not FRINGE to suggest as much.

I'm not as familiar with CutePeach, but have interacted with several of the "anti-lab-leak" editors who have commented here, and largely agree with DGG's view on them. That said, the behavior of other editors is off-topic here; either a new ARE or a request for a full ARBCOM case would be the place to discuss their behavior. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I must note that two concerning diffs from today, one with canvassing and one with a ham-fisted threat, are better evidence than anything I saw earlier that CutePeach will continue to engage in problematic behavior. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: I completely agree that it would be for the best if CutePeach were to edit primarily in some other topic areas until they were more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, that is not the threshold to justify a TBAN. (Well, it's not my threshold; I suppose with Discretionary Sanctions it could be some admin's threshold.) From experience, I expect that this "case" will be held open until CutePeach demonstrates through their edits over the next week that they can edit constructively in the area going forward (specifically without personal attacks, edit wars, use of low-quality sources, etc.), or that they cannot. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Admin ToBeFree is not a virgin to the COVID-19 topic area, but I don't see evidence they are so WP:INVOLVED regarding CutePeach to require them to not be in the "uninvolved admin" section. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@CutePeach: regardless of what any admin has said or not said, you cannot expect to have these proceedings to be held on pause for weeks while you continue to edit in the topic area. The hold on judgment was merely a courtesy while you were not active; if you are active enough to edit in the topic area you are active enough to respond here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

I don't see any violation. CutePeach added to an article about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis that a group of scientists from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University wrote a paper defending the hypothesis, which was rejected. When another editor removed it, they reverted. This information is arguably relevant since the paper received coverage in popular media. WP:FRINGE does allow some mention of fringe theories provided they are noteworthy and the degree of their acceptance is explained. This type of dispute should be resolved on article talk pages. If an editor is outnumbered then it should be dealt with as edit-warring. But one revert doesn't amount to that. TFD (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Forich

I oppose using preprints in articles related to COVID-19 origin, specially in light of Wikipedia:General_sanctions/COVID-19#Application_notes. However, I've noticed that this sanction guideline requires update because many editors (including top anti-lab leak editor RandomCanadian) are starting to be more lax with the grey area of what requires MEDRS and what doesn't. If virologists weren't so afraid to touch the subject we all would had many secondary reviews by now directly citing the lab leak and none of this Wikipedia drama will be happening, its a shame. I encourage CutePeach to i) not use preprints; ii) in the grey area case that the preprint gets cited in many other RS, seek consensus first in Talk pages before including any mention of a preprint, however tangential. Finally, I concur with DGG who observed how a group of experienced editors are setting traps to the new ones, so that they bite and end up topic banned. Don't the prey editors have nothing better to do with their time? Sigh Forich (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JPxG

I saw this from the dashboard, and have been away for a few days, so I am writing this long after every smart thing has been said by someone else. Broadly, I agree with the points mady by Atsme, DGG, Nil Einne, My very best wishes, ProcrastinatingReader and 力. I have been, against my better judgment, following the lab leak saga on Wikipedia for a number of months. It has been nasty, dumb, convoluted and overall unpleasant; there have been a neverending slew of disputes and proxy disputes carried out in a variety of different venues. In a recent AfD, off the top of my head I could recall an AN/I argument, a RSN argument, an ArbCom case, a huge argument at WT:BIOMED, more AN/I arguments, a throwdown at WT:MEDRS, more MfDs for tangentially related pages, MfDs for userspace essays agreeing with one of the sides of the argument; since then there's been even more sewage about the lab leak. More or less every editor who has made a statement endorsing a topic ban has been vocally involved in these discussions, with opinions on the side that the lab leak hypothesis should not be covered in Wikipedia. I'm not making a tu quoque argument; CutePeach has definitely been a little irritating from time to time, and has advanced arguments that didn't make a lot of sense. That said, they seem to be a new editor, and have made some pretty expectable oopsies in the course of editing. Who cares? Hell, if they didn't, they would probably be accused of being a precocious sockpuppet. As DGG has explained, this is a political issue, and a content issue. There is no reason to consider it inherently disruptive to write articles about the lab leak hypothesis, or to argue that said articles should be kept (especially when the AfD for said article closed three days ago as "keep"). If we're going to start issuing sanctions on the sole basis of someone being strongly opinionated and having said something dumb in a COVID argument, I don't know who will be left to edit COVID articles. jp×g 02:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

@ToBeFree: I'm not understanding how that block was within policy. Levivich 16:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And I noticed you reverted their recent contribs. Add me to the list of editors asking you to reconsider how you are administrating in this topic area. Levivich 17:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with how you've handled this, TBF, and I'd ask you not to repeat this in the future. Meaning, if someone is reported here, do not tell them not to edit in the topic area (or not to edit an article) while this is pending; we don't have "pre-trial probation" or "restraining orders" like that as part of our policies/guidelines/norms. If you want to do a unilateral DS TBAN, then do it (and take all the ADMINACCT that comes with it). If you don't want to do that, then don't tell editors not to edit in a topic area pending a decision. Because what you did was to effectively TBAN them by telling them not to edit the article. Additionally, they complied with your request (they didn't edit the article), but then when they made related talk page edits, you enforced your TBAN with a block (and required implementation of the TBAN as an unblock condition, which ties the hands of other admins, and is, again, an effective TBAN by you, except it's unlogged... just go log it and unblock the editor, or unblock the editor, restore their edits, and let someone else truly handle this). Again, this is before a TBAN was actually implemented and logged. I don't think that's kosher. Either TBAN the editor, and if they're not TBANed, don't block them for violating a TBAN-that's-coming. It's not how the block tool is supposed to be used. (Same with reverting their edits.) You accuse the editor gaming but from where I'm sitting, it seems like you're gaming by imposing a TBAN without formally imposing (logging) the TBAN. I know your intentions are good faith but my point is "gaming" is very subjective. Levivich 19:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@TBF: Citing WP:A/G#Temporary_injunctions as justification for your block is a mistake, because, even assuming that those are among the powers delegated to admins by arbcom via DS (they're not), you did not follow the required procedures spelled out there (Were there 4 net votes for a temporary injunction? Did you even ask for votes first?). See what I mean about gaming? Just log the TBAN, or unblock the editor, please. Levivich 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Adoring Nanny

It's difficult to go through a list of 21 diffs. So I'm just going to look at the first one[101] User:Shibbolethink complains that User escalates dispute about gain-of-function into dispute about all of COVID origins. That's curious, since the list of bullet points that User:CutePeach is responding to, on the version[102] of the page immediately preceding the CutePeach edit, is about covid origins. So what is the escalation? Furthermore, in the discussion, Shibbolethink is using[103] a source that describes a bioweapon origin as a Conspiracy Theory to argue that Gain of Function should be treated, in WikiVoice, as a Conspiracy Theory. That's a strange leap. An experienced editor would know not to use the word "disingenuous" as the word "disingenuous" refers to motivation. But, as others have noted, CutePeach has only been around for a few months. The upshot is that the very first of the 21 diffs is weakish. In light of that, I'm not inclined to go into depth on the remaining 20. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning CutePeach

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm primarily waiting for CutePeach's statement, as the diffs above ([104] [105] [106]) seem to show a case of edit warring disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per WP:ONUS. I expect CutePeach to respond here and wait for a result before continuing to edit the article in question, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • RandomCanadian, as annoyingly unnecessary as that may seem to be, please provide specific diffs especially for intra-wiki conspiracy accusations, the previous warning and the "actions on articles". At the moment, the actual presented evidence at most justifies a partial block from editing the article (and perhaps its talk page as a kind of "topic block") for two weeks or so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Francesco espo has been blocked for 72 hours following incivility on this arbitration page after a warning for personal attacks (Special:Diff/1034829179; Special:Permalink/1034972247#July_2021). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding the length of the diff list, I personally don't object. Interestingly, the notice at the top says "except by permission of a reviewing administrator", so I guess here it is. CutePeach is similarly welcome to use up to 1500 words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with waiting for a statement from CutePeach, even for a week or two, as long as they do not continue to edit in the discussed areas in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Mr Ernie, regarding the question about comments in two sections and involvement: I didn't clerk at this noticeboard before, so I first assumed everyone including reviewers makes a comment in their section, and at the end the result appears in the section "Result". My first comment in this section here was consequently result-related. I then figured that further reviewing notes could better be added here as well. There is no review-disqualifying involvement, but I've been mediating disputes in this area multiple times (see also WP:ARBCOVID) and people used pings, and even discussions on my talk page with each other, to request my attention to several disputes. As I've been repeatedly asked for help from all sides of the conflict, I'm here. I guess this started with my page protections in this area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ProcrastinatingReader, I'd say the legitimacy of any conclusion in such a discussion, and its defensibility against later concerns from any party, strongly depends on accused parties' ability to provide a statement in their own defense. It's okay if this opportunity is declined by an accused person for whatever reason, but it would be unjust not to have seriously, honestly offered enough time to provide such a statement. I understand the concern that such a statement can make one's situation worse than it was, but if it does, it would do so by revealing issues that exist, and have to be taken into account, independently of the statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • CutePeach to Shibbolethink, Special:Diff/1035435158: "I strongly urge you withdraw your participation in WP:AE before I get around to making my statement, otherwise it may result in a WP:BOOMERANG for you, which is not what I want." – Interesting approach... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • With CutePeach continuing to edit in the area (Special:Diff/1035440468), I'll not longer wait for an extension of their AE statement before proposing a decision. I'll re-review the evidence as it stands now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • After reading through the entire evidence provided, even when completely disregarding any AE-related concerns, my conclusion is: CutePeach has been editing in good faith. Their first contribution was Special:Diff/1012465527, at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, without a signature. Before signing their first message on Wikipedia, they had already jumped into a talk discussion about a highly controversial topic. They continued to edit in the area with good intentions, provided detailed reasoning for their positions and attempted to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics in the area. In their pursuit for improving Wikipedia's encyclopedic quality, they overstepped, repeatedly (cf. evidence sections of Bakkster Man, Shibbolethink and Novem Linguae). I mostly agree with 's assessment and believe I understand DGG's concerns. Especially in highly controversial areas under discretionary sanctions, however, editing in good faith is not sufficient by itself. Persistently pushing one's point of view, incivilly so (Shibbolethink's section), to the point of edit warring in articles and in disregard of the verifiability policy (WP:ONUS, Bakkster Man's section) is disruptive even when done in good faith. CutePeach's behavior discourages policy-compliant editing by other users by exhausting their patience (see also: Special:Diff/1026476170 at WP:RSN, part of Shibbolethink's 20th diff, and the userspace point in Novem Linguae's section). Not taking long-term preventative action against this frustrating behavior would likely have two effects: Further disruption from the reported editor without hope for later administrative assistance (RandomCanadian's "then I don't think there will ever be enough" concern), and sending a problematic signal about a lack of policy enforcement even when users take the time to file a detailed, well-reasoned WP:AE request with ample evidence of disruption. This is the point where either we take proper action or those annoyed by the unsanctioned behavior leave the area. It's a volunteer project, and there is a real risk of losing policy-abiding contributors if ignoring policies benefits the editor who ignores them. It would likely be beneficial to CutePeach and all other involved editors if the reported user moved their participation to uncontroversial topics they don't have strong opinions about, and thus don't misuse as a battleground. For this reason, I propose to indefinitely topic ban CutePeach from all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's what you get for waiting. I have blocked CutePeach for 24 hours; the block may be removed by anyone implementing a topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • For those seriously concerned about the block: There is a consensus for a topic ban here, and by the nature of discretionary sanctions, any uninvolved administrator can implement it. I would have done so, others would have done so, but we chose to wait for a statement before making this decision. When I woke up this morning, I noticed that CutePeach was actively publishing what seems to have been a series of prepared edits to multiple article talk pages, to a draft and to a mainspace article ([107]), and the last edit was "4 minutes ago". CutePeach was clearly gaming the system by making these edits while it was very likely that they would be topic-banned. They believed that this would be the inevitable result, as they have described in a rather disturbing way in Special:Diff/1036451147, which includes the statement "it's clear as day that I’m getting TBANNED no matter what I say, so the only thing that should matter is what impact my last words have". If an editor, with this in mind, throws as many edits into the topic area as possible before being blocked or banned, then they are already expecting what I have temporarily implemented, for exactly the reasons I have implemented it: Preventing further disruption while it was happening. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. The only reason I haven't simply implemented a topic ban instead is that, either immediately or after a while, an unban discussion would be tainted by strawman arguments attempting to discredit my neutrality and lack of involvement in this topic area. There are enough other administrators who have come to the same conclusion, before and after me, independently of me, and I'd prefer one of them to implement the ban, so that any unban discussion focuses on the actual issues that led to the ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Levivich, thanks for the feedback. WP:A/G#Temporary_injunctions do exist in ArbCom cases; this was practically an AE equivalent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
          Logging is a point. I have logged the block at the AELOG (Special:Diff/1036807804) now and would prefer waiting for either the block to expire or – preferably – the consensus here being implemented in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • CutePeach I hate to ping you again as it appears you've been pinged here multiple times, but I'm concerned that you've been editing and haven't come in here yet. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    @CutePeach, you're welcome to take as much time as you need (within reason) to respond; continuing to edit while not at least coming in here to say you needed that time was the problem. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    @CutePeach, sorry, busy period for me, I thought I'd answered. There's no particular urgency, we just while this is open (and taking up other editors' time/energy/attention) would prefer to see you spending your available time working on your response here rather than other enwiki things. Some AE requests are closed in a couple of hours, some take weeks. —valereee (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Guerillero, CP did ask if they could have until Monday as they typically have more time on the weekend. —valereee (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Francesco espo, Don't let the bastards get you down is often used to refer to the general tedium of everyday interpersonal frustrations. I do not think anyone was actually calling anyone else a bastard, either literally or simply pejoratively. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    @CutePeach, advising me to voluntarily step away, saying also that any explanation of events preceding this case wouldn’t help either. isn't quite correct. It might have helped if you hadn't been behaving badly. If it weren't for the behavior issues, we probably wouldn't be here. The problem is the behavior, not the argument itself. @ToBeFree, was a 24-hour block really needed while this is still open? You didn't specify a reason for it...what was it to prevent? —valereee (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    A topic ban broadly construed from COVID-19 is a huge tban that could be argued to include huge numbers of completely noncontentious articles. Can we position it more narrowly? My concern is that so much in the past year has been touched by COVID that a broad interpretation just opens way too many traps. Maybe a t-ban from COVID lab leak theory? —valereee (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Bakkster Man, I agree that it's not an easy line to walk. My concern is that we have a valuable and well-intentioned new editor who perhaps just needs to learn how to work here and that we should be figuring out how to keep her and making sure we aren't simply setting a trap. This is a person who could provide excellent input to non-contentious COVID articles about the Philippines, for instance. If we t-ban broadly, we miss much of the value this editor can offer, if she can learn to collaborate. —valereee (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I know it is generally a good idea to wait for the subject of an enforcement request to comment, however I believe they have been given ample time. They are certainly aware of the request and have carried on editing without taking advantage of the opportunity to post here. I think it is reasonable to continue without their input.
    I believe the diffs provided by User:Shibbolethink demonstrate a pattern of disruptive activity in the topic that violates multiple policies and expected behaviors of editors working in contentious areas. I also think it is sinking an undue amount of time from editors responding in good faith to them. I feel an indefinite ban for CutePeach from the topic of COVID is justified. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Response to CutePeach: I am happy to wait for your response. I am also happy to reconsider my current position if anything new is added here that puts it in a new light. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to Wbm1058, I don't see ToBeFree as involved. Our policy specifically states at acting solely in an administrative capacity in a topic does not make one involved. It is normal to give out DS warnings to new editors in contentious areas if there is the slightest hint of problematic editing.
    In response to CutePeach's comment about a lack of spare time - it seems a bit odd that we delay a discussion of a topic ban in the very area that you find time to edit in due to a lack of time. If you continue to edit in the very area under discussion, talk page or otherwise, then I will consider you to have time to address the concerns about your edits in the same topic area. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to Bakkster Man, again WP:INVOLVED says "minor or obvious edits that do not show bias" do not prevent an admin from acting in an administrative capacity. I don't think correcting capitalization makes wbm1058 involved. I invite all users on this page to read our involvement policy before making further assertions that an editor may be involved. It is not that long of a policy section and I have referred to a fair portion of it here already. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to Wbm1058 again, rather that fill this page up more on this topic I have started a discussion on the talk page. Since it is only tangentially related to the topic at hand I am requesting that we talk it out here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wbm1058's concerns about ToBeFree. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • CutePeach's response includes denial of the problems, accusing others of having problems, suggesting that the admins here were not fair, suggestions that the policies are being implemented wrong, and what I feel is a sincere apology for being harsh.
    What is lacking is a recognition of the problems presented here and an indication that it will be not be continued. I can't speak for other admins, but this is what might have changed my mind. I feel that the topic ban from the topic of COVID, broadly construed, is still the best solution.
    Their request for guidance it laudable and if provided should be provided by someone they have not accused of being out to get them. General behavioral guidance can take place on Wikipedia, but if it includes the topic of COVID should be conducted off-wiki. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I will also say this 16kb+ topic spree[108][109][110][111][112][113] posted in less than an hour after their statement shows what CP was really doing with all of their time. This attempt at gaming the system convinces more than ever that the ban is required. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh lableak, what problems thou dost cause...can anyone point me towards what the current consensus on covering it is? Or provide the key RfC's on the matter? It seems this dispute is emblematic of a deeper issue that lacks appropriate guidance.
To the issue at hand, @Cute Peach: I very highly recommend you say something in your defense, though you are of course not required. But I can't imagine it going well if you continue to ignore this thread. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@CutePeach: bugger, autocorrect "fixed" the spelling of your name...the travails of tech. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I was initially sympathetic to Peach but am decidedly less than impressed by what appears to be their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:CANVASSING. I think a warning to tone it down is certainly warranted. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Echoing HighInBC, CutePeach, it's reasonable for a subject of a complaint to ask for more time. These requests rarely get declined here, where complaints often take weeks to resolve. But, continuing to edit the contested area while that request for more time is still ongoing — that, in my view, shows to contempt for the process. Note: I have not read 90 percent of this report (long!), so I'd point out the otherwise general isolation of my observation/echo. El_C 12:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Following up further on that: no, Wbm1058, it isn't about rules-lawyering mainspace edits, it's about time being allotted and time being devoted for expressed purposes. That's it. El_C 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • CutePeach, I'm with ToBeFree in that a week or two extension would be fine with me. Personally, I'd probably need that long to review this lengthy complaint, anyway. Anyway anyway, I'm glad that you'd be devoting your requested time extension toward the... well, requested time extension, because doing other wiki-stuff during which without a good reason is just poor decorum. That Wbm1058 continues to rules-lawyer skirt that point is disappointing, but I don't see the need to press the matter further beyond noting it again. El_C 18:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Haha, Bish, you're so gonna get WP:JIMBO'd! You'll definitely need a good LAWLyer. We'll be awaiting your call from wikijail. At least you'll get a chance to work on your (manly) muscles. You be ripped! El_C 11:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I support an indefinite topic ban from COVID 19 for CutePeach, in particular per Shibbolethink's diffs and Colin's incisive comments. Since CutePeach has asked for more time, I'm of course prepared to potentially reconsider in light of what they say later. Bishonen | tålk 11:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
  • I'm currently reviewing this AE request and expect to weigh in at some point. Noting I've observed that CutePeach is still as of today working on responses, I discourage others from rushing to judgement. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @ToBeFree: "I'm fine with waiting for a statement from CutePeach, even for a week or two, as long as they do not continue to edit in the discussed areas in the meantime." – I took that to mean editing in mainspace. CP hasn't edited in mainspace since 17:01, 23 July 2021 which is before your statement of 12:24, 24 July 2021. If you expected CP to stop participating in all other discussions, you should have been more specific. Your allowing others over 500 words is making it harder for me to digest everything, and I imagine placing more burden on CP to read and respond to everything. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ToBeFree made the second-ever edit to CutePeach talk, placing two alerts (for general & discretionary sanctions). At the time, CP had only made 15 edits over less than two days. This indicates to me that TBF closely monitors this topic area. Whether that makes them involved?, hmm. Noting that the third CP-talk edit asked whether CP had edited under other accounts, I'm wondering if this is the typical way we greet new editors in this topic area (if you're sock hunting, look for someone fluent in Filipino). – wbm1058 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
      • One of those 15 edits (this edit) "tagged" ToBeFree). Looking at the archived discussion (Split the "Wuhan lab leak story" section into: "accidental leak" and "engineered as a bio-weapon" I see two such tags but no response on that page. It was soon after this "tagging" that ToBeFree posted the two alerts. I'm not following why this new editor would be "tagging" someone they apparently had no previous interactions with. What am I missing? wbm1058 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader. Since ToBeFree indefinitely extended-confirmed protected COVID-19 misinformation on 13 February 2021, effectively locking the page for this new editor, CutePeach would have seen ToBeFree in the protection message upon an edit-attempt. Yes, I agree this was a complaint about conduct issues in the topic area, specifically alleging that Alexbrn characterizing CP's statement as "nonsensical raving" was a personal attack. As an administrator, I would respond to such a ping, at least to let the editor know whether I agreed with the allegation or not. I'm concerned about ToBeFree's neutrality as they did not respond to CP's ping with their view of the allegation when posting the sanctions alert, and still didn't respond after a second ping. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I see I'm not the first to raise concerns about administrative neutrality. See Grievances and questions. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @CutePeach: Unlike regular arbitration cases which set deadlines for evidence submission, I don't see any guidance here for that. However, since it seems the admin consensus here is to de facto temporarily ban you from posting anywhere on Wikipedia other than this page or your user space for the purpose of drafting edits to this page (think of this as some sort of "restraining order"), essentially preemptively implementing the topic ban called for by some here, I don't see any problem with allowing you until Monday August 2 to respond, which allows you another weekend. That also gives me more time to review evidence. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Debunking the assertions above that CutePeach is a single-purpose account (to the extent that the WP:SPA essay may be relevant). Top two articles by edit count are List of Filipino singers and List of Philippine-based music groups. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would support an indef topic ban from COVID-19 per Shibbolethink's diffs. This looks like classic disruptive POV-pushing and I don't see why other editors in the topic area should have to deal with it. CutePeach has had ample opportunity to respond here, the request was filed three days ago and they've made numerous edits to Wikipedia in that time, including leaving lengthy comments in COVID-19 discussions, essentially threatening Shibbolethink for participating in this request [115] and canvassing people to take part in this discussion [116][117]. Hut 8.5 20:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Monitoring a contentious topic area and giving discretionary sanction notices when appropriate certainly doesn't make an admin involved. The arguments to the contrary are not at all convincing. Hut 8.5 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'm impressed with the statement provided above. Rather than dealing with CutePeach's eediting or rebutting the evidence it focuses on criticising other people and the admins reviewing the case. CutePeach opted not to post a statement here for well over a week despite actively editing the topic area, given that they can hardly complain if people post comments without reading their statement. Like the other admins here I did read the evidence submitted, apparently the fact I didn't link to any of it means I didn't read it. It isn't the role of admins to decide how sourcing policies and guidelines should be applied to the topic area, not is that ArbCom's role. That is decided through the consensus of editors. I suggest CutePeach try editing some other topic area (preferably not something as heated) and try to build some editing experience that way. Most of their edits relate to the COVID-19 lab leak theory and that's not a great topic for a new editor to start with. Hut 8.5 08:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I support ToBeFree's proposal for a broadly construed COVID topic ban of CutePeach. Yes, they are editing in good faith, but so is everyone else. I have tried to extract meaning from CP's posts on a couple of related talk pages but all I can see are repeated blue links with assertions that there is an NPOV problem (presumably there is something clearer that I've missed—my point is that CP is clogging talk with unclear objections). At some stage, discussions have to focus an concrete proposals to add/remove/change text in the article and move on if there is insufficient consensus/RfC. Either there is a reliable source supporting what ever CP's position is, or there isn't. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Wbm1058 "Whether that makes them involved?"—no, of course it doesn't. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your concern Francesco espo but that is not how arbitration enforcement works. I could close this myself, and may well do so in the next couple of days if it's still open. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting that I have removed a portion of FeralOink's statement and oversighted it per OSPOL#1. The overall meaning of the statement hasn't been changed. Many thanks - TheresNoTime 😺 13:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We are reaching the more heat than light point at 16k words or an hour of reading time.
    • @CutePeach: I am closing this thread in 48 hours with a topic ban per the rough consensus here unless you release your statement. At that point, this thread will be open for a week which is more than enough time.
    • @Wbm1058: Like HighInBC, I am unimpressed by your wikilaywering
--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: Think of this forum as closer to AN or ANI than an ArbCom case. Threads here only really drag out due to lack of replies. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I see a draft here so I am going to hold off for now --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse a TBAN here. The user's battleground approach to editing is well-evidenced above and has gone way beyond the line. It even appears to extend to the meta-discussion regarding these complaints. "Please don’t include the time I questioned your WP:COMPETENCE ... that was legitimate criticism..." Yikes. And the adding a new clause to NPA about how calling editors incompetent is not a personal attack, but accusing someone of personally attacking you for questioning your competence is a personal attack. Absolutely beyond the pale. I am also unimpressed by the endless Wikilawyering, and by the most recent draft statement they're preparing, which is a bunch of WP:NOTTHEM deflection. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


Indefed as an admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
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 Santamoly

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
RenatUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Santamoly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21 July 2021 Topic ban violation: T-72 is a Soviet/Russian tank.
  2. 26 June 2021 Topic ban violation: Wagner Group is a Russian military organisation.
  3. 2 June 2021 Topic ban violation: Ilyushin Il-103 is a Soviet/Russian aircraft.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 8 February 2021 Santamoy blocked for two weeks to enforce an arbitration decision and for persistent topic ban violations.
  2. 2 September 2018 Santamoly indefinitely topic banned from Eastern Europe related article. Broadly construed.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning Santamoly

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 Santamoly

I'm surprised at the energy going into blocking me from editing, especially when anyone can see that my edits are simple corrections of typos or minor details. Am I that much of a menace on Wikipedia? I have no idea, but it's truly fascinating to see the people involved in seeing that I don't succeed in my little edits. Have these people nothing else to do? Are they prowling about Wikipedia looking for unauthorized spelling corrections? Or removing clumsy vandalism? Please, look at my edits (three are listed above). Are some Wikipedia admins frightened by my simple edits? I have no idea. Please keep me posted!

FWIW, I actually stopped editing in my area of expertise (aeronautical engineering and certification) as requested 4 or 5 years ago. I've got 15 years of Wikipedia contributions on engineering topics. I've also stopped editing in medical technology. So the quality of engineering discussion has gone down somewhat since I'm a certified graduate engineer with years of experience. But I don't want to contribute to Wikipedia if several hours work can be removed in a blink because someone decides that Iraq is "Eastern Europe broadly construed", or that Boeing can't be discussed because it uses Russian titanium forgings. I get it. Wikipedia doesn't want my expertise, and I'm OK with that. But I'm puzzled by the reaction to simple edits of no great consequence. Look at the list below. Six editors have spent hours studying this issue and responding. Now they're wondering why I'm not responding. I'm not indifferent to the effort expended on this topic, but I'm puzzled by the energy going into it.

I don't think anyone has any idea why I'm being blocked. I, too, have no idea! Perhaps there's something I'm not aware of?Santamoly (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Topic ban decision: Decided: I am topic banning Santamoly from Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC) "broadly interpreted" here means that it extends to closely related topics and these were Russian equipment related articles. Reverting obvious vandalism would not be considered editing. Removing material that is not vandalism, even if improperly sourced, is... Indefinite topic bans may still eventually be appealed and this restriction was applied years ago. Independently on if this report results in action or not, I would suggest completely avoiding the topic, broadly, then after six months of full compliance while still editing on other topics, to file an appeal. —PaleoNeonate – 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Santamoly

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Waiting for a response, but Santamoly's edit history makes me think that an indef is needed here --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    It seems like indef is the only path forward here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that an indef block is the most logical outcome. It appears that Santamoly has not changed their approach to Wikipedia editing since the previous sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that this user returned to editing in the EE topic area almost immediately after their last block, at Talk:Bald and Bankrupt (a YouTuber famous for EE content), and then personally attacked someone for bringing up the fact that they should not be participating there. Then he edited Kishinev pogrom which is also firmly in the topic area. Those were his only edits between his last block and the diffs reported here. This should be taken into consideration as well. While the edits are fairly innocuous and a lengthy block or indef seems harsh, the TBAN-violating personal attack, which went unenforced, tells me that the underlying problem of aggressive behavior remains, years after the TBAN was implemented. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Topic bans were created as an alternative for long or indefinite blocks, but they only work if the user obeys them. Given that this has not been effective then I am leaning towards an indefinite block. I would also support a lesser block of at least 6 months if there is not a consensus for an indefinite block.
    I will await the user's response, I could change my mind if a sincere and convincing intention to obey the topic ban can be expressed. Given the violations that have already occurred this would be held to the strictest of standards. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    My thinking too. Leaning towards an indef block, but totally open to a lesser AE block if the user cares enough to put some effort into responding to this complaint. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


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 TuffStuffMcG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
TuffStuffMcG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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
  • Other editors asking them to stop
    • 16:24, 16 March 2021, Talk:Proud Boys, from me: "I have to admit I am becoming frustrated with you continuously using talk pages to opine on how the sources don't reflect your personal point of view, as it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance. It also is often unclear to me whether you are just musing on how you think things ought to be, or actually trying to make a policy-based point that editors ought to respond to. This case is a good example."
    • 22:22, 11 March 2021 from Jorm and 23:40 from me at Talk:Gab (social network), acknowledged by TuffStuffMcG: "will do, I apologize for the non-actionable opinion expressed and recognize this is not a forum"
    • 20:05, 20 January 2021‎ from me at Talk:Parler: "You know that we can't add observations like this without a reliable, independent source."
    • 14:53, 14 November 2020‎ from Slatersteven at their talk page: "Please read wp:or and wp:soap."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  • None
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TuffStuffMcG almost exclusively edits talk pages of AP2 articles. Their comments are sometimes actionable, sourced suggestions, but far too often they are not: instead, they regularly comment solely to provide their own personal opinions and commentary on the subject or on Wikipedia policies they disagree with (regularly scare-quoting "reliable" in "reliable sources", for example: [118], [119]). Their comments occasionally (and recently) include unsupported aspersions about the motives of those editing these articles. They also regularly reply to SPAs who frequently appear at the talk pages of political articles, and encourage their various conspiracy theories about biased Wikipedia editors—which is absolutely the last thing the editors of these articles need, as we are already targeted enough by such editors without Wikipedians lending credence to their claims. In the particular case of their edits to The Babylon Bee today, TuffStuffMcG is echoing conspiracy theories pushed by the Bee's executive staff ([120]), who watch the article talk page and have in the past targeted their large Twitter following at me, resulting in pretty significant harassment and threats (more background at User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 20#Seth Dillon). A Wikipedian lending credence to these theories is pouring fuel on that fire.

This is not an acute issue, as you can see by the dates on the diffs, but rather a long-running one that pops up regularly even after several editors have asked them to cut it out, and even after they've said they would. They are not enormously active, so although the time range in this report is fairly broad, I have only included diffs from their past 500 edits (not even—I stopped somewhere around 300 I think, as I was approaching the diff limit). I happen to see it often because either by strange coincidence or intentionally, TuffStuffMcG's edits overlap dramatically with articles I edit. I have a pretty specific interest in articles about American far-right groups and websites associated with the same, so it could well be that a shared interest in those topics explains why TuffStuffMcG shows up on so many of the articles I actively edit: Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys, Parler, Epik (company), Gab (social network), etc. (also see editor interaction analyser). But them recently showing up at The Babylon Bee (a conservative site to be sure, but not often described as far-right) and Kevin Paffrath (no connection to the far right, and an article I only began editing after stumbling across it myself) makes me wonder. It's a little startling to open up their last 500 contributions and see, with rare exception, a strict subset of the articles at User:GorillaWarfare#An incomplete list of my other work:.

I'm not really sure what the best remedy would be here. Like I said above, their talk page comments in this topic area can be useful when they are well-sourced, and I have had positive interactions with this editor. But the issues I detail above really need to stop, and repeated requests from editors have clearly not made any impact. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, Johnuniq, and HighInBC: My concern here is that TuffStuffMcG has continued this behavior despite repeated and regular warnings by several users, and despite acknowledging that they know talk pages are not for forum-y comments. Their comment at this enforcement request makes no indication that they intend to change their behavior, but rather demonstrates the exact same issues: once again scare-quoting "reliable", and making unevidenced suggestions that their colleagues here are "organized partisans... actively manipulat[ing] articles" or "single-minded Jacobins who more eager to purge good sources that deviate from orthodoxy and push a specific narrative".
If they have concerns with our reliable sourcing policy, or the consensus on the reliability of a specific source, they should be discussing this at WP:VPP, WP:RSN, etc.—and they know this. But they have never done so, instead preferring to make jabs at policies and the editing community at large on various talk pages (and here!) without actually engaging in efforts to change anything. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TuffStuffMcG

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 TuffStuffMcG

The user asked why a popular satire site has such a large section about fact checking. My comment, absent any sources truly, echoes well reported critical comments by Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia and also the CEO of the Bee.

Independent, Daily Mail, Fox News catalogue this. Not the best sources to be sure, but thats part of the issue. My comments tend to overlap other editor comments because the same editors focus on anything politically controversial. Objectivity has been eliminated from many major "reliable" publications and good, defensible articles sometimes come from writers using semi-reliable press.

I don't add bad sources to articles, and stay in the talk pages mostly to talk about sourcing issues. Wikipedia has an edit formula, it is well known and understood at this point, and used by organized partisans to actively manipulate articles.

Many editors are fair, including Gorilla usually, but many are single-minded Jacobins who more eager to purge good sources that deviate from orthodoxy and push a specific narrative.

I respect Wikipedia and it's mission. Do what you need to do, I do tend to engage on forum stuff from time to time, but never malicious or targeted, and I never edit war or vandalize articles.

I'm sorry, I was waiting for the next thing to say. Criticism by editors here has been mostly justified, except for Jorm. I respect your decision. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, but I see how it has been interpreted in that way and understand that people can be disruptive without being malicious. I will try to do better and double check my words to avoid forum stuff. Please move this to the appropriate area (it felt odd to respond to my self)TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jorm

I do not believe that this user is here to improve the encyclopedia. They are single-minded in their attempts to white wash and insert propaganda. They should have an AP2 topic ban.--Jorm (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip

Apart from admitting outright in their statement above to taking a battleground approach to editing already contentious articles in the realm of AP2, the failure to get a clue here and their continued tendentious editing behavior (with the more-than-coincidental correlation with the aforementioned list of articles GW has worked on) leads me to believe that sanctions are needed, up to and including a straight-out indef.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by slatersteven

I left the warning a year ago, but it seems to be an ongoing issue. Their post here sums it all up, it's very much a POV pushing bit of soapboxing (and a clear statement of wp:nothere in relation to article talk pages) that makes no effort to address THEIR actions. They will continue to be a time sink.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TuffStuffMcG

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • TuffStuffMcG, from I do tend to engage on forum stuff I'm wondering if maybe you don't realize that article talk pages are specifically not a place to treat as a forum, per WP:TALKNO? That is, if you think an article talk page is at least partially for discussing the article subject itself or other editors' ability to be neutral w/re that article, this may be why you're ending up here. An article talk page is for discussing, generally or specifically, improvements to that article, period. Anything other than that, including commentary about what you or Larry Sanger perceive as other editors' motivations in editing the article, is not what article talk pages are for. —valereee (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    Hm, been over 4 days since @TuffStuffMcG has edited. They're a sporadic editor, so maybe a ping will work. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @TuffStuffMcG: Shortly after posting your initial statement here, you posted this comment which added five pointless links to dubious sites rejoicing in Larry Sanger's latest thoughts. That is not helpful (and by the way, please ask at WP:HELPDESK about how to format comments like that). You should pledge to avoid AP2 comments unless really focused on actionable proposals to improve the article, or face an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Special:Contributions/TuffStuffMcG shows the user has a total of 17 edits in the last three months (May–July). That consists of one comment on this page and 16 comments on AP2 talk pages. That shows two problems. First, there might be no further timely response here making it difficult to defer a decision. Second, given a sample of some of their comments, it is unlikely that their work in AP2 is helpful. I don't think this should be left open much longer and I think something should happen. I would be happy for someone to close this with an indefinite topic ban, or, if a more gentle path is wanted at this stage and if invited by admins here, I could leave a version of my above comment at their talk along with a warning that I would issue a tban if further dubious comments occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Currently on the fence about taking action here. I will says that I do recognize that this user is probably not malicious, though maliciousness is not needed for disruption. I do think that a greater understanding of the limits of article talk page use is needed to avoid losing access to them in this area. If such an understanding can be gained and demonstrated has yet to be determined by me. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


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 BengHistory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
BengHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 30 July 2021 Alleges that I have had short term memory loss. Then they realize about indeed making a pioneer claim (which was my ground for requesting a citation) and proceed to cite a source which is blacklisted.
    Has been already informed (five days earlier) that we cannot interpret pre-modern texts for ourselves. Yet, in the same post, they propose that we read a 400-500 year old source without waiting for 'reliable' modern authors to quote them.
  2. 30 July 2021 Requests that I provide quotes for certain controversial text-bits. This is not objectionable in itself except that they know of me having already provided them at an admin's talk-page, to satisfaction.
    Still iterating the same point at his reply over (6).
  3. 28 July 2021 Claims that other editors are failing to see a design, whereby I am denigrating the subject. This was in response to an editor who stated the lack of anything seriously objectionable in my edits and even thanked me for doing a great job. (That editor had been earlier pinged multiple times by BengHistory to provide their views!)
    In the same post, that invited editor also noted my wording about a rivalry with Kayasthas to be okay and supported by more yet-uncited sources. Despite this, BengHistory raises the same objection (verbatim) once again.
  4. More IDHT behavior over BengHistory's response at this thread.
    At the talk-page, BengHistory pinged another editor to give their opinions on whether my framing of a particular source was correct or not. They had a discussion with me and was satisfied of my framing but BH is still continuing with the antics over semantics at Point 2. Sheer refusal to understand why no long-term editor is agreeing with him.
    No diffs are provided for (1). I request that BengHistory provide evidence of a single edit where I (TrangaBellam) said that authors belonging to XYZ caste are unreliable. WP:ASPERSIONs.
    Misrepresenting a female professor of History, teaching at a reputed university, as a guest-faculty and young scholar is misogyny. I stand by my comments referred in (8). BengHistory is yet to admit that they were wrong.
    That's all. I won't bother to rebut each and every misrepresentation by BengHistory unless requested by an administrator of this site. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • Tendentious editing and intense acrobatics on semantics to promote a particular caste bolstered by a (mistaken) belief that our article shall be polished paraphrases of scholars. That is, every single word must be quotable to some scholar. On top of that, as Diff-Set-3 exhibits, a WP:IDHT attitude. Violation of WP:NPA at Diff-Set-1. Probably part of a sock-farm - see User_talk:RegentsPark#AS24 where one of his tag-mates was blocked after pursuing the same line of argumentation.
  • The page was recently 30/500-ed to avoid the sudden influx of these new editors. Earlier the editor-in-question was given a final warning by an admin.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning BengHistory

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 BengHistory

I am simply amazed that Trangabellam and Ekdalian have complained about me whereas it is they who have been acting with a non-neutral attitude. The talk-page is there for the respected admins to see so I am confident that they would easily be able to judge the events that took place there. I just want to draw attention of the respected adjudicators to the following points:BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

1) They at one point of time summarily rejected any Baidya authors (Sengupta for example, see Ekdalian's comments) deeming them as unreliable, and when I questioned the logic of that and explained that by their logic authors of other castes are also questionable, they accused me of distinguishing in terms of caste and misrepresented it to an admin. Great morality indeed, accusing the accuser for something committed by themselves (Ekdalian classified some editors as 'Baidya editors').BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

2) They freely changed words and added their own while quoting a source (like 'indicated' has been changed to 'accorded', or 'apparently' has been added) in such a way that it changes the proposition entirely. Thus flouting WP:NPOV BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

3) One misquoted a source to portray a different picture of the caste-hierarchy in Bengal (viz. H Sanyal regarding Chandimangal) BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

4) One was putting exclamatory marks at the end of the statements and inserted words like 'apparently' (which visibly ridicules certain eminent persons), which were not there in the quoted sources. When challenged he came with a laughable explanation that he was following they style of the author. BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

5) Clear words like 'Semibrahmins' and 'fallen brahmins' were removed from a quote on the pretext of 'balancing the article with neutrality', 'agenda-free reading', and 'taking a practical view', all of which amount to WP:SYN BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

6) One did not come up with page numbers/quotes even when repetitively asked about the same regarding certain words. BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

7) Authors of repute like Nripendra Dutta have been termed as fanciful.BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

8) When I questioned Swarupa Gupta's reliability (they were always judging academic qualifications of sourced authors and I pointed out that she is a young research fellow), it was twisted to show me as having gender bias ! Such dishonesty! BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

9) One of them have been thoroughly disrespectful and have been using words like 'blabbering' and 'ramblings' and 'Do I care about your threats?', and now he is making a great noise about 'short-term memory loss' ! BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

10) An entire article is being centred upon the ritual status of a caste (and questioning the claim of that caste with a tone of disdain and selective referencing) which have little relevance for international readers, and important facts regarding that caste (literacy rates, for example) are being thrust in the small-fonted notes. As if it is only the ritual status that is worth considerations and all of the rest comes at best as a note. BengHistory (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

11) There have been serious inconsistencies in selection of sources. At one point of time they disagreed to include Census reports as they are seemingly unreliable, quoting whatever poeple say. Now the same census reports are being quoted to opine that Baidyas' claims are on 'slender' grounds. BengHistory (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

12) Trangabellam had removed all my replies to his questions from the talk-page, and when I referred to that he simply retorted that he was doing so because indentation of my replies was not in order. BengHistory (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ekdalian

The user BengHistory has been editing a related article on Vaid with the same intension of glorifying their caste. I have warned the user in his talk page (discretionary sanctions notice), and reverted his edits, explaining the same in the edit summaries as well as the user's talk page. In spite of all these, BengHistory has reverted my edits without any explanation! It is quite evident (from all his edits) that the user is here for promoting his caste only, and not to build an encyclopedia. I believe he should be blocked from editing as per WP:CASTE.

Differences: 1 2 3

Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (BengHistory)

I am starting to contribute to wikipedia on topics I have focused on during my research days (mainly Ayurveda, Vaidyas of India, and Brahmin kingdoms). Does it mean that my edits in this page are unreliable by that reason only? Do I need to edit thousands of other pages which I have no clue about before I can contribute on something I have studied about? Mr. Ekdalian reverted all my additions by terming them 'unconstructive' (and suggested as if I am somehow not entitled to add or change anything in a page, cf. his comment on my userpage) without discussions, and he and Trangabellam have regularly posted threats of sanctions on my userpage (without any particular reference). All content added by me in the Vaid page was verbatim quotes from sources, the respected admin can see for himself/herself. Such vindictive attitudes will only discourage future contributors, and I request the admins here to take a note of it. BengHistory (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning BengHistory

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I recommend to BengHistory that they reconsider their statement. They should use their words to defend themselves, and to convince us that action is not necessary rather than drawing attention to the perceived flaws in others. The strategy of blaming others to defend themselves rarely works here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • BengHistory's point 12 in their statement might be in connection with their 29 July 2021 comment which interspersed replies in someone else's comment. It's fine to not be aware that replies like that are not wanted, but mentioning it here shows a lack of awareness of what a mess their comment made. Some article edits I looked at did not seem helpful. For example, this is not suitable due to the lack of sources. Combined with their statement here, I support an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not being able to comment earlier. BengHistory appears to be a truculent editor focused on a particular caste and I don't see that going away in a hurry (e.g., this latest diff after multiple warnings about sourcing). An indefinite topic ban from all South Asian Social Groups is the minimal action here. I think there are also WP:CIR issues (cf. the odd signing of posts and the two separate entries on this page), but perhaps it is too early for doing something about that. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


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 Loveall.human

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Loveall.human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims on article about 13th-century commander that Sanjjanaa Galrani converted to Islam and cited this source which nowhere confirms conversion to Islam but ensures not to give weight to such unconfirmed claims. See WP:CIR.
    On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?".
  2. 08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly told that "source say that these "speculations" are not verified and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed""[122] Loveall.human doubles down with his WP:CIR by saying "The "speculation" and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed" was clearly about her marriage, not on her conversion." And again falsely accusing the editor of "mass vandalizing" and of being a part of an "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV"

His overall unhelpful presence on this page started from 04:15, 24 July 2021, when he started to derail a conversation about a 13th-century commander by talking about "Muhammad Ali or Michael Jackson or Cat Stevens", "constitution", and more unrelated subjects. He then ignored a request by another editor to "stay on the topic"[123] and doubled down with derailing on every single message.

This all happened after he was already cautioned by multiple editors about WP:BLPCAT, WP:V and other relevant policies per his talk page after he had added names to an article by relying on unreliable sources and WP:CIRCULAR.[124]

But he still does not understand any of those policies.

During his unblock request, one admin had noted Loveall.human to be WP:NOTHERE and he would "end up blocked again for POV-pushing, edit-warring, or something along those lines".[125] I think it could be true, given the continued display of incompetence and battleground mentality. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I don't see any justification for the behaviour that is prevailing since September 2020 with this account. CIR, together with battleground mentality is the last thing we would want for any subject.

@Trangabellam: That edit was correct as it removed unreliable sources and improperly sourced entries. What Black Kite restored has nothing to do with earlier version per his own statement since he used new sources for the entries he restored.[126] 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User talk:Loveall.human#Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Discussion concerning Loveall.human

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 Loveall.human

See my responses in italics. General layman comments, if anything violating some Wiki jargon (no intention), let me know. Rest assured, the statements below are with evidences to back.

"05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims ..". - Sanjjana Galrani was not FALSELY claimed. It was in the context of that account doing mass reverts on many articles without any discussion in talk page/relevant article page.

"08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly.." - I have given evidences of the pattern where 'multiple' article reverts were made without communicating/discussing it which I presume is vandalizing. I stand by "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV" with enough evidences here. To be specific, the convert from Hinduism to XYZ article lists only are almost barred from growing for more than 4 years with consistent mob bullying patterns that is observed.

"His overall.." - How is 'unhelpful' presence decided? How is talking/discussion in the relevant page regarding criteria for conversion is 'derailing', especially with that account to understand why he was doing mass reverts without discussion?

"He then ignored.."- I did not ignore the request or derail on the 'topic', I remained on topic, evident from the link you have posted itself. The further discussions continued, precisely it was relevant.

"This all happened.."- Was cautioned only ONCE by ONE editor, even that editor who did not communicate back multiple times despite I gave him proper source who had done mass reverts without verifying. Before and after caution, I have not added any row without proper source or research. Context is I had added more than a dozen names, after careful research with proper sources being cited. WITHOUT any discussion or pointing out which row is having unreliable sources, the edits were removed en-masse. After the first mass reverting of my edits itself, I STOPPED doing any edits to those articles, and I was trying to have the folks who do mass reverting to communicate in article's talk or user talk page why and which specific entry of its source is inaccurate (instead of communicating, I was filed with reports to block me).

"But he still.." - Indeed, am still learning. Which specific policy and evidence to claim this statement. And which I was warned for not understanding and have violated?

"During his unblock request.."- That was his prediction/prophetic 'opinion' commenting on a sock report which turned out to be false (like another TWO sock reports on me). Why is that there is no discussion on topic/talk page due to relentless sock reports and blocking efforts on me with wiki jargons keeping wiki users busy with answering such reports instead of learning/collaborating/discussing/editing? And I am accused of "battleground mentality" for asking to discuss/communicate. If anything, I could also probably claim I am being wiki-bullied relentlessly abusing wiki admin processes, just to maintain far right wing POV only with overwhelming evidences from the reporting pattern on me and others. It's evident, how wiki process is abused, is I am spending now more time on relentless reports on me based on false accusations, than actually contributing to Wiki.

@Vanamonde93 - I was given unfair judgement mistakenly by the admins in the first sock report action on me, which took months to prove that crafted shared interest sock reports is not enough evidence to the admins. With or without warning, I have been careful to contribute only with proper sourcing. Admins to take note, not a single edit has been made by me WITHOUT citing any verifiable source. If so, the onus is on the one who is accusing and am concerned too of Wiki having any stain of inaccurate or false information. Careful reading of above with evidences provided by the one who raised himself shows the complaint had blatant FALSE accusations. All are equal here with different roles in Wiki. It is expected for admins with privileges entrusted to be role models to behave neutral/academic. For Aman Kumar Goel, he is observed with repeated and consistent bullying patterns of abusing wiki processes to maintain far right wing POV (Hindu Nationalism type) as discussed here. A different view is healthy, but enforcing only far right wing POV by choking others without even discussing by abusing processes is taking wiki processes and admins for granted. And the articles, I edited was with competence with careful research invested. I am even doubting with similar pattern observed in another user's page that if there is competence by the folks who are doing such mass reverts without being specific to help identify which one is inaccurate. Loveall.human (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Toddy1

Regarding the first diff that Aman.kumar.goel complained about, Aman.kumar.goel wrote above: On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?". The inference that the diff is evidence of a personal attack by Loveall.human is not reasonable. If you accept that posting a message saying that an edit was vandalism is a personal attack then anybody who uses standard warning templates such as Template:Uw-vandalism3, Template:Uw-subtle3 and many others at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is guilty of making a personal attack.

In the diff Loveall.human is asking the basic question - what are the criteria for inclusion in religious categories and lists. The answer for living people is WP:BLPCAT - which was given in Talk:Malik Maqbul Tilangani#july in response to Loveall.human's question. It does not seem reasonable to bring Loveall.human to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for asking the question on a relevant article talk page.

Both sides need to calm down. Aman.kumar.goel is one of a number of editors who are doing a good job trying to impose some discipline on these lists of religious conversions. I understand his/her frustration. But please try to understand, you too get it wrong sometimes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: As far as I can tell, Loveall.human has not engaged in battleground behaviour since his/her unblock in April 2021. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by User:TrangaBellam

I request AKG to explain this edit. Some of the entries have been already restored by User:BlackKite. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XYZ

Result concerning Loveall.human

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm quite unimpressed by Loveall.human's conduct here. Distinguishing between a statement that a source is reporting, and one that it's making in its own voice, is critical to all parts of Wikipedia, and Loveall.human seems unable or unwilling to understand the distinction. They also seem to have a single interest here, which isn't the healthiest, a break from religious conversions might not be the worst thing.
    That said, this particular topic has gotten quite nasty, with a number of recent noticeboard complaints (1, 2), and I'm concerned the broader dispute around religious conversions may need admin evaluation; there seems to be a bit of a throwing-shit-at-the-wall approach here from multiple parties. Black Kite, you commented on the ANI discussion; any thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    Based on Black Kite's comment, I am no longer comfortable with sanctioning Loveall.human, but a logged warning about source use is still, I believe, justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Loveall.human, Generic statements about your edits being supported by sources arent' very helpful. In the talk page discussion linked above you imply that this source was sufficient for the content it is used for in this revision. Are you still defending that claim? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93 I am unconvinced that Loveall.human's behaviour is and better or worse than numerous other actors in this area. I note that the filer of this AE has significant previous in trying to remove political opponents from their areas. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)