4316:, you asked if I would prefer a full case. I would, if it is broad enough, but I think some of the issues here are too broad even for that. There have been a number of issues in different areas involving an overly-restrictive use of the general guideline of WP:RS, as well as the special rule WP:MEDRES,; I had to check just now to confirm that RS is just a guideline not policy, because it's certainly being used as decisively as if it were fundamental unquestionable policy. I don't know how much Arb Com can do here--the problems certainly have their origin as content disputes, but arb com has made decisions and remedies based on sourcing many times, I think under the general view that whether people follow policy and guidelines is behavior. I know what I hope the consensus of the community is, but I'm not sure that this is not just wishful thinking. The community might decide upon an interpretation of guidelines that would seem to contradict basic policy, and it has the right to do so--and if necessary, to resolve the discrepancy by changing policy. . It does have the right to so interpret policy and guidelines in a way that will be destructive of what would seem to be fundamental principles--as a practical matter, it does have the power to ruin WP. Arb com has the ability to interpret its role to make this difficult, but it can't actually stop it.
4235:
unanimous or almost unanimous scientific opinion and informed general opinion also. It has since been undue extended into topics where the extreme unlikelihood of the fringe position is much less obvious. This is even more true in fields other than science. It is much more difficult to extend Fringe into the social sciences, because the body of knowledge is almost always much less consistent and solid--as illustrated by the where there have recent quite solid statistical and experimental evidence that much of the accepted experimental evidence in support of far-reaching general propositions was in error. I think it is totally unjustified to extend Fringe into politics, which is inherently a matter of opinion, and positions tha have very little support among wikipedians may have very substantial and near-majority or even majority support among the relevant public, and whee the views of informed experts are always divergent and in any case almost irrelevant as compared to the views of the actual voters. The application of Fringe to Covid deals with more than science--I do not see how anyone can realistically say that the issue of its origin is as much political as scientific (which is not a statement that it
4693:
biomedical info (MEDRS) vs information from reliable news sources that is discussing the political aspects of the biomedical info, all within a framework that we're also NOT#NEWS. To some degree, we are absolutely right to be putting our foot down and sticking currently to the MEDRS that the lab-leak theory is currently not supported by available science, but we do have to be able to explain why a fair number of both scientists and politicians around the world are looking at it again, without rushing to call it a conspiracy theory or the like. In other words, we need more discussion on situations like, with more open minds on both sides and considering that we are trying to write from the 60,000 ft/10-20 year point of view. Hopefully GS-to-DS will help with making such discussions more open, but if that fails to do so, it may be within Arbcom remit to establish a neutral admin or three (thinking back to the
Troubles) to act as moderators and set bounds. I just can't see Arbcom otherwise stepping in to resolve the core content matter. --
2320:
close to a topic ban and then voluntarily desisted. This specific topic area doesn't have all too many admins which naturally doesn't help enforcement, but ToBeFree and El C in particular, and Boing before he handed in his mop, have helped out substantially. The case request has parallels to the Kurds case earlier this year, except that had smaller number of (and more discernible) participants, and there was a complete inability for the community to resolve the issues. Here, while enforcement is very much hanging by a thread (of a few admins on-and-off), I think more or less the community has handled it well to this point; that may change if one or two admins go inactive. Another change in the past few months has been increased editor participation on the content, and I think volume of community attention often helps with ensuring behavioural issues don't hamper (as much) our content policies being followed. Hope this statement helps.
3511:
taken more seriously by the admins corps than
Community-mandated General Sanctions are. I'm not very sure of the reasons for this -- although one may be a general disdain for the "dramah boards" which are where General Sanctions are discussed and implemented -- but I believe that it's a true thing. Admins may be hesitant to enforce GS-based blocks because they have less inherent gravitas to them then a DS-block would, with ArbCom standing behind it. (I think that is the case even though, to a certain extent, the reputation of ArbCom has taken something of a hit in the last couple of years.) If so, then it would be beneficial to the project for ArbCom to take over the Community GS and put its stamp of approval on it. I have the feeling that if this happened, we would see more enforcement of violations in the Covid subject area.
4939:
could be heard at AE and thought that this could be an example as to why we need more admin. However, after reading everything I have come to a different conclusion. The reason that there hasn't been admin action is because there isn't widespread community consensus for the actions requested; as evidence of this see the current RfC about whether writing about a pandemic's origin requires MEDRS. At this moment in time, the discussion seems to be either a no consensus or consensus against such a requirement. Further in reading through the discussions I see many people blocked and know still others to be topic banned. To the extent that administrative action is justified and allowed under our policies, ArbCom or otherwise, a point that I know has frustrated ToBeFree, it seems to be happen. Now that said, if there was a
2992:- this could be done with a simple statement that in ArbCom's opinion, MEDRS is required for that topic area. While that may be considered "content related", it's really not - it's related to the enforcement of our policies on reliable sources and preference for better sources over lesser - and sourcing requirements have been issued by administrators as DS before, which ArbCom could just do here instead of leaving it to admins to try and enforce. The problems in this topic area are similar to AP2 - both new and established editors hold strongly held beliefs about aspects of the pandemic - and frequently get disruptive when doing so. Removing newer editors (almost always not helpful) and enforcing as a remedy
5057:, even in the early days of the pandemic there was a demonstrated need for DS almost immediately. If I recall correctly, some administrators were using the Acupuncture case in order to levy sanctions on COVID-related fringe theories, which was part of the impetus for the community-imposed GS. If the community had not authorized GS on this topic area (rather perfunctorily too, iirc), I'm certain the committee would have done so if requested. (As an aside, I'm not sure what your "unfairness" comment is about, but suspect that that belongs to a discussion about DS in general rather than this case request. I'm interested to hear an explanation, although it may be better suited to a talk page somewhere.) –
4273:
a perverse one, but it remains a guess. I wouldn't call the most serious and respectable newspapers necessarily as "popular" in a negative sense; nor would I say, as a biomedical scientist myself, that scientists as a class are always open to new ideas; the medical profession can be just as conservative and self-interested as any profession. I would say that generally scientists are much more reliable than many elements of the general press taken as a whole upon questions of science, but to treat informed public opinion as in some way inferior is excessive self-confidence. To treat medicine as in some way immune to politics is to take a very narrow view of reality.
2382:. Per another discussion, GS derived from ArbCom's DS. As far as anyone can tell from the history, the entire system has been an inconsistent mess since, reflected even in the misnomer "GS". ArbCom's DS is mostly functionally equivalent but better; it's tidier, has proper oversight (AN threads for clarification will archive w/ minimal participation; at least ARCAs on DS require the Committee to take action or affirmatively decide not to), and provides access to AE/ARCA. The DS topic area should not be split up, which would be unnecessarily confusing and bureaucratic. Sanctions should be transferred over for the same reasons.
1275:-type problems... Something simple to discourage soapboxing, original research and advocacy (by adding even mild editing requirements) and make enforcement more readily available (instead of having, as El describes, "impenetrable timesinks" at ANI) would be more than enough. There has been a significant change in how we cover this recently, and I think that's to the credit of everyone (although the fact that the topic is obviously politicised and that many long-winded discussions are required speaks for itself, i think), but all of this good will is going to be wasted in the long-term if we don't do anything about
4476:(i.e. "Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them"). This is for a good reason. For example, if a virus was historically studied in a lab in Wuhan or not would not affect decisions by people who are "seeking health information" in WP (the sole reason for creating WP:MEDRS that disallows using peer reviewed original publications). Readers would have to do their vaccinations regardless to such info. However, the information that the vaccinations are safe would have to be covered by WP:MEDRS.
3964:
agree to mandate it for the subject area in question. A shortage of willing administrators to help out isn't something the arbitration committee can address; the community either needs to find some new admin candidates or encourage existing admins to assist. Enacting extended-confirmed protection for related articles can also be done by the community. More radical out-of-the-box ideas would likely gain more acceptance if they went through a community discussion process, rather than decided upon by the arbitration committee. Perhaps a village pump thread can be opened to work on options?
4628:
conventional arbitration case it's sort of reasonable, although it has been pointed out before that we now have large swathes of the encyclopaedia under DS ostensibly because of disputes that happened years ago amongst editors who have all moved on. But when people come to arbitration essentially saying, "this topic is a nightmare, help!" I don't think it works well at all, because the only weapon ArbCom has in these cases are DS, which a) the community can now impose; and b) going by the recent consultation, don't actually work all that well. Specifically this case reminds me of
1019:. A cursory look will at the existing talk pages (not even the archives) will show long drawn-out discussions between experienced editors and often SPAs, trying to explain the nuances of FRINGE; NPOV; RS and the like, with no apparent end in sight. The issue has been discussed many times over; and these repeated decentralised discussions on many different talk pages are massive timesinks, in addition to the now rising trend of personal attacks by some frustrated IPs and SPAs. There's definitively something that can be done here by ArbCom, both over conduct and over content.
3400:
of the discussions going on (especially as a non-party). I raised some specifics in the recent DS community consultation, and dropped what I viewed as the principal specific concern (double evidentiary threshold) on Bradv's TP at request. While many of us on this page are well aware that DS appellants can use AN, the page and templates push people who are new to the sphere down the AE pathway. Were it a normal DS discussion I wouldn't raise facets like that as they're more general - here it would be a change of circumstance, so I felt it applicable to raise those concerns.
3436:. The subject of COVID — not just origins, but treatments, and everything else — is the first time that I've genuinely feared that our line won't hold. The amount of energy that people are willing to bring to disrupt the encyclopedia is effectively unbounded, and there are too many bad sources, and good sources bits of which can be used in bad faith, for our regular mechanisms to carry the load. I doubt that more eyes alone will be enough to keep our article quality from deteriorating, since an inrush of editors who are neither medical experts nor familiar with
3982:'s statement "I don't think this is ArbCom usurping the will of the community, because we're being asked to do something...", the request isn't as of yet based on a consensus view from the community, but from some interested editors. I appreciate in some cases the community may be too deadlocked to take further actions. It's not clear to me this is the case yet, though, as the community hasn't had a big-picture discussion (following up on the imposition of community general sanctions) on how to improve the situation overall.
452:
1756:(cf. Billybostickson's ArbCom block, and Tinybubi's block described by Daniel below), and to force new editors to start with gaining experience in less contentious areas of the project, I'd support any measure that increases the amount of needed Knowledge editing experience required for participating in this area at all, including on talk pages. This could be limited to COVID-19 origins, misinformation and conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't object to it happening to the entire topic COVID-19.
4906:
the information necessary about whether or not to accept a case. At ArbCom the conduct of all parties is examined and I don't see anything in
Empiricus' writing that is out of bound of the norms of this stage. If we proceed to a case statements like " totally dogmatic (and wrong) application of MEDRS" will need evidence (diffs) but the general pointers you've already provided to numerous long discussions is, in my mind, enough justification at this stage of the case. However, I would not want
2235:'s position which advances the notion that GS is superior to ACDS, a stance which they have asserted on multiple occasions. As I mentioned elsewhere recently, GS is basically ACDS-light, because with ACDS, like GS, issues may be raised at AN/ANI, but unlike it, ACDS also has AE/ARCA as forums. Unlike myself, who view these more often than not as superior forums, Nosebagbear's position seems to be that not only are AE/ARCA inferior in this regard, but that they are actually a detriment.
4002:
Trump).Today it is the case that there is no longer a consensus of the global public opinion, of many serious scientists, of several states and of major media that the laboratory hypothesis "is per se" a conspiracy theory and must be serious investigated. The framing in the
Knowledge articles and supported by China ("the truth") that the laboratory hypothesis is a conspiracy theory - is obsolete, without global consensus. That we implicit postulate a Chinese "fring theory" (
4294:
are premature. There's a difference between unlikely, and fringe. Tho I don't want to fully argue this here, the difference of this from most Fringe and pseudoscience is that early ones we so classified contradict well established general principles of science (homeopathy and chemistry are incompatible) , there is nothing in the lab leak theory that does, since similar accidents have occurred. It probably didn't happen this time, but at least it could have.
1879:
73:
4504:), and sockpuppetry present does not appear to have fixed these problems. But, it's not clear to me that these are problems that arbitration can fix; the vast majority of the RfCs are regarding content disputes, ANI has been a venue that seems to have been able to handle this well on a case-by-case basis, and sockpuppetry isn't something that can be fixed by the arbitration committee in any meaningful way without modification to existing policies.
1908:
4555:
because AN isn't working, regardless of the fact that AN has not actually been tried. That even knowing the poor track record of AE is kind of baffling to be honest. Especially considering the tools used are functionally no different. I have to see Bradv's comment is rather tone deaf to the actual situation, while I think
Barkeep49 hit the nail on the head so to speak. Action is not required if all reasonable venues have not actually be tried.
1999:). This user emails me for help yesterday (the first time I've learned of their existence) in a nearly incomprehensible way, to the point that I don't know what I'm asked to do — yet today, they disparage me (and others), with a long-winded polemic filled with misrepresentations and aspersions, which, really, only serves to distract from the matter at hand, I feel. Perhaps it's a somewhat cunning way to preemptively designate certain admins as
2239:
complex and/or contentious cases by providing a structured format, which (like here) is subject to a word limit. This, I've argued here and elsewhere, tempers the sort of freeflowing AN/ANI threaded discussions that often turn into confusing (and confused) TLDR filibustering sessions. And that, in turn, often results in such discussions becoming virtually impenetrable to outside reviewers (what these discussions desperately need most of all).
1830:
activity at RfPP has provided me with a snapshot of sorts). And, I've been away for the last month, so obviously I know little if anything that has happened throughout that time. Anyway, while I've taken some sporadic COVID GS action recently by occasionally responding to requests on my talk page and the odd noticeboard thread, there hasn't been that many of these (not enough to keep me in the loop, is the point).
4664:. Back then, the content dispute was over what to say about GM crops' safety for human consumption, and now, it's where the virus came from. And a community RfC (obviously, not an ArbCom edict) was able to come up with wording that has held up for a half decade, changing a battleground into a largely sleepy content area. And it worked because DS permitted some admins to make the RfC consensus binding.
971:). I could link to a Twitter group (they now even have a page here, lucky them), of which some members have been active here, using Knowledge as a soapbox, canvassing and so forth, to push their preferred point of view. I could link to many, many threads and many many personal attacks, I-dont-hear-it-is, pushing of poor sources, original research, harassment (against me, but against others) and so on.
2273:
5321:
4071:) technical possible (lab), physically possible (bats) and logically possible (knowledge). All this is/was given in the WIV. Then there is the criterion of feasibility: Can such a virus be produced artificially? Yes, it is possible, proven by older research articles on GoF (from Wuhan Institute). So the Lab-Hypothesis is even seriously possible (= plausible). To a similar result came the
3615:
figure out how to collaborate and reach an agreement. Jiminy
Cricket - DS will only give first mover advantage and open the door to POV creep. Any one of the involved editors can simply call an RfC and be done with the disagreement. Maybe all involved in the disagreement should go stand in the corner for 48 hours - that will straighten the line they're walking pretty quickly.
1771:
warning, less disruptive behavior, further discussion with someone who will never get the point, then "finally" a personal attack that closes the case. Afterwards, accusations of bias, an appeal, continuation of the content dispute on the blocked user's talk page, off-wiki requests for meatpuppetry, a huge amount of drama caused by an attempt to reduce disruption.
2243:
remains entrenched in their position, still. I'm all for reforming ACDS —and was quite active in the
Committee's recent community consultation effort toward that end (where I raised, among other things, this stance on Nosebagbear's part)— but such a reform ought to be a cautious undertaking, I challenge. Arguments ought to not only be substantive, but also
4207:. On the fun side (skipping over the grammatical error), that last bit has a decidedly Trumpian flavor to it, in all its vagueness and untruthfulness. And if you put those two together, the false and unfounded accusations and the deceitful innuendo, we have plenty of reason for a topic ban, which with DS would be a relatively easy thing to accomplish.
2208:, you can call it a "disgrace" all you like, but the fact remains that I still don't wish to engage in an in-depth investigation into what happened to Feynstein. Honestly, I have neither the time (still) nor the inclination. If Feynstein wishes to see that restriction lifted, they are free to make a request to that effect (which I would likely grant).
3888:
prevail with their "lableak fringe" POV, as if that was accepted, the policy implication would be we need must more gain of function type virology research to help us develop new vaccines against scary nature. Whereas the balance of evidence currently points to an opposite policy – scaling back such lab work, and mandating BSL4 safety levels.
3351:
DS. ArbCom would not likely have created a Covid-19 DS regime without a full case, so it should not do so here (indeed, it shouldn't even with a case). Even were it to do so, I feel post-factum changes to sanctions already levied is immensely dubious and would encourage even those who support this highly unwise proposal to strike that aspect.
2845:? If so, this seems a bit absurd. Taking a case to ArbCom because you don't like the result of a discussion seems unproductive and a bad standard to set. If that IS what this is about, I would recommend that thread be read- it's important context. If that isn't what this is about, some clarity would be great. Thank you all!
3144:
This procedure would effectively merge general sanctions and discretionary sanctions. Perhaps you want to think amount a general motion to import all existing general sanctions as discretionary sanctions. You could weed out any that seem obsolete, and you could gently recraft the wording of any that are not clear.
3850:. The Bidden report due out in August has a good chance of reducing editing tension. Declining avoids a dangerous dilemma. If the case was accepted and we let sceptical editors have their desired result, helping them to push their "lableak fringe" POV, we risk a massive dent to Wikipedias credibility.
5387:
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still
5354:
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction
4905:
at the moment
Empiricus is, by my count, at 613 words (582 when you posted) which is over the 500 words alloted but other editors here are also over their allotted word counts, including you at 1199. The Committee often chooses to relax word counts some at the case request stage to ensure we have all
4272:
says below, this is now become a case where academic scholarship agrees with the general press, and agrees that the question is open. To the extent they are both predicting what will in the future be found to be the actual facts, a well-informed guess is preferable to an ill-informed guess, let alone
3494:
I agree with those supporting ArbCom taking over the community GS and making Covid-19 a specific DS subject area. I don't disagree with MPants that much of the problem is the politicizing of it in the US, but there are other aspects of it which extend outside that penumbra, so a new DS regime would,
3329:
that would be an insanely broad remit to me - it would be dragging everyone into an
American Politics coverage. I disagree with it being necessary to be under DS, but if they do decide to go down that path, it needs its own. That own would also need to be precisely defined to avoid dragging in all of
3011:
To clarify, I don’t think just assuming it as DS is sufficient. Some form of either direct sourcing requirement or extended-confirmed limit on the topic area is likely necessary. If it wasn’t getting handled at ANI, I doubt it will at AE. All of this can be done by motion, however, and I agree a case
2242:
So, Nosebagbear —whom I feel bad for putting on blast, but nonetheless feel their argument is important to address for the record— never really acknowledges with any substance, I feel. They never attempt to substantively refute these arguments (forget about evidence, just the arguments, overall), yet
5015:
I haven't had the time to read all the relevant material here just yet, but I am pretty much always interested in the idea that we go with motions rather than a full case if there is any indication that may be sufficient, and this may be an area where moving from community GS to ArbCom DS might be a
4755:
to determine from your statement and the linked threads what, in concrete terms, you view as the serious conduct dispute that the community has been unable to resolve. There are surely many issues in this topic area, many of which can be handled by the community and a fraction of which are plausibly
4607:
that clearly there is no consensus to change MEDRS to censor all the lab-leak theory content. Whether the theory is true or not, I dont know and I think the key point is nobody knows. Note RC's bludgeon of this one RFC as an example. Knowledge editors dealing with the constant battle on this subject
4539:
I guess my question is why. If the issue is lack of admin involvement I am not sure what moving to the arbcom sanction would do. The proper venue for GS would be AN and I have not really seen anything much brought there that was not handled by the admins there. Also judging by the track record of AE
4226:
A refusal to follow WP policy on NPOV and RS is a behavioral issue. A refusal to recognize accepted reliable sources as being reliable when they disagree with one's preconceptions is a behavioral issue. This doesn't depend on what the issue is, or what position ultimately turns out to be the correct
4017:
The strict, reductive, and even dogmatic application of MEDRS practiced so far - without the explicit exceptions in MEDRS avoids a neutral article without the global discussion in science, politics and media – and produce a lot of frustration here (and work for admins). It would be sufficient if we
2970:
I doubt I'll have time to participate greatly in a case (and I don't particularly desire to be a named party and thus obligated to participate), but I'll point out a few things I think should be noted. No, GS aren't working - because AE isn't an option, and because administrators don't want to touch
2897:
are whether the standards we're adhering to when citing statements regarding "disease and pandemic origins" should simply be the default WP:RS, or WP:MEDRS. I am not sure those participating in the RfC were arguing or would recognize the category you put forth of "high-quality" or "our best sources"
1857:
noticeboard tempers TLDR filibustering in otherwise freeflowing AN/ANI threads, which often turn them into impenetrable (to outside reviewers) timesinks. My view on this is well known (in-my-mind!), so probably not much that I need to expound on that front. As for subjecting the COVID topic area (or
1212:
Robert McClenon's argument that scientific sources are too slow for this seems to be well against what I thought was settled policy, that we follow, not lead, the consensus of these sources. FeydHuxtable's comment seems to argue in the same direction as Robert; and also misrepresents the position of
956:
Sadly, this effort is, in some areas, hampered by persistent disruptive editing. As a cursory look at the few threads on noticeboards linked above (non-exhaustive) and the archives (and even current versions) of the listed talk pages will reveal, the problem is widespread, persistent, and not likely
4938:
So between weekend responsibilities I have spent a good portion of the day reading through the materials presented for our consideration. I had, based on the statements here and the one section I linked to above, expected to end in favor of ArbCom assuming responsibility for this under DS so claims
4350:
Another reason this topic area generates strife is that we are being subjected to off-wiki campaigns organized on
Twitter. I can't say everything I want to because of OUTING, but the evidence is there. I believe several blocked editors, meats, and socks (some of whom are still active) are connected
4293:
and in further response to what they say below, i will just mention the inherent time lag in producing review articles, and that great many apparently firm medical consensuses change as further data comes in. When a key part of the investigations have not yet been made possible, perhaps reviews
3891:
Except in the highly unexpected event that credible evidence for a natural origin emerges, there will be no return to the previously mainstream "lableak fringe" story smashed by Nick Wade. Too many eminent scientists are putting the good of humanity first. For geo-strategic reasons, it's also quite
3510:
I have no evidence to offer to support the following statement, and would be very hesitant to undertake the research necessary to accumulate such evidence, so I'll have to present this as simply my opinion based on observation: I believe that, in general, ArbCom-mandated Discretionary Sanctions are
3399:
not sure why your ping on me didn't work, but don't worry - if I'm feisty in my opinions than I can hardly complain about others rebutting me with the same vigour! Anyway. I didn't want to pile on the specifics since I don't know how the Clerks are treating word counts given the partial bifurcation
2319:
don't think a full case will help. There are probably any number of editors whose behaviour on this topic can be characterised as problematic, but ArbCom cannot realistically topic ban them all (nor would it help IMO). For the most part, the most persistent offenders already have been, or were very
1829:
I'm listed as a party, but 90 percent of admin action I've taken in the topic area were in the first 9 months of the pandemic. It's been about 6 months now since I've actively used my watchlist, which I feel greatly hinders my understanding of where the project is at COVID-wise (though some renewed
4961:
There is a problem here. It feels like the motion is a "We need to do something, converting GS to DS is something, let's convert" situation. However, that is not the only something we can do. I think a full case, with the right parties, will lead to a better outcome even if one piece of that is to
4589:
issues? The user claims to have been an IP address for many years and then went to full-on confirmed editor with experience on all types of noticeboard pages. User should be banned from this range of pages. There is such excessive coverage at this point in time relating to the lab-leak theory that
4554:
One thing I would like to add, I disagree with the assertion that we would not require community consensus to overturn a community sanction like GS. No one wants to see Arbcom over riding broadly supported community consensus for no discernable reason. The logic I am seeing is basically we need AE
4162:
RandomCanadian has been bugging me for a while with various complaints about the editing environment in this topic area, and it's gotten to the point where individual admins simply cannot restore a positive editing atmosphere. There's socking, there's edit-warring, there are interminable talk page
4013:
After being banned, it has become clear to me that the central reason for this "structural content problem" is a misapplication of this MEDRS-Rule: "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying
3963:
The key question in my mind is if there is anything that can be accomplished in a case or motion that cannot be accomplished by the community under its existing authorization for general sanctions. If the community thinks the format used at arbitration enforcement would be more effective, it could
3936:
Having thought about this some more: the formality of an AE request compels resolution and action, while individual complaints under the GS may be difficult for individual admins to evaluate and enforce. The fact that no GS enforcement seems to have been attempted in some time, and considering the
3853:
Much harm has been done already, with editors deploying such absurd arguments as "LOL @ conspiracy theorists questioning the word of Chinese officials…. Huh? What do you mean we're doing the same re the Biden administration? The US and other western governments are obviously politically motivated,
3614:
Yet another RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, yada-yada my POV is better than your POV tug-o-war. Admins/arbs, please...the topic shouldn't matter...behavior does. Focus on easy-to-spot disruptive behavior, but if you're not seeing PAs, threats, edit warring, BLP vios, then simply stand down and let the editors
3571:
is currently (by my count) sitting at 16 supports and 41 opposes. While I realize that an RfC is not a vote, it seems rather inappropriate to ask the Arbitration Committee to enforce a particular interpretation of a guideline when over 70% of participants in a currently active RfC have opposed the
3350:
I am particularly unhappy that the proposed motion for DS would change not just the "origins of Covid-19" but everything on Covid-19, and does so without even a case. AE has its insanely unfair evidentiary margin and I would never have supported the GS had I thought it was going to be changed into
3143:
When the community passes a general sanction the Committee should take note and should consider whether to ratify it as a discretionary sanction. If there is some problem, the Committee could overturn a general sanction, such as if the discussion is poorly attended or plagued with sock puppetry.
2979:
action isn't taken. Perhaps having it be ArbCom sanctions would help as AE would be an option, but I'm unsure. I think what's really necessary is likely an extended confirmed restriction, similar to Arab-Israeli and India-Pakistan arrangements. Unfortunately, time and time again, it's been obvious
2385:
The only issue with the motion is point (iii). I'd guess that this motion is copied from an old one, but (iii) is now outdated. The idea of a log of notifications for GS was scrapped when I moved it into the edit filter system last year, so alerts are logged for COVID GS the same way as any ArbCom
1834:
play, this doesn't change from the fact that the Chinese are opaque-as-fuck. I fear, then, that MEDRS and NOTNEWS may be used as blunt instruments to dilute this reality, although that does not mean I'm calling for standards to be loosened. But framing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory,"
4883:
as far as I am aware we have 1 well-developed tool that we can use by making it DS - AE. Unless I'm missing something. In which case please let me know. I'm inclined to vote to accept. At a case we do have other tools available to us, specifically around user sanctions and a workshop where we can
4692:
I'm in general agreement that at the core, this isn't something yet ripe for Arbcom to take, but elevating GS to DS specific to the area will help in dealing with problematic editors that disrupt useful discussions. But we have at essence issues rising from a strong key sourcing policy related to
4653:
This isn't really ripe for ArbCom to accept a full case. But – there's a content dispute that the community needs to figure out. And let's see, it's about some science that's currently very much in the news, and editors are having a hard time coming to an agreement about how the content should be
4445:
be covered by WP:MEDRS - as clearly stated in WP:BMI. Hence, the claims about leaking the virus from the lab would be possible to cover using sources like articles in NYT, etc. However, many participants do not share such view. If you could codify some rules here, that would minimize disputes and
3887:
Despite the above, Biotech & life scientists are a huge net positive overall, as are our as sceptical & pro-science editors. Yet Covid origin is too important an issue to be decided by anything less than an objective evaluation of the evidence. The mainstream won't allow COI scientists to
3668:
This case request is entitled Origins of COVID-19. ArbCom should consider expanding the scope to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is the scope of the community general sanctions. The less difficult part of this case may be deciding to expand the scope and to convert the community sanctions to
3590:
To be clear, regarding the content issue itself (which quite a few people have brought up on this page), the extent of my beliefs on the subject are that the hypothesis in question is unlikely, but there isn't conclusive evidence either way, and as of June 2021, a large number of reliable sources
4998:
If the problem is GS not working because of a lack of enforcement, I'm interested to hear whether the community thinks that a possible solution could be to take over the existing GS as ArbCom DS by motion without needing a full case. This would open up AE as a place to report violations. Regards
4943:
for turning GS/COVID19 into DS/COVID so that it fell under ArbCom's jurisdiction and rule making and thus would be eligible for hearing at AE, I would want us to agree to do it. But absent formal consensus from the community I don't see justification under ARBPOL for us to take over this general
4839:
issues on the other talk pages? All I see at Biomedical research is a content dispute going through a very reasonable process. If so please present those rather than links to entire talk pages. Otherwise I plan to skip the other talk pages and finish my reading with the 3 FTN discussions linked.
4794:
I won't have time until the weekend to dive into the large number of diffs already presented, but I will be looking through those and any other community member statements whether there are indications that the community cannot handle this topic area. I will be approaching with the bias that the
4672:
for any RfCs conducted by the community within the topic area. You don't need to tell the community that we should have an RfC. You should not advise on what the RfC(s) should be about, or how they should be conducted. Leave all of that to the community. Just say that any RfCs that the community
4602:
titled: "Opinion- The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus." I understand an opinion piece isn't an RS, but it is now clear there are hundreds of sources on this, and we dont need to meet MED-RS, see
4250:
Not only is there fully sufficient grounds for an arb com case on the specifics here--there may even be grounds for several. And if necessary, if arb com continues to make decisions on the narrowest possible grounds which individual admins then interpret on very extensive grounds, there may be
3865:: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (That Plank's insight has general applicability to science was later well established by
3531:
I wasn't named as a party in this case request (and have never participated in any ArbCom proceedings), but I've participated in some of the discussions that led up to it; here is what I think. Most of these discussions have been noticeboard threads about content issues, and largely resemble one
2292:
I don't think the situation has deteriorated yet to the extent that a full case would be useful, and it may in fact create even more of a time sink for a topic which might blow over. Given that there are parallel problems for quite a few, arguably more important, aspects of COVID-19 (e.g. around
2238:
But this, I submit to the Committee and to participants, and to Nosebagbear themsleves, is the problem: Nosebagbear never substantiates beyond vague generalities. For example, a central reasoning behind my position (as I note in the first comment in my section here) is that AE, for example, aids
2034:
accused me of mishandling. So, this is what happened: on Feb 26, Feynstein, whom I've never met before or known about, came to my talk page to ask that I close a lab leak-related ANI thread involving them with a voluntary restriction, as they were finding the ensuing discussion to be distressing
1833:
With regards to the lab leak theory, outside Knowledge, there have been some important developments, mainly, now we have both the Trump and Biden (at present) administrations being on record as saying that it merits further investigation. Whatever American geopolitical posturing might also be at
5395:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally
5391:
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special
2432:
on 22 November 2020, currently expiring 22 November 2021, will become an alert as if it were given on 12 June 2021 (expiring 12 June 2022), along with all other alerts issued before the motion passes. This concept wouldn't really make sense anymore, and would be impracticable to enforce at AE.
1770:
Regarding "the solution is for administrators to enforce the existing sanctions regime", that's easier said than done. For a topic ban to be justifiable, the damage needs to have already happened, usually multiple times. A battleground-mentality comment, a GS notification, further incivility, a
1242:
My overall summary of the talk pages I list is "multiple repetitive discussions of the same topic on multiple pages", and one (IMHO) major component is the persistent PROFRINGE disruption by multiple SPAs (and sockpuppets - see the SPI's previously linked) or otherwise long-dormant accounts who
4861:
am I correct that you're suggesting a full case rather than just converting the GS to DS? If so, can you clarify what you would see the scope of that case being? How Fringe is applied? An analysis of the behavior of certain editors in the COVID topic area? I want to make sure I understand your
4354:
I don't know what the best solution is. But I support our anti-fringe and pro-science editors in their efforts to keep misinformation out of the encyclopedia. Also, I trust the scientific and academic mainstream over the political mainstream, and I think that preferring scientific and academic
4234:
But a more relevant problem is the need to revisit the general position taken by arbcom on Fringe, dating back to the earliest cases. Fringe was clear in the case of subjects such as scientology and homeopathy, where the proponents made scientific claims that were totally incompatible with the
4246:
In this respect, there's another issue facing arbcom, which is the enforcement of Fringe by means of Discretionary Sanctions and General Sanctions, even in the areas where Fringe is least applicable. These are the instances which show the dangerousness of both GS and DS most clearly, where
3808:
If the content issue was simply an "unacceptable" grammatic error, changing "Wuhan lab manufactured" to something like "Manufactured in a Wuhan lab", rather than a single revert of three different edits, would appear to be much more constructive behavior. Yet I concur with you that there is
4001:
Many editors, also very experienced - are very frustrated because of the quality, objectivity and neutrality, indeed also because of our credibility - by strong MEDRS source filters. The discussion on the origin has changed a lot in the last months and has also become more objective (after
4627:
This case raises an interesting general issue. The core purpose of arbitration is to resolve specific conduct disputes involving specific editors. At some point the committee acquired the ancillary function of designating topics that especially contentious. Where that happens as part of a
3378:- your reply doesn't address either unfairness issues (always trumps bureaucratic ease) or that the DS wouldn't likely have been created ab initio without a case and some number of those of us in the Community who originally agreed it wouldn't have if it was going to be taken off by AC
3278:
It certainly doesn't need a full case, the logical options are "no ARBCOM action beyond requesting more community attention" and "motion to add to DS, either specifically or broadly (and request more eyeballs)". I think the former suffices, and where it suffices, DS should be avoided.
4387:
about the possibility of a laboratory origin of COVID-19. If you know of any review articles in the aforementioned fields that do not speak negatively of COVID-19 laboratory origin, please post them on my user talk page, as these would be a game changer in how I approach this topic.
3809:
complaint/grievance here (otherwise this would be a non-issue and I believe we should all use our time more efficiently) for what I've observed to be consistent behavior from a handful of "experienced" editors, including RC who happened to initiate this ArbCom request (more examples
2173:
okay! It now looks like the previous (narrow) COVID19 sanction was lifted prematurely, so not only restoring it, but a wider, all-encompassing prohibition is due, as well. I would be open to considering an appeal in no less than 6 months, contingent on productive editing elsewhere.
4230:
In addition, much of the problem here relies upon the incompatibility of MEDRES with NPOV in dealing with issues of general public interest that are more than just purely medical--or the claim that an issue with political and social implications is purely a medical issue.
3661:. Scientific opinion on the origin of covid is changing rapidly, more rapidly than the peer review process can provide high-quality secondary sources reflecting current thinking. ArbCom may need to consider whether the "encyclopedic lag" resulting from application of the
2479:
3937:
comments by other admins here, suggests that this is the case, and that Arbcom adopting the community sanctions as discretionary sanctions is likely to improve the situation. Therefore I recommend that Arbcom do so by motion, as some of the Arbs have already suggested.
4320:
What I do feel sure about, is that I agree with what you've already said in your statement on having a motion, is that the substitution of DS in place of RS is very unlikely to itself do any good, since it will be applied the same way by the same administrators.
5033:, with a preference for trying to resolve this by motion first. I disagree that we require a formal community consensus in order to act on this – it's clear that this topic area is fraught with controversy, and the committee has well-developed tools that can help. –
3912:, and per the page's protection log the sanction remains in force; however, only one editor-level sanction has been logged since that time, other than one which seems to have been an administrative error. To me this strongly suggests that the community sanctions are
1945:+ related-disparagement which followed an earlier ban, while the Feynstein voluntary sanction was per their own request. Update to that: yesterday, Feynstein asked for the restriction to be lifted, a request which I've granted. In that request, Feynstein also said:
4821:: there is precedent with both Abortion and Gamergate (and perhaps others I don't know off the top of my head) for ArbCom assuming a community imposed discretionary sanctions and turning it into an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction so only #1 needs to be answered.
3665:, delaying the coverage of the debate over the lab leak hypothesis, is detrimental. Another aspect of this case might be reviewing the sanctions on editors who were pushing the lab leak hypothesis, whose mistake may have been being right before their time.
978:
I believe that is not necessary, and that ArbCom is astute enough to realise there is a problem, and that some action is required; that we're not a platform for the pushing of fringe theories; that we're not a platform for the righting of great wrongs; that
4944:
sanction. I'm not formally declining because it's possible evidence could be presented that would cause me to change my mind and because I would support a motion to enable this offer to the community but as of now I would be against us accepting this case.
4173:, and I think the purpose of that complaint was to cast aspersions on RandomCanadian and maybe muddy the waters, or stack the deck, before a case starts. Well, the edit, you should be grateful for it: "Wuhan lab manufactured" is not an acceptable heading.
5288:
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
4471:
is well written. For example, it narrowly and precisely defines what it means by "Population data and epidemiology" ("Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis") and even what is "Biomedical research"
2597:. My discussions with ToBeFree have always been cordial, and his recent actions have restored my faith in our admin corps. But I am more concerned now with Drmies who is still taking orders from RC, meting out bans without due process. Diffs to follow.
3722:
I urge ArbCom to conduct a full case hearing, but to consider preliminary steps also, including the conversion of the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. A full case is needed because there are complex policy issues and complex misconduct issues.
3266:
I'm inclined to think the answer to question 1 was "not as stands, but it's readily done" - we just need to draw some more attention to it. If nothing else, the sheer creation of this case request may serve that purpose. However, I won't swear to it.
2484:
4724:
4667:
That's what is needed now. ArbCom should not have a case. And ArbCom should not enact DS across the entire topic area, at least not at this time – so the motion should not be passed. But ArbCom should pass a different, narrower, motion, enacting DS
3860:
One has to feel sorry for sceptical editors, their doubling down has been common practice among scientists for over a hundred years. Even in physics, leading scientists have often been unable to change their mind in the face of superior evidence.
5355:
placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
2345:
FWIW, I feel that RfC on MEDRS (which I also opposed, as I don't believe the origins of a virus constitutes medical advice or has a direct impact on the health choices someone makes) is as best tangential to the behavioural problems in the area.
3652:
guideline, whose purpose is to ensure that Knowledge provides the most accurate encyclopedic summary of medical knowledge, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the even more basic function of summarizing human knowledge in accordance with a
2996:(MEDRS being the easiest to enforce, but a more carefully crafted restriction would perhaps be okay) would help greatly in reducing disruption and allowing those of us trying to write an encyclopedia to be able to focus on that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
2867:
Gotcha, thank you for the clarification. Agreed, the less harassment and personal attacks the better. Hoping that those involved can come to at least some reasonable terms of agreement, and move forward constructively from there. Thanks all!
2360:
Regardless of what happens with this request, there are a couple of statements on this page that, combined with the rest of the authors' editing history, suggest administrative intervention may be necessary, including the one directly below.
4499:
This topic area been a bit of a disaster across Knowledge and has been a time-sink that has appears to have plaged even many experienced users. Efforts made thus far have not been enough; the sheer amount of RfCs, ANI complaints (including
2469:
4507:
Inasmuch as editors bring up specific actions relating to the conduct of admins, I really am not an expert in the policy of this area. If this could be earnestly reviewed by the community, then admin behavior would best be handled on
3639:
ArbCom should accept this case, but it may be a difficult case to deal with because of the complex interplay of policy, content, and conduct. The issue of the origin of covid-19 is one that is entangled with Knowledge's policies on
3892:
likely that stronger evidence for lableak will remain out of the public domain. So the pro science crowd needn't worry too much, the mainstream narrative may well remain that there is insufficient evidence to be sure either way.
2723:. ToBeFree's proposal above to lock down more shows shows that despite his repentive actions, he still does not understand what the problem is here. An open community is a healthy community, rejecting undesirables, just like an
2695:, given the behavioral similarities with certain editors involved in the COVID-19 origins topic, which RC duly closed. I though El_C might be a good candidate to lead this investigation, after he lifts the questionable tbans on
4247:
individual administrators are able to force their own positions on disputed topics. I do not see how changing the existing GS into DS will be at all helpful.--the same questions of arbitrary enforcement are present for both.
873:
1862:
tenure, I don't know how confidently I'm able to advise on that, but for now, my immediate impulse would be against the Committee enacting (or even proposing) it by motion, though I do feel it is within the Committee's remit.
3757:. This may be a special case of COI editing, though I am not sure if/how our community policies and procedures are equipped to handle it. A decision from the ArbCom could be one of the few solutions that are still feasible.
1947:
Thank you very much for your help back in february, you didn't "mishandle" anything. You helped me make it end when I was in my (let's say more intense) phase and wasn't really liking how I was being treated as a conspiracy
2489:
974:
While there are already community sanctions, these aren't effective; few seem to have the patience and the energy to report offenders to relevant noticeboard, even fewer admins seem to have the courage to take actions.
5543:
5519:
4092:
Conclusions: A cardinal problem is that we do not have a balanced and neutral article on the laboratory hypothesis (which includes all incidences as far all possibilities !). Another cardinal problem is this implicit
425:
4501:
2898:
and the designation really does seem subjective. Hoping that could help clarify why I (and likely others) are a bit confused with the designations- particular with respect to what was covered in the RfC. Thanks all!
883:
5350:
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
2251:
respect, but I also feel that some soul-searching is due in this regard. And they are not the only ones to advance this (or similar) stance, I'd stress. Let's not have this debate limited to aimless cross-currents.
1131:
I've made my comments at the RfC and as you can see I'm not arguing for the proposed, overly broad question, so I fail to see how this is an attempt to have ArbCom impose a restriction which I'm not even supporting
5278:
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the
3369:
This really should be in a community discussion section on the motion, but the Clerks haven't (yet) made on - currently we can only discuss through statements, which i know is not ideal plus the word count issues.
3303:
I remember reading that precedent now, I'm not sure I agree with it, but obviously it's there - however, the "possible to remove" bit doesn't render #2 moot. If #1 was a no, it would still need to be determined if
2642:(deleted diff 02:06, 26 May 2021). RC can often be found on admin talk pages, helping out with odd jobs, and sometimes peppering in a few reports on any new IP or user whose POV on COVID-19 origins he doesn’t like
2616:, a group of scientists and activists who base their operations Twitter. This is why I asked ToBeFree if he had been contacted offwiki when banning Gimiv. RC throws around this Twitter canvassing accusation a LOT
1450:
Empiricus' rambling, gratuitous accusations should not be allowed to slide simply because this is an ArbCom page. As to his misinterpretation of my position regarding sourcing, it's even more bizarre in light of
5388:
request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
5245:
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
3026:
The onus is on the people claiming the consensus has changed to prove that - simply saying "peer review isn't fast" is not proof that the consensus has changed. Precisely why we need MEDRS here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez
4756:
better handled by the committee. I'm certainly not going to vote to accept a case on every instance of disruptive editing on the origins of COVID-19 in the last year. Please better contextualize the dispute.
4632:, which in retrospect did not really lead to anything positive. I think the committee should reject it. Unfortunately some topics are just inherently contentious and editing in them will always be fraught. –
2499:
2464:
1727:
1276:
1073:, archived without a close or any action taken), I'm not sure if that would be sufficient. There is definitively scope for some clarifications regarding application of sourcing policies (which, as I argue,
2792:'s complaint about your tban of Feynstein and I 100% agree it was disgrace. You may not have known about the bullying that made Feynstein request take the tban upon himself, but SS gave you a diff to read
2266:
1806:
2504:
3781:
How I ended up being topic banned for 3 months was precisely because I spent substantial time and efforts "discussing" with "experienced" editors like you on that talk page. As I have alluded to above,
4835:
I have been spending the morning reading through the links provided by RC that dispute resolution has been tried. Having gone down the list and just read Biomedical information are there any diffs of
2474:
5471:(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the
5206:(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the
2984:, leading to time waste and frustration among those of us attempting to fight it. I'd further like to see ArbCom take action with regards to the woeful attempt by some in the community to attempt to
953:
has been hit by a viral infection which has spread all across. This has lead to much constructive, spirited efforts here to cover this emerging topic with great accuracy and great diligence on-wiki.
3920:
absent any attempts at enforcement. I fail to see how adding the bureaucracy of arbitration will improve that situation: the solution is for administrators to enforce the existing sanctions regime.
4441:, but without any definite consensus. In my view, all political aspects of this, like claims by politicians, beliefs, and even purely biological aspects (such as evolution of the virus) etc. would
3463:
This matter has become highly politicized in the US, which, to my way of thinking, situates it under AP2. So apply DS to this topic under AP2 and be done. I would also suggest than an RfC over at
3255:
So the issues/problems aren't really disputable, except to scale (which, I concede, is a fundamental and crucial question). However there are really two questions as to what ARBCOM should do here
4106:
4039:
3709:
efforts to enforce a "scientific" orthodoxy that is, among its other faults, inconsistent with the nature of science, which is an intellectually open-minded search for truth. As DGG says, the
4782:
4079:" in the WSJ - already last year ! It´s only internal report but certainly scientifically based from a serious research institution. The possibility of the Lab-Hypothesis is logical based on
3545:
868:
1728:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1020679801#Proposal:_Extended-confirmed_protect_Talk:COVID-19_misinformation_indefinitely
3669:
ArbCom sanctions. Another less difficult part of this case may be identifying any particularly disruptive editors who can be sanctioned directly rather than left to general sanctions.
2277:
Anyway, briefly: I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "double evidentiary threshold." In any case, I'm happy to discuss this further with you in a forum of your choosing. Best regards,
1606:
1600:
933:
4598:
here on the editor for opening yet another discussion and instead have all the experienced editors here on this noticeboard see we are all listening to a sealion yelping. Just yesterday
2750:
who are willing to own up to their mistakes, and fairly and transparently enforce policy going forward. It's worth noting that editors have never taken their differences through WP:DR.
4673:
might want to have within the next year (or with some expiration date) will include the ability of admins to use DS for the RfC and its results. And leave the rest to the community. --
2413:
5451:(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
5252:
5186:(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
4516:. If policies would make such a review difficult, then it would make sense for arbitration to be the right venue, and taking this case may make sense for the sake of due process, but
4018:
apply our rules correctly. Editors who use our rules to cement their opinion (“the truth” without evidence, we don’t ‘have until now!!!) should be taken out of the game for a time.--
2323:
Re SoWhy: Due to the current staffing issues of AE, I'm sceptical that opening it up as a venue will make a meaningful difference. It's at a point where one is better off trying ANI.
1885:. Thank you for sharing your perspective, eloquently and substantively. I find the reasoning behind your position, which I feel largely expands and expounds my own, quite compelling.
2442:
2370:
2355:
5408:
2165:
You have been sanctioned due to having repeatedly speculated on editors' nationality and related language-proficiency in connection with a dispute involving the COVID19 topic area (
1666:
from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community. The user has since been indefinitely blocked by ArbCom.
2655:
1790:
2139:. I didn't have time to look further into it. Feynstein seems to have been in genuine distress, so I granted their request for a voluntary restriction. That's all there is to it.
1003:
You're certainly aware of the existing sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing; and that is definitively a conduct issue where ArbCom could impose tighter restrictions to discourage
4485:
2707:, but since his post below indicates his POV was a factor in at least one of his tbans, I would nominate someone else. In the meantime, admins and arbitrators are reminded that
4384:
4060:
2806:
As for ScrupulousScribe, you reinstated a topic ban on him without explaining why, thinking that the earlier topic ban by Boing justified your action. But it did not. That is
4654:
worded, partly because there are strong political interests that influence some editors' views and get in the way of reaching consensus (including some conspiracy theories).
4135:
RC - How you operate regarding sources is a core problem for many editors. I have not found your ping in "Knowledge talk:Biomedical information" - but I have answered you in
986:
towards science; and that, finally, our purpose, nay, our duty to our readers is to provide them with factual, neutral, verifiable content based on the best sources we have.
2494:
1194:
Answered (in too much detail) on your talk page. TLDR: to the question "do we need MEDRS for this topic"? it's "we don't need them, but we prefer them if available" (IMHO)
1070:
608:
4148:
4122:
3857:
On the other hand, a result assisting those seeking to write content reflecting the best available WP:RS would risk severely demoralising our valuable pro science editors.
5491:
5468:(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
5203:(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
4585:
on the issue of the anti-lab leak theory. The user deserves a T-Ban. The massive quantity of edits on the subject makes me wonder if the user is a paid editor or just has
2480:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#Are_New_York_Magazine_and_Infection_Control_Today_reliable_sources_for_the_idea_that_COVID-19_leaked_from_a_Chinese_lab?
1354:
294:
3732:
2399:
2332:
1044:
This is about long-term behaviour (not necessarily by you, but by some others) which includes harassment, other behavioural issues; and much needless, massive timesinks.
4344:
3425:
3821:, accompanied by their seemingly unconventional use of rollback) against a variety of other users, making the editing environment truly tough. As for your speculation,
3130:
possible solution could be to take over the existing GS as ArbCom DS by motion without needing a full case. This would open up AE as a place to report violations. SoWhy
1489:
1468:
1445:
1417:
1399:
1370:
1346:
1310:
1292:
1226:
1207:
1182:
1149:
1119:
1090:
1057:
5308:
4102:
878:
470:
331:
163:
4460:
4403:
4203:
have abused their admin tools, which are only now being recognised and rectified"?. I mean, it's a pretty sad sneer, a clear example of uncollegiality on the part of
3520:
1297:
In addition, creating a centralised noticeboard for COVID (or using the existing Wikiproject page for this) might be a solution to the "repetitive discussions" part.
3532:
another (i.e. the same people tend to comment in them to make more or less the same points). On a contentious subject, where any possible article content would have
2988:
the quality of sources permitted in the area by saying that somehow the origin of an ongoing pandemic (which hasn't even finished being investigated) is somehow not
1838:— that seems off to me. On the flip side, of course, pursuit of better balance should not give license to pro-lab leak theory activism (quite a challenge, then).
662:
3745:
I argued a while ago (before I was banned from touching this topic for 3 months) that some editors' behavior (including that of one of the requesters, as recent as
3054:
3036:
3021:
1260:
3409:
3387:
3360:
3339:
3317:
5445:
5124:
2166:
1791:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&type=revision&diff=1026360790&oldid=1026348215&diffmode=source#Grievances_and_questions
1069:
That would be a decent step, but considering that even some issues which are actually already under AC/DS seem to provoke little appetite among AE regulars (see
96:
4451:
Part #2 is necessary because this is main reason for disagreements and conflicts. Things like that could be decided by your discussions and by making a motion.
4027:
3591:
seem to now think it's worth investigating. I don't think that an arbitration case request page is the proper place to argue about whether it is true or false.
3870:
2807:
1268:
4971:
4953:
4919:
4893:
4871:
4849:
4830:
4604:
4438:
3681:
3556:
3148:
2890:
2842:
2310:
2102:
1996:
4068:
2459:
325:
5092:
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
3835:
3796:
2909:
2877:
2830:
1818:
1780:
1765:
1473:
1032:
1515:
964:
961:
908:
5025:
4993:
4982:
What I'm most interested in hearing about is: are the COVID GS working? Is there a compelling reason that we need to take this on and maybe institute DS?
4409:
4370:
3504:
3244:
3218:
1425:
4812:
3467:
that's broadly advertised could very well solve the content dispute at the heart of this matter, and thereby address a lot of the behavioral complaints.
3484:
3005:
1326:
as an appropriate section title, nor can I understand why you started editing these articles without taking part in the existing talk page discussions (
5421:
4736:
3068:
under AC/DS already. As noted above, this particular aspect is too specific, but if there are simar problems in other areas (of course there are) then
734:
5073:
3288:
1327:
1213:
some editors (in addition to arguing about the "vested interests" of the scientific establishment - déjà vu, anyone?), but that's another discussion.
5049:
5010:
3948:
2669:
and the DRASTIC cabal are nowhere to be found. There is just that one guy who doesn't even know how to !vote. Many of the voters there are voting to
289:
4682:
4660:
I said it before, in ArbCom's RfC about DS, and I'll say it again now. One of Knowledge's real successes in resolving a conflict just like this was
4617:
4564:
4549:
4529:
4347:
disagrees with the popular press. This is confusing to our editors, and it is a situation where our policies do not provide crystal clear guidance.
3996:
3931:
3603:
3453:
2799:
2281:
2212:
2184:
2143:
2115:
2075:
2050:
1962:
1102:
I considered putting the title in as simply "COVID-19", but I haven't first hand experienced disruption in other areas (the closest I've come to is
5483:
5461:(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the
5216:
5196:(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the
2796:
918:
414:
321:
117:
109:
5535:. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.
4305:
4284:
3823:
I think the purpose of that complaint was to cast aspersions on RandomCanadian and maybe muddy the waters, or stack the deck, before a case starts
3634:
3137:
2564:
4962:
convert. I understand a case is time consuming compared to a motion, but I also think it's more in line with our explicit and implicit mandates.
4204:
4003:
2822:
2768:
2513:
2429:
2205:
2132:
2090:
2060:
1992:
893:
765:
3767:
2854:
2776:
1746:
944:
4789:
3440:
rhetorical tricks will just lead to pointless arguments and wiki-lawyering behind the scenes. I see from comments above that the suggestion of
1905:, you'll see that the lion's share of my COVID-19 GS admin actions were back in March 2020. Also, a bit of a boast: I'm also the one who first
1012:
4643:
4338:
3489:
3191:
2625:
2623:
2621:
2305:
928:
4786:
3983:
3965:
3882:
3818:
3814:
3810:
3419:
2485:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Subtle_vandalism_and_a_possibly_more_serious_issue_of_conduct_by_User:Thucydides411
2422:
Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire.
1686:
1546:
1533:
1520:
263:
4216:
4182:
3991:
3973:
3458:
2965:
2960:
2619:
2617:
2604:
on their user page, has succeeded in persuading several admins that all the IPs and new user that sign up to complain about the significant
2454:
923:
3119:
3088:
2666:
1901:, for sure. And thanks for elaborating further. You raise important issues, I think. Again, I'm listed as a party here, but if you look at
1633:
4705:
4136:
4067:. There is no "scientific" evidence for any hypothesis and to exclude any possibility ! For possibilities, we distinguish logical (in the
3629:
3250:
113:
2948:
2944:
2894:
1916:
1133:
1074:
1008:
728:
526:
283:
128:
106:
4648:
4569:
4534:
4491:
4076:
3895:
3584:
3186:
2256:
2019:
1977:
1892:
1867:
5472:
5297:
5207:
4884:
float other alternatives. Before voting to accept I'd want to make sure that the parties are the right parties if we do open the case.
3909:
3874:
3750:
2682:
1588:
463:
364:
316:
254:
173:
101:
4332:
4262:
3123:
2734:
Despite RC's efforts and reverts, the NPOV issues with our coverage of COVID-19 origins have improved significantly, thanks mainly to
4251:
reason for the general community to work towards a change in arbitration policy and also in the power of individual administrators.
3104:
3073:
1951:
1716:
279:
4006:) - is a curiosity for me and other editors. The request can only be understood in a way that any change of the articles reflecting
3740:
2836:
2448:
1497:
3754:
3495:
I think, be a better response. I would hope that subsuming the community GS could be done via motion and not require a full case.
2040:
390:
259:
4622:
2287:
3873:, as is the fact that the previous apparent scientific consensus against lableak was manufactured in Feb 2020 by someone with an
3548:
linked from the initial post, and what I said there remains applicable. This has indeed been a massive timesink; mudslinging and
1016:
269:
249:
132:
4188:
4158:
3958:
2934:
2470:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Personal_attacks_-_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_by_User:_Britishfinance
5301:
4072:
1680:
1511:
1264:
274:
187:
168:
4687:
3609:
237:
5558:
1627:
1452:
888:
830:
782:
484:
308:
199:
3526:
3154:
3045:
get GS applied at AN(/I) people still seem to think it "hasn't been tried" or isn't shown to not be working. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
1824:
1715:
had been topic banned from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, but I have removed this topic ban, as described in
5574:
5502:
5441:
5176:
5120:
4800:
1485:
1464:
1441:
1413:
1395:
1366:
1342:
1306:
1288:
1256:
1222:
1203:
1178:
1145:
1115:
1086:
1053:
1028:
686:
520:
477:
232:
4221:
4170:
4098:
3746:
1902:
1323:
4725:
3175:
thinks that a possible solution could be to take over the existing GS as ArbCom DS by motion without needing a full case.
2637:
2635:
2633:
2631:
2417:
1797:. Unless there has since been a checkuser investigation, the correct appeal venue in case of severe concerns is probably
1136:
about what does and what does not require high-quality sources quite clear, and I think it's rather common sense, too).
752:
158:
87:
25:
1502:
I had been invited to provide feedback about behavioral issues in this area, by editors from both sides of the dispute:
960:
The specific topic of the virus' origin have borne the brunt of the disruption. I could link to many topic bans; SPIs; (
5557:
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at
2693:
2296:
I would support the imposition of DS as a way of improving the situation and helping head off possible future trouble.
1802:
1244:
980:
437:
3943:
3786:, because "less experienced" editors are "deservingly" getting banned for making edits and improvements to articles.
2972:
1252:
1103:
874:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#IDHT,_thinly_veiled_accusation_and_overall_trolling_(COVID)
758:
740:
3424:
I have edited on this topic mostly peripherally, and with more energy earlier in the year than now. (For example, I
2386:
GS. Resetting the clock on those, as implied by the motion's wording, would be immensely confusing and impractical.
1432:
scientific papers on the subject (which, in this case, does rebut every point of that WSJ fact-free opinion-piece).
4990:
3926:
3905:
3841:
2629:
2627:
1794:
903:
746:
2818:
5372:(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
4729:
4599:
2438:
2425:
2395:
2366:
2351:
2328:
722:
224:
64:
4421:
While doing this, you could define more clearly which aspects of the subject (per your decision) are covered by
1710:
1383:
5343:
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
2575:, but further rectification may still be required on his part. Unless ToBeFree can provide evidence to support
2521:
2068:
2064:
1704:
1657:
1248:
939:
824:
776:
572:
210:
153:
21:
2793:
1698:
550:
5096:
4481:
4456:
3552:
behavior has hardly been limited to one "side", and IPs and SPAs are far from the only people who disagree.
3111:
3080:
2801:, who retired from the incident. I don’t care what you knew then. Read the diffs and reconsider your actions.
1789:, the reason and all evidence available to me is described in my second and third paragraph at the bottom of
1651:
1645:
680:
145:
5240:
538:
5506:
5180:
4714:
4010:
should be seen as disruption, trollery and violation of the guidelines and should be massively sanctioned.
2412:
I would delete the entire provision of (iii). I think the "notifications" thing it refers to is stuff like
2036:
1723:
1692:
1576:
1554:
1541:
1528:
898:
862:
584:
544:
383:
195:
93:
4046:
most what you said.It is better to discuss an uncertain hypothesis than to be silent about a correct one !
884:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#COVID:_SYNTH,_BLUDGEON_and_MEDRS_(moved_from_AE)
4063:(without strong evidence, doesn´t matter where published !) for his non possibility hypothesis, which is
3275:, not more powers, and I don't think adding it DS will add more than a crafted request to the Community.
2293:
treatment and vaccination) a case just on the origin of the virus would also be too specific in my view.
1639:
1594:
1453:"including_non-medical_information_(no-bioinformation)_in_medicine-articles"_(MEDRS-Rule) this discussion
602:
590:
205:
123:
5347:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
5260:
854:
806:
5312:
4778:
4163:
discussions, and there's POV pushing. I think ArbCom should take this case and should set up DS for it.
4144:
4118:
4023:
3373:
2841:
I am also confused by the purpose of this ArbCom request case....is this in relation to the discussion
2434:
2391:
2362:
2347:
2324:
1674:
1330:
717:
710:
626:
578:
532:
244:
5448:, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.
4594:
that we are all witnessing here on the covid pages is absurd and should be put to a stop. I suggest a
2727:. A closed community will reject pathogens but also neutral stuff, and worse, helpful stuff, which is
2505:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive333#Discussion_related_to_data_access_for_deleted_sandbox
842:
794:
5416:
5127:, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.
4097:
as a content guideline (cabal) which is dogmatically advocated here. A third cardinal problem is the
3728:
3677:
1621:
968:
698:
596:
4351:
to what is occurring on Twitter, that there are COI issues, and that BLUDGEON is a frequent tactic.
3672:
ArbCom should accept this case, which involves a complex interplay of policy, conduct, and content.
3060:
2490:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Edit_warring,told_to"fuck_off"_by_Arcturus
1077:, is a complex issue) and possibly preventive measures and editing restrictions to discourage SPAs.
4477:
4452:
2475:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Sourcing_with_Frontiers_Journal_in_Public_Health
1481:
1460:
1437:
1429:
1409:
1391:
1362:
1338:
1302:
1284:
1218:
1199:
1174:
1141:
1111:
1097:
1082:
1049:
1024:
638:
514:
2500:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Editor(s)_encouraging_disruptive_editing
4398:
4365:
3626:
3516:
3500:
3236:
3210:
3128:
This is the right approach to deal with a rotating cast of single purpose, disruptive accounts:
1582:
656:
644:
483:
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the
376:
4113:
which he understands very well but practices reductively. For this we need general solutions.--
3549:
3477:
3050:
3032:
3017:
3001:
1988:
1753:
1169:
I'm not opposed to a resolution by motion if you think that is the most effective way forward.
913:
848:
800:
632:
51:
5166:
5152:
3271:. I don't think adding it to DS will greatly enhance the effect. What it really needs is more
2465:
Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2/Archive_8#Investigations_China_Lab_Theory
4140:
4114:
4019:
3449:
3429:
3405:
3383:
3356:
3335:
3313:
3284:
1898:
1873:
1669:
1404:
Oops, I've just noticed Tinybubi's comment below. Clearly no response of mine is required...
704:
650:
83:
17:
5522:
to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.
2980:
that the vast, vast majority of newer editors wanting to edit in the COVID area have simply
2537:
says, there is also interplay with content, policy and editor conduct. We need an update to
44:
5159:
5145:
5021:
4678:
4613:
4560:
4545:
4525:
4343:
One reason the "COVID-19 origins" topic area generates strife is that this is a case where
3901:
3724:
3673:
3444:
has already attracted some approval, and on balance, it seems like a good idea to me, too.
3330:
Covid-GS given that the case summary is clearly nuanced in the areas it is concerned about
2762:
2534:
2517:
2509:
1616:
1569:
836:
788:
503:
5336:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
2939:
Notwithstanding this request here, I took action as an administrator and in line with our
2651:, and effecting a number of bans for BE and harassment (some of which are questionable).
458:
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
8:
4967:
4949:
4915:
4900:
4889:
4867:
4845:
4826:
4808:
4803:(perhaps already linked above) that AE can't hear COVID related GS enforcement requests.
4746:
4595:
4574:
4110:
4094:
4080:
3776:
3092:
2884:
2862:
2658:
2640:
2567:
2538:
2530:
2136:
2067:), but as I noted in response, I am no longer interested in assisting them at this time (
1507:
1477:
1456:
1433:
1405:
1387:
1358:
1334:
1298:
1280:
1214:
1195:
1170:
1137:
1107:
1078:
1045:
1020:
692:
509:
2643:
1357:. If this was an isolated incident, the solution would be simple, but it sadly isn't...
869:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again
469:
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at
5551:
5137:
4418:
Make it a DS area from Arbcom, which will facilitate reporting and taking any measures.
4389:
4356:
4269:
4056:
3753:)—which I believe was also a contributing factor to my previous ban—originated from an
3512:
3496:
3225:
3199:
2904:
2873:
2850:
2826:
2772:
2728:
2000:
1814:
1776:
1761:
1742:
818:
770:
566:
36:
5455:
5190:
4540:
that has even LESS admin involvement than AN with a worse track record in my opinion.
1933:(I don't actually know that much about it, truth be told). The SS ban, as can be seen
4719:
4638:
4578:
3569:
unambiguously define disease and pandemic origins as a form of biomedical information
3536:
kind of political implication, it's important that we present readers a consensus of
3468:
3433:
3324:
3046:
3028:
3013:
2997:
2981:
2301:
1610:
674:
4799:
capable of handling this, despite what I know to be frustration in at least one ANI
3784:
I am not sure if/how our community policies and procedures are equipped to handle it
1730:, which has been cited as the reason for the current semi-protection of the page by
5515:
5054:
4818:
4772:
4661:
4591:
4212:
4178:
3987:
3969:
3938:
3883:"expert-worshiping values of modern liberalism go up in a fireball of public anger"
3710:
3648:. Controversy is largely but not entirely the result of a disconnect between: the
3560:
3445:
3437:
3401:
3379:
3352:
3331:
3309:
3280:
3259:
Can the current GS/standard community activity hold the line, or not? If not, then:
2956:
2712:
2379:
2262:
2232:
1942:
1859:
2746:. The community will be able to manage on its own, so long as we have good admins
2716:
2557:
have abused their admin tools, which are only now being recognised and rectified.
5532:
5528:
5462:
5197:
5068:
5044:
5017:
5005:
4983:
4910:
editors to take this as any kind of permission to stretch the bounds of decorum.
4701:
4674:
4609:
4556:
4541:
4521:
4502:
one in which an article talk page in the topic area was semi-protected for a year
4493:
4422:
4380:
3979:
3921:
3694:
3662:
3649:
3645:
3623:
3567:. In this RfC, which has been open for less than two weeks, a proposed update to
3564:
2940:
2689:
2609:
2561:
2542:
2003:...? I can't tell. But, regardless, at this time, I'm much more leaning toward a
2951:. I submitted this to ANI for review at the same time, in the relevant section.
5235:
4963:
4945:
4911:
4885:
4863:
4841:
4822:
4804:
4728:
Origins of COVID-19: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/0: -->
4313:
3698:
3654:
3599:
3580:
3541:
3298:
3182:
3145:
3134:
2758:
2645:
2605:
2340:
2025:
2004:
1995:, and not just here, but also, look at their talk page. And in this very page (
1954:). So there you have it. Anyway, thanks for the ping and for adding a critical
1842:
1663:
1550:
1537:
1524:
1272:
1237:
620:
2814:
348:
5568:
4586:
4582:
4509:
4468:
4434:
4426:
4328:
4301:
4280:
4258:
4192:
4166:
4064:
3827:
3788:
3759:
3702:
3658:
3464:
2989:
2899:
2869:
2846:
2724:
2678:
2648:
2546:
2012:
2008:
1810:
1772:
1757:
1738:
1565:
1317:
1189:
1039:
1004:
950:
813:
561:
5486:
which subsequently created and closed this case at 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
3432:.) I share the nominator's concerns and generally find myself agreeing with
3041:
It's striking to me that with all the evidence of how long it takes to even
2315:
As I've been invited to comment: Based on my understanding of the issues, I
352:
4633:
4513:
4425:, or more exactly, what counts as medical/health-related information, i.e.
3878:
3706:
3641:
3537:
2795:. Did you read it? This bullying was by the same people who got SS tbanned
2662:
2297:
1854:
1798:
669:
5378:
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
5225:
2495:
Knowledge:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77#COVID_lab_leak,_yet_again
2420:), they're no longer added as notifications on the GS subpage. As worded,
2416:. But since they're now in the same edit filter log as ArbCom's 'alerts' (
2095:
RC can often be found stalking the talk page of his favorite pocket admin
1929:
Anyway, to reiterate, I haven't really dealt with the lab leak hypothesis
498:
5505:
are hereby rescinded and COVID-19, broadly construed, is designated as a
5340:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
5179:
are hereby rescinded and COVID-19, broadly construed, is designated as a
5086:
4208:
4200:
4174:
3904:, and I note that an indefinite extendedconfirmed community sanction was
3866:
3803:
3262:
Since I don't think ARBCOM can remove GS, would broadening it to DS help?
3166:
I thought Covid was already a AC/DS." More specifically (and per above),
2952:
2674:
2554:
2460:
Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_36#RfC_on_inclusion_of_lab-accident_theory
1609:
had been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about
1561:
1377:
1164:
3869:& others.) That corruption is particularly rife in life sciences is
1106:, but that's not really disruptive, just a somewhat mildly heated RfC).
5058:
5034:
5000:
4878:
4694:
3862:
3616:
3167:
2661:
cabal is the real problem here, and ironically, they’ve just nominated
1786:
1752:
To prevent single-purpose accounts from turning the discussions into a
1064:
5293:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
5081:
4605:
Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins.
2975:
draw little outside attention, and even when the disruption continues
1907:
462:
Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at
4766:
4758:
4520:
the arbitrators suspect that there may be legitimate issues there. —
4196:
4035:
3593:
3574:
3394:
3178:
2783:
2550:
2278:
2253:
2209:
2181:
2140:
2112:
2106:
2072:
2063:
responded to my note on their talk page regarding their email to me (
2047:
2016:
1974:
1959:
1889:
1864:
1731:
1126:
1071:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive286#François_Robere
998:
615:
72:
5311:. If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through
2721:
Knowledge's success to date is 100% a function of our open community
1607:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
1516:
Special:Permalink/1006479035#Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again
934:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
5454:(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become
5189:(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become
4856:
4376:
4323:
4296:
4275:
4253:
4043:
3690:
2982:
been here to push their political POV and not build an encyclopedia
2754:
2608:
issues in our coverage of COVID-19 origins is the crafty work of a
2594:
2407:
2387:
1424:
I have no clue why jtbobwaysf insists on making groundless claims (
350:
1271:(see the edit summaries for the correction); off-wiki canvassing;
992:
Alex // RandomCanadian N.B. the list of parties is non-exhaustive
949:
I don't know where, or how, to start. As you're surely aware, our
2093:
edits their lengthy comment here, to soften the part which read:
2943:, to remove the editing privileges of Tinybubi for 48 hours for
4355:
sources is an important tactic for combatting misinformation. –
2788:
2697:
2613:
2571:
2030:
879:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#CutePeach
353:
5409:
procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision
3713:
is being misused to suppress discussion of scientific inquiry.
2583:
1941:
in the Tinybubi collapsed thread below), was about borderline-
1849:
from me. Such a measure, in fact, would be beneficial for any
354:
4077:
U.S. Report Found It Plausible Covid-19 Leaked From Wuhan Lab
2692:
topic area, I proposed for admins to launch an investigation
4038:
thanks for nice compliments ! I have clarified this further
3555:
The main thing I have to contribute here is in regard to an
1428:), nor why they insist on using opinion pieces when we have
4431:
per your decision and in this specific, narrow subject area
2736:
2639:, and he says he has even emailed ArbCom about this threat
2541:
stressing the importance of equal enforcement of policy in
919:
Knowledge:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2
5411:
adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
5255:
adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
4383:
in the fields of medicine, virology, and epidemiology are
471:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
5458:
for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.
5193:
for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.
2971:
it with a 39.5 foot pole (similar to AP2). Threads about
2753:
I am emailing Arbcom with further comment and copying in
3881:: if lableak is proven, we can expect the scientist and
3877:. In a sense, all scientists have a COI on this. As per
2703:
2455:
Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_35#The_Question_of_Origin
2162:
My sanction to SS (on their talk page right now) reads:
1455:, where he has so far failed to reply (despite a ping)!
4075:
on behalf of the US government, as written yesterday "
3825:, I am confused about it, but can only beg to differ.
2589:
2566:
and grievances I expressed in a more intimate setting
5492:
Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
4379:, with respect, top quality academic sources such as
2742:
929:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again
4730:-Preliminary_decision-2021-06-04T01:57:00.000Z": -->
4726:-Preliminary_decision-2021-06-04T01:57:00.000Z": -->
2577:
2560:
Here is how it started: following an ANI started by
1603:
had been semi-protected indefinitely until deletion.
924:
Knowledge:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Lab_Leak_Again
909:
Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
3916:, and no conclusion can be reached regarding their
1007:. Additionally, if you wish for specific examples,
5518:, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following
5432:and resolved by motion with the following remedy:
3701:, which outranks any guidelines because it is the
5516:2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure
5566:
5253:procedure for the standard enforcement provision
2798:, and nearly tried the same thing with Arcturus
2111:— Okay, I understand what happened now. Struck.
1259:... As I've summarised elsewhere, that includes
4657:Where have I heard something like this before?
1568:policies with the following logged actions per
894:Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
2918:Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors.
2893:and the point you just made about your stance
1793:. The entire discussion before archival is at
1722:I have proposed to extended-confirmed protect
1717:Special:Permalink/1026738150#Topic_ban_removed
1514:, diff gone, search for "radical solution" at
1384:sending off-wiki emails about on-wiki disputes
5428:The case request is accepted under the title
4581:on this subject, and it seems is virtually a
4577:is an abusive POV editor that is engaging in
3160:(shamelessly stolen from many RfA statements)
2569:, ToBeFree corrected his mistake of tbanning
2059:Almost immediately after I posted the above,
1597:is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
1591:is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
1585:is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
1579:is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
384:
5375:(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
3854:whereas the Chinese always tell the truth!"
2688:In another ANI related to disruption in the
1903:WP:GS/COVID19#Log_of_page-level_restrictions
1104:Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Airborne_Transmission
5422:Motion: Discretionary sanctions (June 2021)
3695:the guideline on medically reliable sources
2587:, I ask him to lift the indef ban, so that
3910:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
2923:The following discussion has been closed.
2683:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
1914:about the virus at ITN (on Jan 20 2020) —
1589:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
1333:), and now come right here to complain...
1269:accidental(?) misinterpretation of sources
464:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
391:
377:
5444:are hereby rescinded and are replaced by
5123:are hereby rescinded and are replaced by
3103:done anything untoward :) all the best,
2099:RC can often be found on admin talk pages
2041:Knowledge:Editing restrictions/Voluntary
967:); even one already ArbCom blocked user (
5496:Point (i) of Remedy 1 is replaced with:
5115:Former title: "Discretionary sanctions".
4433:. There was recently a discussion about
1803:Knowledge:Arbitration/Policy#cite_note-1
5531:shall be treated as a reference to the
5313:Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee
4169:, you were complaining, I think, about
3308:to DS would help for it to make sense.
3012:likely isn’t necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
2889:I think the big question in regards to
1277:dealing with dedicated fringe advocates
485:centralised arbitration enforcement log
14:
5567:
5392:functionary blocks of whatever nature.
4414:I think two measures could help here:
4073:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
1958:respectful voice to the conversation.
5559:Knowledge:Arbitration enforcement log
5224:Amended 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by
4061:conglomeration of subjective opinions
4004:laboratory thesis = conspiracy theory
3544:. I stand by my March 2 comment, in
3442:tak over the existing GS as ArbCom DS
3066:the whole of COVID-19 in its entirety
2685:. This cabal wants things censored.
2180:Not sure what is unclear about that.
2105:). I guess that's not a bad thing...
1512:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard
889:Knowledge talk:Biomedical information
5542:Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by
5482:Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstentions by
5315:(or, if email access is revoked, to
3663:medically reliable sources guideline
2600:RC, who proudly displays a big bold
2270:
2247:With respect to Nosebagbear, whom I
1257:Special:Contributions/Francesco_espo
478:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee
446:
164:Clarification and Amendment requests
5473:arbitration enforcement noticeboard
5298:arbitration enforcement noticeboard
5215:Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention by
5208:arbitration enforcement noticeboard
3900:The community has already endorsed
3177:Thank you for that generous offer.
2973:obviously disruptive editors on ANI
2673:, without even merging the clearly
1841:As for absorbing the COVID GS into
957:to reach a solution anywhere soon.
476:General questions can be raised at
31:
5307:submit a request for amendment at
4239:to be political, but just that it
3770:; edited 18:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
3572:adoption of that interpretation.
2821:for the benefit of everyone here.
2545:topics. Several admins, including
2311:Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
1858:lab leak subarea, somehow) to the
1601:Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
1245:Special:Contributions/CyberDiderot
32:
5586:
5529:discretionary sanctions procedure
4739:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
3426:argued for the deletion of a page
3099:should do, not a suggestion that
3095:, that's just my opinion on what
2390:may wish to reword that portion.
2176:El_C 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
2015:) interpretation regarding them.
1253:Special:Contributions/CommercialB
5546:at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
5446:standard discretionary sanctions
5365:For a request to succeed, either
5319:
5228:at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
5125:standard discretionary sanctions
4410:Statement by My very best wishes
3902:community sanctions for COVID-19
2817:. You should help translate the
2813:We have a song in Hebrew called
2271:
1906:
1877:
1560:I have attempted to enforce the
989:Truthfully and sincerely yours,
904:Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology
450:
435:Watchlist case (and talk) page:
71:
5332:Modifications by administrators
3953:(disclosed alt, see talk pages)
2947:. My talk page notification is
2024:Take for example the matter of
429:on 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
3689:I concur with the concerns of
1329:- something they've also been
1249:Special:Contributions/Cowrider
13:
1:
5284:Appeals by sanctioned editors
5097:Contentious topic designation
4109:especially from our collegue
3997:Statement by Empiricus-sextus
3697:is being misused contrary to
5533:contentious topics procedure
5527:Each reference to the prior
5270:0) Appeals and modifications
5219:at 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
4608:is tedious at best. Thanks!
4187:Arbs: what is up with this,
3635:Statement by Robert McClenon
2994:strong sourcing requirements
2593:can restore the contents of
2231:This is another critique of
2039:). So, I did, logging it at
1795:Special:Permalink/1027113433
1724:Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
1577:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
1555:Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
1542:Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
1529:Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
899:Talk:COVID-19 misinformation
418:on 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
407:on 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
295:Conflict of interest reports
7:
5575:Knowledge arbitration cases
5463:arbitration enforcement log
5396:discussed at another venue.
5302:administrators’ noticeboard
5241:Enforcement of restrictions
5198:arbitration enforcement log
3711:guideline on fringe science
2654:As I said in RC’s last ANI
2265:, stop blocking my pings! (
1972:Tinybubi thread collapsed.
1595:Wuhan Institute of Virology
1261:the pushing of poor sources
945:Statement by RandomCanadian
124:Search archived proceedings
10:
5591:
5513:
5503:COVID-19 general sanctions
5442:COVID-19 general sanctions
5177:COVID-19 general sanctions
5135:
5121:COVID-19 general sanctions
5114:
5108:Superseeded version of (i)
4339:Statement by Novem Linguae
3703:second pillar of Knowledge
3659:second pillar of Knowledge
3646:medically reliable sources
3490:Statement by Beyond My Ken
3192:Statement by Deepfriedokra
2028:, which both Tinybubi and
169:Arbitrator motion requests
34:
5320:
5261:Appeals and modifications
5074:14:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
4972:14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
4920:15:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
4706:15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
4149:08:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
3992:15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
3842:Statement by FeydHuxtable
3650:medically reliable source
3459:Statement by MjolnirPants
3410:15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
3388:14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
3361:13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
3149:19:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
2966:Statement by Berchanhimez
2443:18:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
2400:14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
2282:15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
2257:14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
1978:15:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
1490:02:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
5050:23:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
5026:02:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
5011:07:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
4994:04:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
4954:23:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
4894:16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
4872:16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4850:17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
4831:16:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
4813:03:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
4784:01:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
4683:22:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4644:16:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4618:11:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4565:23:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4550:00:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4530:00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4486:23:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4461:22:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4404:00:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4371:21:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4333:00:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
4306:03:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
4285:23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4263:19:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4217:21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
4183:21:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
4123:12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
4107:MEDRS and bioinformation
4028:13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
3974:01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
3949:17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
3932:12:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
3836:22:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
3797:19:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
3768:04:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
3733:03:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
3682:03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
3630:23:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3604:22:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
3585:20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3521:04:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
3505:17:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3485:16:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3454:16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3428:whose creator was later
3340:18:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3318:17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3289:15:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3251:Statement by Nosebagbear
3245:15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3219:15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3187:13:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3138:12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3120:14:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3089:11:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3055:01:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
3037:03:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
3022:16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3006:05:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2961:04:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2926:Please do not modify it.
2910:22:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2878:04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2855:03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2831:21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2777:18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2371:14:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
2356:00:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
2333:10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2306:08:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
2213:21:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2185:21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2144:21:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2116:20:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2109:20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2097:into a far less attacky
2076:19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2051:19:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2020:18:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1963:13:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
1893:15:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
1868:19:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1819:20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1781:18:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1766:18:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1747:03:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1469:21:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
1446:12:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
1418:21:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1400:20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1371:03:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1347:18:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
1324:"Wuhan lab manufactured"
1311:20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1293:20:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1227:13:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1208:01:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1183:21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1150:21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1120:14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1091:14:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1058:03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
1033:02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
863:Prior dispute resolution
5436:Discretionary sanctions
5407:In accordance with the
5386:
5251:In accordance with the
4649:Statement by Tryptofish
4570:Statement by jtbobwaysf
4535:Statement by PackMecEng
4055:With respect, but what
3896:Statement by Ivanvector
3420:Statement by XOR'easter
1785:Regarding the block of
1583:COVID-19 misinformation
1322:I can't seriously take
1017:here some BLP violation
5417:Motions and Amendments
5296:request review at the
3223:and Ched and SoWhy, --
3124:Statement by Jehochman
2990:biomedical information
2179:
1013:here's some harassment
1009:here's some aspersions
940:Preliminary statements
914:Talk:COVID-19 pandemic
5175:1) (i) The community
4069:philosophy of Science
4042:in RfC. I agree with
4008:this new developments
3939:Ivanvector's squirrel
3741:Statement by Normchou
3699:neutral point of view
3655:neutral point of view
3479:Tell me all about it.
3374:ProcrastinatingReader
2837:Statement by CatDamon
2449:Statement by Tinybubi
2435:ProcrastinatingReader
2392:ProcrastinatingReader
2378:I must disagree with
2363:ProcrastinatingReader
2348:ProcrastinatingReader
2325:ProcrastinatingReader
2163:
2043:, per their request.
1726:in the discussion at
1498:Statement by ToBeFree
1243:suddenly appear, ex.
1134:I've made my position
718:ProcrastinatingReader
365:Track related changes
225:Arbitration Committee
65:Knowledge Arbitration
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
4715:Preliminary decision
4623:Statement by Joe Roe
4385:unanimously negative
4345:academic scholarship
3540:, with a minimum of
2977:in the thread itself
2529:This is primarily a
2288:Statement by Alexbrn
1845:, that's an obvious
1506:2021-02-12T23:38 by
174:Enforcement requests
102:Guide to arbitration
4941:community consensus
4478:My very best wishes
4453:My very best wishes
4159:Statement by Drmies
4081:abductive reasoning
4059:has developed is a
4014:reliable sources.”
3959:Statement by isaacl
3908:on 13 February for
3430:blocked for socking
2935:Statement by Daniel
1547:2021-04-22T15:14:24
1534:2021-03-18T07:49:52
1521:2021-03-18T01:44:08
1355:Yet more aspersions
1098:Serial Number 54129
5501:(i) The community
5440:(i) The community
5119:(i) The community
4862:thinking. Thanks,
4688:Statement by Masem
3914:not being enforced
3610:Statement by Atsme
3557:ongoing discussion
2819:lyrics and meaning
2729:autoimmune disease
2717:list of principles
196:Contentious topics
94:Arbitration policy
5507:contentious topic
5402:
5401:
5300:("AE") or at the
5181:contentious topic
5133:
5132:
4765:
4751:I for one am not
4740:
4712:
4711:
4642:
4402:
4369:
4268:Contrary to what
4165:One little note:
4105:) application of
3954:
3705:. We are seeing
3620:
3527:Statement by JPxG
3483:
3482:
3197:Wot 54129 sed. --
3155:Statement by Ched
3070:broadly construed
2581:’s alleged BE as
2512:comment added by
2424:implies that the
2229:
2228:
2177:
2137:volunteer project
1991:when it comes to
1980:
1825:Statement by El_C
1719:, with apologies.
1426:see analysis here
493:
492:
444:
401:
400:
368:
336:
206:General sanctions
154:All open requests
84:About arbitration
5582:
5326:
5324:
5323:
5322:
5266:
5265:
5169:
5162:
5155:
5148:
5104:
5103:
5071:
5066:
5047:
5042:
5008:
5003:
4988:
4904:
4882:
4860:
4791:
4788:
4763:
4750:
4738:
4735:
4731:
4727:
4698:
4636:
4396:
4394:
4363:
4361:
4222:Statement by DGG
4099:totally dogmatic
4020:Empiricus-sextus
3952:
3834:
3832:
3807:
3795:
3793:
3780:
3766:
3764:
3755:"economic" issue
3642:reliable sources
3621:
3618:
3538:reliable sources
3476:
3475:
3473:
3398:
3377:
3328:
3302:
3240:
3234:
3231:
3228:
3214:
3208:
3205:
3202:
3161:
3117:
3109:
3086:
3078:
2928:
2915:
2914:
2907:
2902:
2888:
2866:
2791:
2789:ScrupulousScribe
2745:
2739:
2706:
2700:
2698:ScrupulousScribe
2647:, circumventing
2592:
2586:
2580:
2574:
2572:Empiricus-sextus
2525:
2411:
2344:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2175:
2033:
2031:ScrupulousScribe
1973:
1968:
1967:
1910:
1899:Empiricus-sextus
1881:
1880:
1874:Empiricus-sextus
1853:GS, because the
1714:
1687:deleted contribs
1670:Empiricus-sextus
1661:
1634:deleted contribs
1381:
1321:
1241:
1193:
1168:
1130:
1101:
1068:
1043:
1002:
858:
831:deleted contribs
810:
783:deleted contribs
762:
735:deleted contribs
714:
687:deleted contribs
666:
612:
554:
527:deleted contribs
504:Involved parties
499:Case information
454:
453:
447:
443:
442:
433:
424:Case amended by
393:
386:
379:
367:
362:
355:
334:
290:Clerk procedures
282:
240:
211:Editor sanctions
188:Active sanctions
146:Open proceedings
116:
75:
61:
60:
54:
47:
5590:
5589:
5585:
5584:
5583:
5581:
5580:
5579:
5565:
5564:
5554:
5552:Enforcement log
5538:
5537:
5523:
5514:As part of the
5512:
5511:
5494:
5478:
5477:
5424:
5419:
5403:
5359:Important notes
5318:
5316:
5271:
5263:
5243:
5238:
5173:
5172:
5165:
5158:
5151:
5144:
5140:
5134:
5116:
5109:
5099:
5089:
5084:
5069:
5059:
5045:
5035:
5016:good solution.
5006:
5001:
4984:
4898:
4876:
4854:
4744:
4733:
4722:
4717:
4696:
4690:
4651:
4625:
4572:
4537:
4497:
4474:in such context
4412:
4390:
4381:review articles
4357:
4341:
4224:
4189:"Several admins
4161:
3999:
3961:
3946:
3929:
3898:
3844:
3828:
3826:
3801:
3789:
3787:
3774:
3760:
3758:
3743:
3725:Robert McClenon
3674:Robert McClenon
3637:
3617:
3612:
3550:WP:BATTLEGROUND
3529:
3492:
3469:
3461:
3422:
3392:
3371:
3322:
3296:
3253:
3238:
3232:
3229:
3226:
3212:
3206:
3203:
3200:
3194:
3159:
3157:
3126:
3112:
3105:
3081:
3074:
3063:
2968:
2941:blocking policy
2937:
2924:
2905:
2900:
2882:
2860:
2839:
2787:
2763:Robert McClenon
2741:
2735:
2702:
2696:
2690:Uyghur genocide
2588:
2584:Billybostickson
2582:
2576:
2570:
2535:Robert McClenon
2507:
2451:
2405:
2338:
2313:
2290:
2272:
2225:
2029:
1989:WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
1981:
1878:
1827:
1672:
1619:
1617:Billybostickson
1500:
1474:More disruption
1375:
1315:
1235:
1187:
1162:
1124:
1095:
1062:
1037:
996:
984:, we are biased
947:
942:
865:
816:
768:
720:
672:
618:
564:
512:
506:
501:
451:
445:
436:
434:
430:
419:
408:
397:
363:
357:
356:
351:
341:
340:
339:
328:
311:
301:
300:
299:
286:
278:
266:
241:
236:
227:
217:
216:
215:
190:
180:
179:
178:
148:
138:
135:
120:
112:
90:
59:
58:
57:
50:
43:
39:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
5588:
5578:
5577:
5553:
5550:
5549:
5548:
5525:
5524:
5499:
5498:
5493:
5490:
5489:
5488:
5438:
5437:
5426:
5425:
5423:
5420:
5418:
5415:
5414:
5413:
5400:
5399:
5398:
5397:
5393:
5389:
5385:
5382:
5381:
5380:
5379:
5376:
5373:
5367:
5366:
5345:
5344:
5341:
5334:
5333:
5329:
5328:
5305:
5294:
5286:
5285:
5273:
5272:
5269:
5264:
5262:
5259:
5258:
5257:
5242:
5239:
5237:
5234:
5233:
5232:
5231:
5230:
5171:
5170:
5163:
5156:
5149:
5141:
5136:
5131:
5130:
5111:
5110:
5107:
5102:
5098:
5095:
5088:
5085:
5083:
5082:Final decision
5080:
5079:
5078:
5077:
5076:
5028:
5013:
4996:
4979:
4978:
4977:
4976:
4975:
4974:
4933:
4932:
4931:
4930:
4929:
4928:
4927:
4926:
4925:
4924:
4923:
4922:
4901:RandomCanadian
4792:
4747:RandomCanadian
4732:
4723:
4721:
4718:
4716:
4713:
4710:
4709:
4689:
4686:
4650:
4647:
4624:
4621:
4575:RandomCanadian
4571:
4568:
4536:
4533:
4496:
4490:
4489:
4488:
4464:
4463:
4448:
4447:
4446:disagreements.
4419:
4411:
4408:
4407:
4406:
4340:
4337:
4336:
4335:
4311:
4310:
4309:
4308:
4288:
4287:
4223:
4220:
4160:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4154:
4153:
4152:
4151:
4128:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4084:
4050:
4049:
4048:
4047:
3998:
3995:
3960:
3957:
3942:
3925:
3897:
3894:
3875:undeclared COI
3843:
3840:
3839:
3838:
3799:
3777:RandomCanadian
3742:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3736:
3735:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3636:
3633:
3611:
3608:
3607:
3606:
3563:supplement to
3542:editorializing
3528:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3491:
3488:
3460:
3457:
3421:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3364:
3363:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3264:
3263:
3260:
3252:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3221:
3193:
3190:
3156:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3125:
3122:
3093:RandomCanadian
3062:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3039:
3024:
2967:
2964:
2936:
2933:
2930:
2929:
2920:
2919:
2913:
2912:
2885:RandomCanadian
2880:
2863:RandomCanadian
2838:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2811:
2803:
2802:
2533:issue, and as
2527:
2526:
2502:
2497:
2492:
2487:
2482:
2477:
2472:
2467:
2462:
2457:
2450:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2312:
2309:
2289:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2227:
2226:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2167:permanent link
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2054:
2053:
1986:
1983:
1982:
1971:
1966:
1965:
1926:
1925:
1871:
1826:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1807:the recent RfC
1783:
1768:
1736:
1735:
1720:
1667:
1614:
1604:
1598:
1592:
1586:
1580:
1558:
1557:
1544:
1531:
1518:
1508:RandomCanadian
1499:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1478:RandomCanadian
1457:RandomCanadian
1448:
1434:RandomCanadian
1430:perfectly good
1422:
1421:
1420:
1406:RandomCanadian
1388:RandomCanadian
1382:Since when is
1373:
1359:RandomCanadian
1351:
1350:
1349:
1335:RandomCanadian
1299:RandomCanadian
1295:
1281:RandomCanadian
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1215:RandomCanadian
1196:RandomCanadian
1171:RandomCanadian
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1138:RandomCanadian
1108:RandomCanadian
1079:RandomCanadian
1046:RandomCanadian
1021:RandomCanadian
946:
943:
941:
938:
937:
936:
931:
926:
921:
916:
911:
906:
901:
896:
891:
886:
881:
876:
871:
864:
861:
860:
859:
811:
763:
715:
667:
613:
559:
510:RandomCanadian
505:
502:
500:
497:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
481:
474:
467:
455:
432:
422:
411:
403:
399:
398:
396:
395:
388:
381:
373:
370:
369:
359:
358:
349:
347:
346:
343:
342:
338:
337:
329:
324:
319:
313:
312:
307:
306:
303:
302:
298:
297:
292:
287:
277:
272:
267:
262:
257:
252:
247:
242:
235:
229:
228:
223:
222:
219:
218:
214:
213:
208:
203:
192:
191:
186:
185:
182:
181:
177:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
150:
149:
144:
143:
140:
139:
137:
136:
131:
126:
121:
111:
104:
99:
91:
86:
80:
77:
76:
68:
67:
56:
55:
52:WP:ARBCOVID-19
48:
40:
35:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5587:
5576:
5573:
5572:
5570:
5563:
5562:
5560:
5547:
5545:
5540:
5539:
5536:
5534:
5530:
5521:
5517:
5510:
5508:
5504:
5497:
5487:
5485:
5480:
5479:
5476:
5474:
5469:
5466:
5464:
5459:
5457:
5452:
5449:
5447:
5443:
5435:
5434:
5433:
5431:
5412:
5410:
5405:
5404:
5394:
5390:
5384:
5383:
5377:
5374:
5371:
5370:
5369:
5368:
5364:
5363:
5362:
5360:
5356:
5352:
5348:
5342:
5339:
5338:
5337:
5331:
5330:
5325:wikimedia.org
5314:
5310:
5306:
5303:
5299:
5295:
5292:
5291:
5290:
5283:
5282:
5281:
5280:
5275:
5274:
5268:
5267:
5256:
5254:
5249:
5248:
5247:
5229:
5227:
5222:
5221:
5220:
5218:
5213:
5212:
5211:
5209:
5204:
5201:
5199:
5194:
5192:
5187:
5184:
5182:
5178:
5168:
5167:WP:ARBCOVIDCT
5164:
5161:
5157:
5154:
5153:WP:ARBCOVIDDS
5150:
5147:
5143:
5142:
5139:
5129:
5128:
5126:
5122:
5113:
5112:
5106:
5105:
5101:
5094:
5093:
5075:
5072:
5067:
5065:
5064:
5056:
5053:
5052:
5051:
5048:
5043:
5041:
5040:
5032:
5029:
5027:
5023:
5019:
5014:
5012:
5009:
5004:
4997:
4995:
4992:
4989:
4987:
4981:
4980:
4973:
4969:
4965:
4960:
4957:
4956:
4955:
4951:
4947:
4942:
4937:
4936:
4935:
4934:
4921:
4917:
4913:
4909:
4902:
4897:
4896:
4895:
4891:
4887:
4880:
4875:
4874:
4873:
4869:
4865:
4858:
4853:
4852:
4851:
4847:
4843:
4838:
4834:
4833:
4832:
4828:
4824:
4820:
4816:
4815:
4814:
4810:
4806:
4802:
4798:
4793:
4785:
4780:
4777:
4774:
4771:
4768:
4761:
4760:
4754:
4753:astute enough
4748:
4743:
4742:
4741:
4708:
4707:
4703:
4699:
4685:
4684:
4680:
4676:
4671:
4665:
4663:
4658:
4655:
4646:
4645:
4640:
4635:
4631:
4620:
4619:
4615:
4611:
4606:
4601:
4597:
4593:
4588:
4584:
4580:
4576:
4567:
4566:
4562:
4558:
4552:
4551:
4547:
4543:
4532:
4531:
4527:
4523:
4519:
4515:
4511:
4505:
4503:
4495:
4492:Statement by
4487:
4483:
4479:
4475:
4470:
4467:P.S. I think
4466:
4465:
4462:
4458:
4454:
4450:
4449:
4444:
4440:
4436:
4432:
4428:
4424:
4420:
4417:
4416:
4415:
4405:
4400:
4395:
4393:
4392:Novem Linguae
4386:
4382:
4378:
4375:
4374:
4373:
4372:
4367:
4362:
4360:
4359:Novem Linguae
4352:
4348:
4346:
4334:
4330:
4326:
4325:
4319:
4318:
4317:
4315:
4307:
4303:
4299:
4298:
4292:
4291:
4290:
4289:
4286:
4282:
4278:
4277:
4271:
4270:Novem Linguae
4267:
4266:
4265:
4264:
4260:
4256:
4255:
4248:
4244:
4242:
4238:
4232:
4228:
4219:
4218:
4214:
4210:
4206:
4205:User:Tinybubi
4202:
4198:
4194:
4190:
4185:
4184:
4180:
4176:
4172:
4168:
4150:
4146:
4142:
4138:
4134:
4133:
4132:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4124:
4120:
4116:
4112:
4108:
4104:
4100:
4096:
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4082:
4078:
4074:
4070:
4066:
4062:
4058:
4057:Novem Linguae
4054:
4053:
4052:
4051:
4045:
4041:
4037:
4034:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4030:
4029:
4025:
4021:
4015:
4011:
4009:
4005:
3994:
3993:
3989:
3985:
3981:
3976:
3975:
3971:
3967:
3956:
3950:
3945:
3940:
3934:
3933:
3928:
3923:
3919:
3918:effectiveness
3915:
3911:
3907:
3903:
3893:
3889:
3885:
3884:
3880:
3876:
3872:
3868:
3864:
3858:
3855:
3851:
3849:
3837:
3833:
3831:
3824:
3820:
3816:
3812:
3805:
3800:
3798:
3794:
3792:
3785:
3778:
3773:
3772:
3771:
3769:
3765:
3763:
3756:
3752:
3748:
3734:
3730:
3726:
3721:
3720:
3719:
3718:
3712:
3708:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3692:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3679:
3675:
3670:
3666:
3664:
3660:
3657:which is the
3656:
3651:
3647:
3643:
3632:
3631:
3628:
3625:
3622:
3605:
3602:
3601:
3596:
3595:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3586:
3583:
3582:
3577:
3576:
3570:
3566:
3562:
3558:
3553:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3513:Beyond My Ken
3509:
3508:
3507:
3506:
3502:
3498:
3497:Beyond My Ken
3487:
3486:
3481:
3480:
3474:
3472:
3466:
3456:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3435:
3434:'bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez
3431:
3427:
3411:
3407:
3403:
3396:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3385:
3381:
3375:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3362:
3358:
3354:
3349:
3348:
3341:
3337:
3333:
3326:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3300:
3295:
3294:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3290:
3286:
3282:
3276:
3274:
3270:
3261:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3246:
3243:
3242:
3235:
3222:
3220:
3217:
3216:
3209:
3196:
3195:
3189:
3188:
3184:
3180:
3176:
3173:
3169:
3165:
3150:
3147:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3139:
3136:
3132:
3131:
3121:
3118:
3115:
3110:
3108:
3102:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3087:
3084:
3079:
3077:
3072:is a friend.
3071:
3067:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3044:
3040:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3025:
3023:
3019:
3015:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2995:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2978:
2974:
2963:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2946:
2942:
2932:
2931:
2927:
2922:
2921:
2917:
2916:
2911:
2908:
2903:
2896:
2892:
2886:
2881:
2879:
2875:
2871:
2864:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2832:
2828:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2809:
2808:WP:BLACKSHEEP
2805:
2804:
2800:
2797:
2794:
2790:
2786:, I too read
2785:
2781:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2764:
2760:
2756:
2751:
2749:
2748:like ToBeFree
2744:
2738:
2732:
2730:
2726:
2725:immune system
2722:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2705:
2699:
2694:
2691:
2686:
2684:
2681:content into
2680:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2650:
2646:
2644:
2641:
2638:
2636:
2634:
2632:
2630:
2628:
2626:
2624:
2622:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2603:
2598:
2596:
2595:their sandbox
2591:
2585:
2579:
2573:
2568:
2565:
2563:
2558:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2506:
2503:
2501:
2498:
2496:
2493:
2491:
2488:
2486:
2483:
2481:
2478:
2476:
2473:
2471:
2468:
2466:
2463:
2461:
2458:
2456:
2453:
2452:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2431:
2430:User:Gcmackay
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2409:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2383:
2381:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2342:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2321:
2318:
2308:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2294:
2283:
2280:
2268:
2264:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2255:
2250:
2246:
2240:
2236:
2234:
2214:
2211:
2207:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2186:
2183:
2178:
2172:
2168:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2145:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2117:
2114:
2110:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2077:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2052:
2049:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2032:
2027:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1985:
1984:
1979:
1976:
1970:
1969:
1964:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1913:
1909:
1904:
1900:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1875:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1839:
1837:
1831:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1769:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1718:
1712:
1709:
1706:
1703:
1700:
1697:
1694:
1691:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1679:
1676:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1635:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1623:
1618:
1615:
1612:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1571:
1570:WP:GS/COVID19
1567:
1563:
1562:verifiability
1556:
1552:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1379:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1239:
1234:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1166:
1161:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1099:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1000:
995:
994:
993:
990:
987:
985:
983:
976:
972:
970:
966:
963:
958:
954:
952:
951:pale blue dot
935:
932:
930:
927:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
900:
897:
895:
892:
890:
887:
885:
882:
880:
877:
875:
872:
870:
867:
866:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
841:
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
823:
820:
815:
812:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
781:
778:
775:
772:
767:
764:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
719:
716:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
685:
682:
679:
676:
671:
668:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
617:
614:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
563:
560:
558:
552:
549:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
511:
508:
507:
496:
486:
482:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
449:
448:
441:
440:
431:
428:
427:
420:
417:
416:
409:
406:
394:
389:
387:
382:
380:
375:
374:
372:
371:
366:
361:
360:
345:
344:
333:
330:
327:
323:
320:
318:
315:
314:
310:
305:
304:
296:
293:
291:
288:
285:
281:
276:
273:
271:
268:
265:
261:
258:
256:
253:
251:
248:
246:
243:
239:
234:
231:
230:
226:
221:
220:
212:
209:
207:
204:
201:
197:
194:
193:
189:
184:
183:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
159:Case requests
157:
155:
152:
151:
147:
142:
141:
134:
130:
127:
125:
122:
119:
115:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
92:
89:
85:
82:
81:
79:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
62:
53:
49:
46:
42:
41:
38:
27:
23:
19:
5556:
5555:
5541:
5526:
5500:
5495:
5481:
5470:
5467:
5460:
5453:
5450:
5439:
5429:
5427:
5406:
5358:
5357:
5353:
5349:
5346:
5335:
5287:
5277:
5276:
5250:
5244:
5223:
5214:
5205:
5202:
5195:
5188:
5185:
5174:
5118:
5117:
5100:
5091:
5090:
5062:
5060:
5038:
5036:
5030:
4985:
4958:
4940:
4907:
4836:
4796:
4775:
4769:
4757:
4752:
4734:
4691:
4669:
4666:
4659:
4656:
4652:
4629:
4626:
4596:WP:BOOMERANG
4573:
4553:
4538:
4517:
4506:
4498:
4473:
4442:
4430:
4413:
4391:
4358:
4353:
4349:
4342:
4322:
4312:
4295:
4274:
4252:
4249:
4245:
4240:
4236:
4233:
4229:
4225:
4191:, including
4186:
4164:
4095:WP:NOLABLEAK
4040:methodically
4016:
4012:
4007:
4000:
3977:
3962:
3935:
3917:
3913:
3899:
3890:
3886:
3879:Thomas Frank
3859:
3856:
3852:
3847:
3845:
3829:
3822:
3790:
3783:
3761:
3744:
3671:
3667:
3638:
3613:
3598:
3592:
3579:
3573:
3568:
3554:
3533:
3530:
3493:
3478:
3471:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
3470:
3462:
3441:
3423:
3325:MjolnirPants
3305:
3277:
3272:
3268:
3265:
3254:
3224:
3198:
3174:
3171:
3163:
3158:
3133:
3129:
3127:
3113:
3106:
3100:
3096:
3082:
3075:
3069:
3065:
3042:
2993:
2985:
2976:
2969:
2938:
2925:
2840:
2767:
2752:
2747:
2737:Bakkster Man
2733:
2720:
2708:
2687:
2670:
2663:Drastic Team
2659:WP:NOLABLEAK
2653:
2601:
2599:
2559:
2539:WP:ADMINCOND
2531:WP:ADMINCOND
2528:
2508:— Preceding
2421:
2384:
2377:
2322:
2316:
2314:
2295:
2291:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2237:
2230:
2170:
2164:
2135:, this is a
2098:
2094:
2088:
2044:
1955:
1946:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1921:
1915:
1911:
1886:
1882:
1872:
1850:
1846:
1840:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1754:battleground
1737:
1707:
1701:
1695:
1689:
1683:
1677:
1664:topic banned
1654:
1648:
1642:
1636:
1630:
1624:
1559:
1501:
1386:acceptable?
1331:warned about
991:
988:
981:
977:
973:
959:
955:
948:
851:
845:
839:
833:
827:
821:
803:
797:
791:
785:
779:
773:
755:
749:
743:
737:
731:
725:
707:
701:
695:
689:
683:
677:
659:
653:
647:
641:
635:
629:
623:
605:
599:
593:
587:
581:
575:
569:
557:filing party
556:
547:
541:
535:
529:
523:
517:
494:
457:
438:
423:
421:
413:Case closed
412:
410:
404:
402:
5561:, not here.
5304:("AN"); and
5236:Enforcement
5055:Nosebagbear
4819:Nosebagbear
4720:Clerk notes
3867:Thomas Kuhn
3707:tendentious
3546:this thread
3402:Nosebagbear
3380:Nosebagbear
3353:Nosebagbear
3332:Nosebagbear
3310:Nosebagbear
3281:Nosebagbear
2713:Jimbo Wales
2426:alert given
2380:Nosebagbear
2263:Nosebagbear
2245:responsive.
2233:Nosebagbear
2169:). That is
2011:(by way of
2001:WP:INVOLVED
1805:, but with
639:protections
585:protections
405:Case opened
129:Ban appeals
107:Noticeboard
45:WP:ARBCOVID
5279:Committee.
5160:WP:COVIDCT
5146:WP:COVIDDS
5018:Beeblebrox
4986:CaptainEek
4801:discussion
4795:community
4675:Tryptofish
4610:Jtbobwaysf
4579:WP:SEALION
4557:PackMecEng
4542:PackMecEng
4522:Mikehawk10
4494:Mikehawk10
3980:Beeblebrox
3978:Regarding
3922:Ivanvector
3871:well known
3863:Max Planck
3846:Recommend
3693:as to how
3446:XOR'easter
3306:converting
2562:Jtbobwaysf
2317:personally
1811:~ ToBeFree
1773:~ ToBeFree
1758:~ ToBeFree
1739:~ ToBeFree
1705:block user
1699:filter log
1652:block user
1646:filter log
1611:canvassing
1265:deliberate
849:block user
843:filter log
801:block user
795:filter log
753:block user
747:filter log
705:block user
699:filter log
651:page moves
597:page moves
545:block user
539:filter log
335:(pre-2016)
322:Statistics
255:Procedures
5317:arbcom-en
5138:Shortcuts
4964:Barkeep49
4946:Barkeep49
4912:Barkeep49
4886:Barkeep49
4864:Barkeep49
4842:Barkeep49
4823:Barkeep49
4805:Barkeep49
4662:WP:GMORFC
4592:WP:BATTLE
4314:Barkeep49
4171:this edit
4141:Empiricus
4115:Empiricus
3561:WP:BIOMED
3299:Barkeep49
3146:Jehochman
3135:Jehochman
3064:Just put
2815:Knowledge
2759:Doc James
2704:Feynstein
2341:Barkeep49
2045:Anyway...
2026:Feynstein
1987:A lot of
1943:WP:OUTING
1922:/self bow
1860:WP:500-30
1809:in mind.
1711:block log
1658:block log
1551:CutePeach
1538:CutePeach
1525:CutePeach
1238:Barkeep49
855:block log
807:block log
759:block log
711:block log
645:deletions
591:deletions
551:block log
415:by motion
260:Elections
37:Shortcuts
5569:Category
5430:COVID-19
5087:Remedies
4630:Medicine
4423:WP:MEDRS
4193:ToBeFree
4167:Normchou
3830:Normchou
3791:Normchou
3762:Normchou
3691:User:DGG
3565:WP:MEDRS
3273:eyeballs
2870:CatDamon
2847:CatDamon
2823:Tinybubi
2769:Tinybubi
2671:Redirect
2667:deletion
2610:WP:CABAL
2602:Fuck off
2547:ToBeFree
2543:WP:GCONT
2522:contribs
2514:Tinybubi
2510:unsigned
2206:Tinybubi
2133:Tinybubi
2091:Tinybubi
2061:Tinybubi
2007:than an
1993:Tinybubi
1948:theorist
1887:Respect.
1681:contribs
1628:contribs
1566:civility
1486:contribs
1465:contribs
1442:contribs
1414:contribs
1396:contribs
1367:contribs
1343:contribs
1318:Normchou
1307:contribs
1289:contribs
1223:contribs
1204:contribs
1190:CatDamon
1179:contribs
1146:contribs
1116:contribs
1087:contribs
1054:contribs
1040:CatDamon
1029:contribs
825:contribs
814:CatDamon
777:contribs
766:Tinybubi
729:contribs
681:contribs
627:contribs
573:contribs
562:ToBeFree
521:contribs
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
4837:conduct
4518:only if
3848:decline
3559:at the
3164:Support
3051:say hi!
3033:say hi!
3018:say hi!
3002:say hi!
2614:DRASTIC
2612:called
2606:WP:NPOV
2590:Hut_8.5
2418:example
2298:Alexbrn
2005:WP:PACT
1939:edited:
1931:per se.
1843:WP:ACDS
1836:per se.
1353:@Arbs:
1273:WP:FLAT
1263:; some
1005:WP:SPAs
670:Alexbrn
332:Reports
270:History
250:Members
245:Contact
233:Discuss
97:(CU/OS)
5544:motion
5520:motion
5484:motion
5456:alerts
5309:"ARCA"
5226:motion
5217:motion
5191:alerts
5031:Accept
4959:Accept
4790:": -->
4787:": -->
4783:": -->
4759:KevinL
4737:": -->
4587:WP:OWN
4583:WP:SPA
4510:WP:ANI
4469:WP:BMI
4437:, see
4435:WP:BMI
4427:WP:BMI
4227:one.
4209:Drmies
4201:Drmies
4175:Drmies
4137:detail
4065:WP:NOR
3984:isaacl
3966:isaacl
3906:logged
3817:, and
3804:Drmies
3465:WP:FTN
3438:fringe
3179:— Ched
2986:reduce
2953:Daniel
2743:Forich
2679:WP:DUE
2657:, the
2649:WP:SPI
2555:Drmies
2013:WP:CIR
2009:WP:AGF
1912:Posted
1851:active
1801:, per
1378:Arbcom
1165:Arbcom
657:rights
633:blocks
603:rights
579:blocks
426:motion
275:Clerks
133:Report
4879:Bradv
4590:this
4514:WP:AN
4329:talk
4302:talk
4281:talk
4259:talk
4237:ought
4103:wrong
4101:(and
3927:Edits
3619:Atsme
3230:fried
3204:fried
3168:SoWhy
3116:erial
3101:you'd
3085:erial
3061:54129
3043:maybe
2906:Damon
2578:Gimiv
1935:above
1855:WP:AE
1799:WP:AN
1787:Gimiv
1065:SoWhy
439:Front
309:Audit
16:<
5061:brad
5037:brad
5022:talk
4968:talk
4950:talk
4916:talk
4890:talk
4868:talk
4846:talk
4827:talk
4809:talk
4767:L235
4697:asem
4679:talk
4670:only
4639:talk
4614:talk
4561:talk
4546:talk
4526:talk
4482:talk
4457:talk
4439:here
4399:talk
4366:talk
4243:.)
4213:talk
4199:and
4197:El_C
4179:talk
4145:talk
4119:talk
4036:El_C
4024:talk
3988:talk
3970:talk
3944:nuts
3819:here
3815:here
3811:here
3751:this
3749:and
3747:this
3729:talk
3678:talk
3644:and
3534:some
3517:talk
3501:talk
3450:talk
3406:talk
3395:El C
3384:talk
3357:talk
3336:talk
3314:talk
3285:talk
3239:talk
3233:okra
3227:Deep
3213:talk
3207:okra
3201:Deep
3183:talk
3097:they
3047:User
3029:User
3014:User
2998:User
2957:talk
2949:here
2945:this
2895:here
2891:here
2874:talk
2851:talk
2843:here
2827:talk
2784:El_C
2782:Yes
2773:talk
2761:and
2740:and
2701:and
2677:and
2675:WP:N
2665:for
2553:and
2551:El_C
2518:talk
2439:talk
2414:this
2396:talk
2367:talk
2352:talk
2329:talk
2302:talk
2279:El_C
2267:diff
2254:El_C
2210:El_C
2182:El_C
2141:El_C
2113:El_C
2107:El_C
2103:diff
2089:Now
2073:El_C
2069:diff
2065:diff
2048:El_C
2037:diff
2017:El_C
1997:diff
1975:El_C
1960:El_C
1952:diff
1917:diff
1890:El_C
1883:Like
1865:El_C
1815:talk
1777:talk
1762:talk
1743:talk
1732:El C
1693:logs
1675:talk
1640:logs
1622:talk
1564:and
1482:talk
1476:...
1461:talk
1438:talk
1410:talk
1392:talk
1363:talk
1339:talk
1303:talk
1285:talk
1267:and
1219:talk
1200:talk
1175:talk
1142:talk
1127:JPxG
1112:talk
1083:talk
1075:here
1050:talk
1025:talk
999:L235
969:here
837:logs
819:talk
789:logs
771:talk
741:logs
723:talk
693:logs
675:talk
621:talk
616:El_C
567:talk
533:logs
515:talk
326:Talk
317:Talk
284:Talk
264:Talk
118:Talk
88:Talk
26:Case
5007:Why
4908:any
4857:DGG
4764:aka
4634:Joe
4600:WSJ
4512:or
4443:not
4377:DGG
4324:DGG
4297:DGG
4276:DGG
4254:DGG
4139:.--
4044:DGG
3269:But
3172:Yes
3091:Yo
2901:Cat
2765:.
2755:DGG
2731:.
2719:is
2715:'s
2711:on
2428:to
2408:BDD
2388:BDD
2171:not
2071:).
1956:and
1847:yes
1662:is
1553:at
1549:by
1540:at
1536:by
1527:at
1523:by
1510:at
1488:)
1467:)
1444:)
1416:)
1398:)
1369:)
1345:)
1309:)
1291:)
1225:)
1206:)
1181:)
1148:)
1118:)
1089:)
1056:)
1031:)
982:yes
663:RfA
609:RfA
200:Log
5571::
5509:.
5475:.
5465:.
5361::
5327:).
5210:.
5200:.
5183:.
5070:🍁
5046:🍁
5024:)
5002:So
4970:)
4952:)
4918:)
4892:)
4870:)
4848:)
4829:)
4811:)
4797:is
4781:)
4704:)
4681:)
4616:)
4563:)
4548:)
4528:)
4484:)
4459:)
4429:,
4331:)
4304:)
4283:)
4261:)
4241:is
4215:)
4195:,
4181:)
4147:)
4121:)
4111:RC
4026:)
3990:)
3972:)
3955:)
3947:)
3941:(/
3930:)
3924:(/
3813:,
3731:)
3680:)
3627:📧
3624:💬
3594:jp
3575:jp
3519:)
3503:)
3452:)
3408:)
3386:)
3359:)
3338:)
3316:)
3287:)
3185:)
3170:,
3107:——
3076:——
3053:)
3035:)
3020:)
3004:)
2959:)
2876:)
2853:)
2829:)
2775:)
2757:,
2709:#1
2549:,
2524:)
2520:•
2441:)
2398:)
2369:)
2354:)
2331:)
2304:)
2269:)
2249:do
1924:).
1876::
1817:)
1779:)
1764:)
1745:)
1572::
1484:/
1463:/
1440:/
1412:/
1394:/
1365:/
1341:/
1305:/
1287:/
1279:.
1255:;
1251:;
1247:;
1221:/
1202:/
1177:/
1144:/
1114:/
1085:/
1052:/
1027:/
1015:;
1011:;
555:,
5063:v
5039:v
5020:(
4991:⚓
4966:(
4948:(
4914:(
4903::
4899:@
4888:(
4881::
4877:@
4866:(
4859::
4855:@
4844:(
4825:(
4817:@
4807:(
4779:c
4776:·
4773:t
4770:·
4762:(
4749::
4745:@
4702:t
4700:(
4695:M
4677:(
4641:)
4637:(
4612:(
4559:(
4544:(
4524:(
4480:(
4455:(
4401:)
4397:(
4388:–
4368:)
4364:(
4327:(
4300:(
4279:(
4257:(
4211:(
4177:(
4143:(
4117:(
4083:.
4022:(
3986:(
3968:(
3951:(
3806::
3802:@
3779::
3775:@
3727:(
3676:(
3600:g
3597:×
3581:g
3578:×
3515:(
3499:(
3448:(
3404:(
3397::
3393:@
3382:(
3376::
3372:@
3355:(
3334:(
3327::
3323:@
3312:(
3301::
3297:@
3283:(
3241:)
3237:(
3215:)
3211:(
3181:(
3162:"
3114:S
3083:S
3049:/
3031:/
3027:(
3016:/
3000:/
2955:(
2887::
2883:@
2872:(
2865::
2861:@
2849:(
2825:(
2810:.
2771:(
2516:(
2437:(
2410::
2406:@
2394:(
2365:(
2350:(
2343::
2339:@
2327:(
2300:(
2101:(
2035:(
1950:(
1937:(
1920:(
1813:(
1775:(
1760:(
1741:(
1734:.
1713:)
1708:·
1702:·
1696:·
1690:·
1684:·
1678:·
1673:(
1660:)
1655:·
1649:·
1643:·
1637:·
1631:·
1625:·
1620:(
1613:.
1480:(
1459:(
1436:(
1408:(
1390:(
1380::
1376:@
1361:(
1337:(
1320::
1316:@
1301:(
1283:(
1240::
1236:@
1217:(
1198:(
1192::
1188:@
1173:(
1167::
1163:@
1140:(
1132:(
1129::
1125:@
1110:(
1100::
1096:@
1081:(
1067::
1063:@
1048:(
1042::
1038:@
1023:(
1001::
997:@
965:2
962:1
857:)
852:·
846:·
840:·
834:·
828:·
822:·
817:(
809:)
804:·
798:·
792:·
786:·
780:·
774:·
769:(
761:)
756:·
750:·
744:·
738:·
732:·
726:·
721:(
713:)
708:·
702:·
696:·
690:·
684:·
678:·
673:(
665:)
660:·
654:·
648:·
642:·
636:·
630:·
624:·
619:(
611:)
606:·
600:·
594:·
588:·
582:·
576:·
570:·
565:(
553:)
548:·
542:·
536:·
530:·
524:·
518:·
513:(
487:.
480:.
473:.
466:.
392:e
385:t
378:v
280:+
238:+
202:)
198:(
114:+
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
