Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

Clarification request: COVID-19 (July 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shibbolethink
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe. Thank you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
I'd argue that the DS should definitely apply to at least part of the article, and probably to all of it. Since part of the page directly addresses COVID-19, any edits to those parts are certainly. My experience with partially-covered ARBPIA articles (seemingly referred to as related content as opposed to primary article) suggests that there is a template that could be adapted for COVID DS. That said, even parts of this article that don't explicitly mention COVID-19 may be edited by Wikipedians and interpreted by readers in the context of speculation about COVID-19 origins. The predominance of the talk page discussions mention COVID. Recent coverage of GoFR, even when primarily discussing pre-COVID history or post-COVID legislation or funding, inevitably frame the facts using the current pandemic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should)  be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid,  but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

COVID-19: Clerk notes

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



COVID-19: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would say that yes, since the DS is related to COVID-19 broadly construed and since there is a clear link between gain-of-function and COVID conspiracy theories, that article should be covered by the DS.WormTT(talk) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with WTT that gain of research definitely falls with-in the broadly construed element of this sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's becoming a Covid flashpoint that seems like evidence enough it's about COVID broadly construed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. If the editing is related to COVID-19, the DS applies, even if the article itself is not mainly about COVID-19. Regards So  Why  07:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can conceive of editing related to gain-of-function research without any inherent connection to COVID, but I doubt we're seeing much of that these days. I see this as a flip side of the pseudohistory and pseudoscience issue above—they're not necessarily always overlapping, though in this case, they usually are. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, the direct connection to COVID puts this particular issue (again, as it relates to COVID) under the broad umbrella of the case. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with my fellow arbitrators. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: COVID-19 (October 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Davidships at 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Davidships
The COVID-19 standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. What was intended by "broadly construed"?

There are now hundreds of thousands of pages which mention "COVID-19", including a very large number of biographies of victims, locations where restrictions have been imposed, transport links affected (including cruise and other ships), yet it seems that under 700 have had the sanctions template added. Those do include quite minor mentions, for example MS Aegean Myth. I assume that the sanctions apply to all articles, whether or not the template has been applied to talk pages.

With this kind of article is it necessary for the template to be specifically included?

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

COVID-19: Clerk notes

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



COVID-19: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The same standards apply here as in other DS authorization areas:
 * All pages that are wholly or mostly related to COVID-19 (broadly construed) are fully covered by DS. If only portions of a page are related to COVID-19, those portions (and edits related to those portions) are covered by DS.
 * Anyone can place a ds/talk notice template, but use common sense: if the page is only marginally related to COVID-19 and there's been no COVID-19-related disruption, it's probably fine to omit the template.
 * And yes, regardless of whether the ds/talk notice template is present on a talk page, if a page (or edit thereto) is related to COVID-19, the DS procedure applies.
 * (It might be useful to make a version of the template that is specifically designed for use on pages with only a small amount of related content but that still warrants a template because that related content has been the subject of much disruption – might be something for WP:DS2021.) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of Kevin's comments above. If we make such a template, it could take some inspiration from BLPO. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I neglected to endorse Kevin's points before so let me do so now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record: please fix the amended motion link
Yes, people still come here and read this, and yes, they may still want to follow the links. Unfortunately, this one cannot be followed:

Can someone please supply the actual link? Looks like that was added here by. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)