Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 114

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale Original Ban Appeal (January 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) First modification (16 July 2018)
 * 2) Second modification (18 January 2019)
 * 3) Clarification (10 February 2019)
 * 4) Fourth modification (16 July 2019)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * First modification (16 July 2018)
 * Above


 * Second modification (18 January 2019)
 * Above


 * Clarification (10 February 2019)
 * Above


 * Fourth modification (16 July 2019)
 * Above

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Replacement of the blanked article creation restriction and 1 a week at AFC with the ability to only create current (and recently abolished) civil parishes, recently meaning abolished in 2000 or after. A list of such can be found at User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes, note that it lists about 717 but some are alternative names of settlements and probably don't require separate articles from the settlements so the number would probably be less than 700 so I would be creating about 4 a day which would be plenty few enough to be able to add meaningful content to each. There is also 23 missing welsh communities (the equivalent in Wales) at User:Crouch, Swale/Communities and 3 unparished areas listed at User:Crouch, Swale/List of unparished areas that are included in this request. I also request the removal of the page move restriction but that should be with a 1RR or 0RR restriction. I also request the ability to create redirects and DAB pages. As with the geographical NC ban lift these should be lifted with a condition that if there are problems they can be reinstated in the next 6 months, in addition all the creations can be speedily deleted (providing they don't have substantial edits from others) and the moves be reverted with a bot if there are serious concerns. The reason these should be removed is that I have had a 100% success rate at AFC (one was declined but shortly after accepted when I discussed with the reviewer). I also haven't had many requests at RMT contested and have also received a barnstar for my work with disambiguating 3 digit numbers. I understand that I have had competence problems in the past but I have clearly demonstrated that these restrictions are not needed and reflect my behavior years ago rather than today. So can I please have 1 chance see if these are indeed not needed. Similarly I have been allowed to create other pages since February but not one of the categories has been deleted or even questioned out of the hundreds that I have created.

If you think something else is better I'll provide a list of options below:

With the article creation restriction:
 * A, remove completely
 * B, only allow BUASDs, civil parishes and DABs/redirects
 * C, only allow civil parishes and DABs/redirects
 * D, only allow settlement civil parishes (those are in bold on the lists)
 * E, only allow a certain number of articles (in said classes) such as 1 a day (30/31 a week, 365 a year) and DABs/redirects
 * F, only allow DABs/redirects

With the move restriction:
 * A, remove completely
 * B, remove with a 1RR (or 0RR) restriction
 * C, only allow a certain number such as 1 a day (30/31 a week, 365 a year)
 * D, only allow moves from "Foo (qualifier)" or "Foo, Qualifier" to "Foo" (in most cases this is impossible since something will be at "Foo" anyway).

I still think C with the creation restriction and B with the move restriction is best but if you think we can remove altogether that's great and if you really think tighter than proposed but still looser than current then that's better than nothing. Note that I have looked into having parishes created by bots but I haven't got anywhere with that because I have been unable to put such a suggestion in a way a bot operator can interpret. If such a bot request was successful then that would drastically reduce the number of the (around) 700 needing creating to probably more like 20. If you have any suggestions or questions please do ask/suggest rather than just declining, thanks.
 * see South Huish, Risga and Fulford, Staffordshire for example (all were in my user space).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * as I have explained these are my primary interests on WP so the editing restrictions are a huge problem for me and expecting 6 months is way more than enough time and if you don't want any more appeals you could !vote A A which would mean no more appeals would be needed. I have considrably tightened up my quality and inclusion criteria for articles. See Make stubs and WP:NNH #Focusing on particular processes. As noted if these had have been created by a bot in the early days of WP there would be no basis to delete them, if I didn't have these restrictions there would probably never be consensus to implement them today. Creating around 4 a day would surely work fine and is fully compliant with WP:STUB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * see the contributions to the 3 digit number disambiguation as well as many other contributions to disambiguation outside UK geography. User:Iridescent civil parishes are notable per WP:GEOLAND and as noted at Talk:Castle Hill, Suffolk that unlike ward boundaries they tend to be stable for long periods of time and correspond to natural boundaries. Most CPs have parish councils so are likely to be known by people there anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * those 3 articles surely contain more than enough content and sources to be acceptable. Fulford and South Huish are about both the villages and parishes. For both cases other than "Malborough With South Huish Church Of England Primary School" all of the features are either in the villages or their parishes. This is standard and normal (take a look at municipalities accross the world or other WPs) Halvergate includes Tunstall for example. Ingatestone and Fryerning is an article about a parish containing 2 settlements, Ingatestone and Fryerning.

I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about this, there was a previous thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18.

There is still the move restriction (and similar) that I can appeal, any thoughts on removing that?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * of course I appeal my restrictions every 6 months, which is unfortunately the minimum amount, if we're really not prepared to lift much even after that long wait. It should be more like every 2 or 3 months.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * as noted most of them do indeed have articles and as noted I have now accepted that there are cases where the CP name is an alternative name of the settlement and thus should redirect to the settlement. We have consensus over the years about the others that do currently exist (the 93%) and WP:GEOLAND that says that they should exist which will deal with most of those that don't exist yet.
 * This would be the 2nd chance at creating articles at a faster rate than before. Wouldn't PamD's suggestion of 1 article a day be slow enough so that I can add the other relevant content (other than just the standard such as location, population and name origin). And as noted if there are significant problems I've suggested allowing all the article creations to be allowed to be speedily deleted. Isn't that enough of a precaution? And the request isn't solely about mass creating articles, its also about lifting the page move restriction, which I have suggested with a 1RR (or 0RR) restriction plus that like the article creation restriction that the moves can be mass reverted.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now created User:Crouch, Swale/Settlement parishes which lists current (and recently abolished) CPs and communities that are Ordnance Survey settlements too so failing the suggestion of creating 1 a day (or similar) for all current or recently abolished CPs we could allow only settlement CPs. So if we don't accept that CPs are automatically notable then we could try only settlement CPs, thoughts? The amount missing is 104 so that would to 0.571 articles per day over 182 days, I'm not sure how we would do that but it seems sensible.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there are quite a few at User:Crouch, Swale/CP blacklist that are actually alternative names so the number to actually create would probably be more like 600 (so more like only 6%) and yes you're right that I don't intend to create stand separate articles when the settlement and CP have the same name (except in cases like Scotforth where the CP doesn't include the settlement) and Category:Civil parishes in Cumbria and Category:Civil parishes in Lancashire show many that aren't settlements. I've spent 2 years editing without the ability to create large numbers of articles, and User:KrakatoaKatie please read the comments made by the other 2 editors above, there is some agreement about loosening these rather than just declining.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  11:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * largely the same as Ingatestone and Fryerning, the 2 former parishes should contain info specific on them while info that relates to both (such as the current parish council) and future population figures should be in the "Abdon and Heath" article. See Nuneaton and Bedworth as an example of a district that was formed from 2 unparished areas (the areas of the former Municipal Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban District). Info that relates to the entire district is included there but things specific to either of the 2 unparished areas are included in those articles (or a more specific article still) but in some cases material can be briefly summarized in the current CP article.

Statement by Iridescent
I would also like to see some indication that the creation of ~700 new stubs in this topic area is desirable hits it on the head. In two months it will be 20 years since the founding of Nupedia, and England is not some obscure country where we just haven't got around to full coverage yet. Modern-day civil parishes are a virtually meaningless level of minor bureaucracy which the overwhelming majority of people aren't even aware exist. If you've managed to identify 717 places in England which aren't the subject of articles it's almost certainly the case that an article isn't appropriate, and if you think there's a genuine purpose in creating one article, let alone 700+, the onus is firmly on you to explain why it's necessary we do something nobody has thought worth doing for two decades. The fact that you've repeatedly failed to grasp the point that WP:BOLD isn't a blank cheque and that it's up to you to gain consensus if you want to make a significant change is the reason you keep getting into trouble—there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea. &#8209; Iridescent 20:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Crouch, Swale)
I've just looked at the three example articles Crouch, Swale links to as evidence of what they are asking to be allowed to rapidly create. Risga is about an uninhabited island \which used a mix of imperial and metric units without any conversion (while a UK reader is more likely than average to be familiar with both yards and hectares we are writing for an international audience who would find this unhelpful) and is largely a series of staccato sentences rather than flowing prose. Fulford, Staffordshire appears to be a civil parish consisting of a single village (but this is not clear from the article) and so the article (also full of staccato sentences) is really about the settlement not the parish. South Huish is an article ostensibly about the village and the CP of the same name that also includes two other settlements with articles, but mostly seems to be a prose(ish) listing of things located nearish the village or which have "Huish" or "South Huish" in the name (the second sentence of the Features section is about a school in a place the first section says is adjacent to (not part of) the parish. The remainder of the article contains facts, some interesting, but I'm not sure whether any of them relate to the village, the wider parish, or just happen to be nearby? If these are examples of your best work then you need to improve your writing skills and these articles before creating any more.

Also, as noted by many other people, you need to get consensus for the mass creation of articles first before getting permission to be the one to create them. The only discussion about this I've been able to find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 1 by user:Morwen in late 2005, which was nothing to do with you. Indeed I see only contribution to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography by you, which was a multi-posted message about bot-creating articles about listed buildings. When I found where this was actually being discussed, it seemed you didn't really engage with the feedback you were getting.

All in all I have strongly recommend that this request is declined. I would also suggest the committee consider a restriction that prevents another appeal until after Crouch, Swale has gained consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (or in a discussion an an appropriate alternative location that was advertised to that project) that the large scale creation of articles about civil parishes is desirable, has demonstrated the ability (within the existing restriction) to write articles about civil parishes that have good quality prose and are more than stubs. Any appeal before these have been achieved should be summarily rejected by the first arb to see it without the need to waste the time of the committee and community. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Your replies show you have not understood what people are telling you at all. There is no "time served" criterion for lifting restrictions, it is entirely about whether they are still necessary and your comments here demonstrate they are as you still do not demonstrate and understanding of why they were imposed in the first place. My comments on the articles are not about the number of sources or amount of facts, they are about quality of prose. The articles are confusing and difficult to read and someone reading them should not be coming away with the sorts of questions I did - regardless of whether you answer them or not (which you actually didn't). Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Crouch, Swale already has permission to create individual articles on civil parishes, and I agree that carefully creating articles about them is a good thing - although it is debatable whether he is doing this. This request is to be allowed to mass create several hundred articles of unknown quality. He was originally blocked for disruptively mass creating hundreds of unreferenced stubs about notable and non-notable geographical topics, and then extensively socking to get around the block and continue the mass-creation of stubs. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again you've missed the point. The issue is not whether these should be blue links, everyone (I think) agrees they should be, but whether Crouch, Swale should be allowed to mass create individual articles about all of them. SoWhy's opinion means that there is clearly, at the moment, no consensus that all of them should have individual articles (rather than coverage as part of a different article) so this needs discussion before mass creation by anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * except there aren't articles about 93% of parishes - 93% of parishes are blue links. For example the Cheddar, Somerset is almost entirely about the village with a few sentences about the Parish which also includes hamlets Nyland and Bradley Cross. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes everybody deserves a second chance, but you're missing the point. This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already. This request is solely to be allowed to mass create articles, but there is no evidence the community wants (or indeed does not want) the mass creation of articles about civil parishes (independently of who creates them) - it has not been discussed so this is putting the cart first before even posing the question "do we want and need a horse and cart?", let alone procuring a horse. We all want the creation of quality articles about notable topics, but the evidence presented here is that mass creation by Crouch, Swale would not achieve that aim. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Crouch, Swale creating articles. I have a problem with them, or anyone else, mass creating articles without discussion, and I have issue with the quality of the articles created being too low. This is very much not the right venue to be discussing whether there is or is not consensus for the creation of articles about anything, and if there is what form they should take. In this case the discussion is best had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography where there is more likely to be input from those editors who are not following the discussion about this one specific editor's appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the point is that there needs to be positivie consensus for mass creation before Crouch, Swale requests permission to carry it out. (a) and (b) haven't even been discussed yet, let alone reached consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PamD
Yes, civil parishes are a significant group of entities in England, and worthy of encyclopedia articles. I systematically resolved the red links in Civil parishes in Cumbria in 2016-17 by creating many short articles such as Preston Patrick and Kirklinton Middle. A civil parish has a population recorded in the census, usually a parish council (or occasionally a share in one with adjacent parish(es)), and a list of listed buildings (sometimes there's already a separate article about that), and has significance for its current residents, and for historians studying the area. I don't know the whole background to Crouch, Swale's restrictions, but a permission to carefully create articles on this finite set of well-defined topics seems a sensible step on the route to rehabilitation. Maybe 1/day (plus associated redirects and any necessary dab page creations) for a trial period? Pam D  18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have just found that according to civil parish there are 10,449 civil parishes in England (as of 2015), so the 700 that C,S wants to create are about 7% of the total and if his list is all that are missing we have articles already for about 93%, so that consistency suggests that these 700 should be created. I've made Aldcliffe-with-Stodday just now as it was the only red link in Civil parishes in Lancashire (it only came into existence in 2017). Pam  D  16:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You say SoWhy's opinion means that there is clearly, at the moment, no consensus that all of them should have individual articles: on the contrary, it only indicates that the consensus is not unanimous. I think the existence of articles for 93% of a group indicates a consensus that they are notable, unless you can detect some characteristic which makes the 7% different from the others. Pam  D  23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with Cheddar, Somerset, which covers both the village and the parish (a lot about the parish council). As far as I can see Crouch is not proposing to make two separate articles where a settlement name and parish name are the same, so I don't see your point. I took "individual" to mean "about this parish rather than just including content alongside other parishes in district article or list": are you taking it to mean "about the parish separately from any settlement of the same name"? Pam D  08:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru (re Crouch, Swale)
I have watched this form the sidelines with some bemusement, and I wasn't going to get involved because it seemed a foregone conclusion. For the record though, I completely support PamD's suggestion of a trial period. I wasn't involved in the early history regarding Crouch, and there's no doubt that his behaviour back then fully justified the lengthy ban. In the two years since he's been back on-wiki though, there is nothing to suggest a return to socking or disruptive stub creation. I have mainly encountered him at RM discussions, and while we don't always agree, he knows his sources and can make a well-argued policy-based position. If the missing parish/village articles (and nobody here has actually argued that they don't meet GNG) are created along the lines of the three articles mentioned above, I think that would be a net positive for the wiki. Sure they're short, and the prose could be improved, but Nobody has suggested they should be deleted, and as Crouch says, his AFC creations are generally accepted. The proposal by Pam to allow 1 per day, with a promise to make them substantial, not just one line stubs, and see what kind of output it produces, is an excellent one. I respect you a lot, and I voted for you in the recent ArbCom elections as the kind of quality arbs we need, but I think you've got this one wrong and urge you to reconsider. Everyone deserves a second chance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So if I understand and  correctly, their objection is to Crouch creating articles on parishes where there are already village articles in place? So to take the first example on Crouch's list, which is Abdon and Heath, this is a modern parish covering two villages for which we already have articles - Abdon, Shropshire and Heath, Shropshire. Note that this parish was created in 2017 and was presumably an amalgamation of an earlier pair of parishes covering the two villages.  what would your article for this parish look like? The above examples of South Huish, Risga and Fulford aren't indicators for Abdon and Heath, as they are also villages in their own right. I think if we can establish what form the article would take and what sourcing would be used for such articles, we could make a determination on whether it's really disruptive or useful to create them.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * of course, and I don't disagree with that, but if actually we knew in advance that (a) the articles were all clearly notable and of use, and (b) that they would be of a reasonable minimum size, not just a one-line stub, then all other things being equal I don't think we should object to such a mass creation. Obviously Crouch has history, dating back to their ban in 2011 and the horrendous use of socking that led to it, so this isn't a blank slate. And this isn't my decision to make of course. But, if I were God and I was satisfied that both (a) and (b) would be met for all the articles that are proposed for creation, I would allow them to do so. I personally think it worth our while to consider if that's the case or not. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Crouch, Swale Original Ban Appeal: Clerk notes

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



Crouch, Swale Original Ban Appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * From your past contributions, can you point to a couple of sample articles that would illustrate the format, level of detail, and quality of sourcing of the articles you are proposing? Alternatively, if requested, could you prepare one or two in your sandbox? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Crouch, Swale has provided three examples of the types of articles he wishes to create. The question is whether creation of this type of article is beneficial to the encyclopedia. A couple of very knowledgeable editors have opined that it isn't and explained why, but I'd be interested in knowing a little bit more about this issue, such as whether any of the articles Crouch, Swale has created in userspace or draftspace since the last modification of his restrictions have been accepted into mainspace. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd firmly decline this request and would seriously consider putting some sort of restriction on the frequency of Crouch, Swale's requests. He was banned in 2011 for obsessively creating and tweaking large numbers of UK settlement artiles, leading to sockpuppetry. He was unbanned on 31 December 2017, almost exactly 2 years ago, with some restrictions to slow down those behaviours. I agreed with the unban at the time. In July 2018, he came to us to remove the topic ban, which was agreed. However, things started to speed up during 2019. In January, he requested to be allowed to create and move pages. We allowed 1 per week through the AFC process. I stated my opinion a year ago there - However, I'm not willing to endorse, now or in the near future, large creations of articles by Crouch, Swale - in other words, I do not see me voting for a wholesale removal of restrictions in the next few years. @Crouch, Swale: to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby - I have not swayed from that opinion, despite the tweak in February, the further request in July, and the request at [GorillaWarfare's page last month. Basically I've seen no relent on Crouch, Swale's behaviour. He's still not listening to advice - or rather taking a blinked approach and only listening to the advice he wants to. So, despite his insistence that it's been long enough and that I should not quickly decline, I don't agree and I believe this request should be declined. [[User:Worm That Turned|Worm]]TT(talk) 10:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm note sure how "you could just lift the restrictions and then I would not have to continue appealing them" is really taking into account what has been said. The whole point of the previous restrictions was to ensure some oversight over these creations as well as ensuring that there are not too many creations as to overwhelm the review system or recreate the problems that led to the previous ban. Going from 1 draft per week to 4 per day would be an 28-fold increase. "There have been no rejections at AFC" is not a compelling argument since that might just be the case because they are forced to take your time on each draft submitted. More importantly though, the "tunnel vision" problems mentioned in the previous ARCAs apparently persist. Appealing restrictions every six months like clockwork makes it seem that Crouchm Swale believes that time elapsed and not change in behavior is the relevant factor. What said in the July 2019 ARCA discussion seems to still ring true. Regards  So  Why  18:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also noting that just pointing to WP:GEOLAND does not address either Bradv's or Iridescent's concerns. Even if one assumed that parishes fall under GEOLAND (which is imho debatable since "places" might just refer to cities, towns etc., not administrative entities thereof), notability does not automatically mean there needs to be a separate article for each subject (see WP:N). Before any restrictions can be lifted, there should be prior consensus that creating so many stand-alone articles is desirable. I have not seen any indication for that. Regards So  Why  11:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no clear consensus on the notability of parishes in general and on whether there has to be an individual article on each parish (see Iridescent's and Thryduulf's comments). As mentions, the current restrictions are in place because Crouch, Swale has a history of mass creating articles of poor quality and sometimes questionable notability without prior consultation. I'm not against granting a second chance but imho, there should first be clear consensus that these creations are desirable before lifting any restrictions. Regards  So  Why  12:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion whatsoever on those kinds of articles. I merely pointed out that there seems to be no consensus whether the creations are actually useful and thus there should be consensus first before any restrictions are lifted. Unfortunately, Crouch, Swale does not seem to understand that there are such concerns and shows no willingness to have such a discussion before asking for restrictions to be lifted or indeed have such a discussion at all. Regards So  Why  21:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline. The point of topic bans is to encourage editors to disengage from the problematic topic area completely, and to steer them toward positive contributions in other areas of the project. Highly bespoke sanctions can sometimes have an opposite effect. I could possibly be convinced to relax these restrictions on the basis of positive contributions outside the area of UK geography, but I don't see that here. I would also like to see some indication that the creation of ~700 new stubs in this topic area is desirable. – bradv  🍁  20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline per Thryduulf. Mkdw  talk 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Decline, per WTT. Crouch, Swale, you do not appear to understand the impact your past disruption has caused (a fact I pointed out on my talk page when you instructed WTT and I that 6 months is more than enough time). You seem to be following a tight schedule in which you are trying to whittle away at your restrictions—there is plenty of editing you can be doing while staying within your restrictions, and coming to us so regularly with requests to allow you to perform some new kind of task (in this case, one that is not clearly even wanted by the community) is quickly becoming old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read all the comments here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Crouch, Swale


Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  21:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. (wordsmithing welcome) WormTT(talk) 13:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I've just spent some time reviewing all this and I just don't find the appeal compelling, for all the reasons already stated above by my fellow arbitrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Thryduulf put it well when he said, This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already. Crouch, Swale, you need to spend more time editing productively within your restrictions, and demonstrate that you actually understand why the sanctions were imposed. Appealing your sanction with the intention of mass-creating 700 articles without any kind of prior consensus is not a good step in that direction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) There's a whole bunch of IDHT going on here. Crouch, Swale isn't listening – not to us, not to other editors, not to anyone. There are a whole bunch of things to do within these edit restrictions, and I want to see some evidence they've heard all these concerns and understand them before we amend the conditions further. Katietalk 01:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Per my comments above. –  bradv  🍁  21:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Not convinced that ongoing concerns are being adequately considered.   Maxim (talk)  18:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree with the others. Mass-creating articles in an area in a  situation where  there have been problems is not a good idea.  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 9)  AGK  &#9632;  19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Amendment request: Magioladitis 2 (January 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Magioladitis at 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia.


 * 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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia.
 * Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. He may use WPCleaner except to fix errors marked with "No" in the cosmetic column at WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/List_of_errors

Statement by Magioladitis
Preventing any fixing was never part of the original restriction. It was for the community to judge which edits are acceptable or not. No errors were reported while using WPCleaner. I would like to be able to run WPCleaner from my main account. This not about bot request but using a toll as aid to edit in semi-automated manner the same way I use HotCat. Recall, that semi-automated tools can also be used to do tasks not suitable as bot tasks and that I regularly used to use AWB/WPCleaner as alternative wiki editors in a similar way other editors use Visual Editor. Also recall, that bot AWB and WPCleaner can be run in non-automated way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

WTT I think I covered your comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

AGK I only care for the "Check Wiki project" feature. Not interested in updating talk page warnings. WP cleaner provides features such as suggestions, highlighting, ISBN check which are not part of Visual Editor nor standard wikicode editor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to use WPCleaner to help me with wiki mark-up because of highlighting, editing suggestions and mass loading of similar pages. My task is to improve articles and make changes that affect the visual output of the page. Since, the entire idea of the ban is the prohibit me from making changes that do not affect the visual output, I would like to be able to use the tools in that manner without violating the current rules of editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add though that I am disappointed that the community hasn't determined for more than 30% of the CHECKWIKI errors whether they constitute cosmetic errors or not. It's been two years where no discussion neither action has happened. I will ofcourse stay on the safe side of the board but I wonder what is the opinion of the involved parties on this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:xeno If we go to AN, I would have more requests because my case has various aspects here. It's the editing part and it's the discussing part too. Right now I am banned from both editing and discussing on editing. I understand this as a temporary measure but it's been two years where I am away from onwiki discussions. People who have violated WP:BRD and were edit warring had lighter consequences for their actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I am asking to use WPCleaner to make edits that affect the visual output i.e. "not cosmetic" edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I don't understand why you think this. I stayed away from any editing that would be considered as causing troubles or conflicts. My main contribution to the project for ten and more years was to fix little things. I started editing by fixing redlinks and I continued fixing any kind of small things including ISBN numbers. The latter can be done with WPCleaner in an easier way that is done by browser editor. Moreover, this is not a bot task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the motion. I appreciate it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno
Perhaps would be best to solicit opinions directly from WP:AN, as I believe the remedy took over from previous community restrictions. I agree the break from continually-recurring threads regarding alleged cosmetic edits has been nice. Speaking in my personal capacity. –xenotalk 13:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I said, two-and-one-half years ago, concerning the second ArbCom case involving User:Magioladitis, that it was terribly sad that things were where they were, but that it appeared that Magioladitis was no longer the editor that he had been for the past ten years. He was needlessly pushing the envelope even after after had limits set and being told to observe those limits. Two-and-one-half years later, he appears to be the same editor that he was then, and not the editor that he was twelve and seven years ago. Unfortunately, the most compassionate response by the ArbCom will be to conclude that Magioladitis does not have the competence to use automated techniques reasonably, and so the ArbCom should deny this request. The alternative would be to give him enough rope to tie himself in more knots, which is a reasonable approach for trolls or flamers, but in this case, I urge the ArbCom to deny this request compassionately. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Magioladitis 2: Clerk notes

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



Magioladitis 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , you haven't presented much case for amendment. There have been 2 Arbcom cases regarding your use of automated tools, and the final restriction does allow for you to run bots that have been approved by BRFA. That seems like a reasonable outcome, and I would expect a bit more explanation from you as to what has changed, why you feel the community will not have similar issues in the future and so on. WormTT(talk</b>) 13:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Magioladitis. I'd like to hear from the rest of the community before making any final decision, but see it's distinctly quiet on this request... <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Questions to . What edits do you wish to make using WPCleaner?  Of the features listed at WPCleaner/Bot tools, which would you be using?   AGK  &#9632;  14:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you have been block-free for over two years which is great to see. I am concerned opening this door could lead to a return to the series of violations that occurred in 2016 when you repeatedly tested the limits of your sanctions with respect to making automated and semi-automated cosmetic changes to pages. I had been hoping others from the community would weigh in, especially editors who have been working closely with you and were aware of your past history with automated tools. Specifically, will you be willing to make assurances and agree to a prohibition from making any cosmetic edits using WPCleaner? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your response. Are you asking to use WPCleaner and make changes to articles that do not affect the visual output? <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Recuse. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Magioladitis

 * Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  06:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted - CodeLyoko  talk  06:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Having looked into this for a little while, and considering that Magioladitis has been block free for 2 years - I'm willing to consider a probationary period of 1 year. He may use AWB and the requested WPCleaner during this period, however, if he returns to past disruption the remedy can be quickly re-imposed. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) While I sympathize with Robert McClenon's comments, it is ultimately Magioladitis' decision whether they return to their old behavior. For further clarity, I suggest amending that the prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force regardless of whether the AWB prohibition is permanently lifted or not. Regards So  Why  14:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) With the strong suggestion to follow WP:COSMETICBOT when making any automated edits, and to keep in mind that this is a probation, and can be revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, though I would like to emphasize that you need to be extremely careful while using these tools. You should expect any tool-assisted editing will be closely scrutinized, and misuse or mistakes will likely be met with sanctions being quickly restored. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Beeblebrox. Watch what you're doing, Magioladitis, and take care. Katietalk 01:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) I am willing to support this following the Magioladitis' response. I will note that any violations of the other sanctions will most likely not be met with leniency as these sanctions have been problematically violated, accidentally or intentionally, in the past. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  07:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) I support giving Magioladitis a chance. –  bradv  🍁  21:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) Very cautious support, per all the comments above. I hope we don't find ourselves back here again soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. it's reasonable to see whether ornot there will be problems.  DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Clarification request: Portals (February 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sm8900 at 06:32, 30 January 2020 (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 Sm8900
Can someone please explain this to me?? Why is BHG being given massive new technical roles, immediately after being desysopped? How does this lend credence to Arbcom in any way??

I mean no disrespect to BHG in any way. A penalty was enacted. It should be implemented. Once some time has passed then and ONLY then, we can consider other options.

Here is the expansion in roles available to bhg:

User rights log17:05TonyBallioni talk contribs changed group membership for BrownHairedGirl from extended confirmed user to extended confirmed user, rollbacker, autopatrolled, file mover, template editor, page mover, new page reviewer and pending changes reviewer ‎(Desysop had nothing to do with these. Assigning as they may be useful) —Sm8900 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions to ArbCom
We are going to need more guidance, input, and oversight by ArbCom on this entire area. we already have editors advocating wholesale deletion of portals that have long-standing consensus, before the ink has even dried on the Arbcom decision. May I please ask what mechanism, rulings, procedures, or safeguards exist for preserving some level of manageability for this issue and for editor interactions on this topic, going forward? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Arbcom decision mentions the need for an RfC, or some form of constructive community discussion. is there any way for us to move towards that, or look for ways to make that happen? thanks.

Reply to Nosebagbear, and Ryk, and ArbCom members
, hi there. I appreciate your replies. you are somewhat mistaken as to my intent or to my underlying questions. I do not seek punishment for BHG in any way. my only point was that a penalty has already been enacted, and I wanted to make sure it was being implemented in practical terms. I fully accept your response, and I appreciate it. if these items and roles are outside of the scope of this case, then I fully stand corrected. I do appreciate your reply on this. this dialogue has been very helpful. thanks for your help here on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to GorillaWarfare
i appreciate your reply to me below. however, my questions have not been answered. here they are again as a bulleted list, just fo greater clarity.
 * May I please ask what mechanism, rulings, procedures, or safeguards exist for preserving some level of manageability for this issue and for editor interactions on this topic, going forward?
 * as you can see from my section below, we already have editors exhibiting some negative atttitude towards portals as a collective group, rather than addressing portals individually, or finding positive ways to improve them.
 * the basic problem is parallel with what created the problem in the first place; namely a discussion on portals which is divisive in nature, and which questions the basic role and need for portals, even after community discussion has already proven a clear consensus in favor of keeping portals.
 * my concern is editors who might seek to further derail discussion, by continuously questioning the need for portals, and denigrating those editors who seek to keep portals, even though the community consensus is in favor of portals continuing to exist.
 * so therefore my question is, what is the best way to bring items of concern to ArbCOm's attention? Is this the page the best place to do so? If it is, then that is fine; I simply wanted to clarify that.
 * also what mechanism exists to further safeguard the discussion? if the main mechanism is simply to discuss with Arbcom, just as we are doing here on this page, then that's fine; I simply wanted to clarify that.

I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to SmokeyJoe
, yes, I was referring to your recent views in our discussion. I do appreciate your forthrightness, your helpfulness, and your time and effort in coming here to respond here. seriously, thank you. with all respect, I do wish to address this topic to some degree. with all respect, here is a quote of your comments to me.

this is from this talk page section: User_talk:Scottywong/Portal_guideline_workspace.

Quote: @BD2412 and SmokeyJoe:. hi. thanks for these points. sorry, but I disagree with one recommendation above. I disagree with SmokeyJoe that portals for nations "should not exist." they serve a valid role here. and also, they exist because multiple editors want them, and find them useful. please note, one important point for this whole effort is to find new ways to create portals in a logical manner, not to delete wholesale an entire group of portals that already exist, and have WP:Consensus. I do appreciate all of the ideas here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sm8900, OK. Nation portals? What is their role? What is the evidence that editors want them, and if they are reader-facing, what is the relevance of specifying editors versus readers? Editors find them useful? How, and isn't that a reason to put them inside a WikiProject, away from readers? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * they serve the same role that every other portal does on major topics that editors wish to edit. that is the whole point of portal. for example, the portal on United Kingdom serves as a portal to articles and topics that relate to the United Kingdom. while the portal on the United States serves that role for articles that relate to the United States. and the portal on France serves that role for articles that relate to France. I'm not sure why this is even a point of dispute. there is broad consensus for all of these portals to exist in their current role. there is no need for gratuitous deletion of existing portals that have consensus, and which no one is raising any objections to. and also, gratuitous wholesale deletion of portals is what got us into this situation. the point of this exercise is to find positive ways to build portals as a resource, not to delete entire groups of them. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I am bringing this to ArbCom, because I think I am losing steam with explaining the need, the usage, or the value of portals, to long-standing editors who claim to have no idea why portals exist. I'm simply have limited availablility to do that. now that the ArbCom case is concluded, I thought we were done with that, and ready to move on to the phase of constructive communtiy discussion on refining and improving long-standing portals individually. With respect, I do not understand editors who see portals existing as a group, and who question the role and value of portals as a group categorically. if an editor happens to not like portals as a group, or as a resource, then that's fine; however, then all I can suggest, in all candor is simply don't read them. I don't mean that facetiously, I am simply trying to respond in the simplest and most forthright way possible.

If an editor does have specific ideas for improving portals, then that's terrific; anyone's input and genuine ideas are absolutely and totally welcome. but editors coming along here, and asking elementary questions, such as "Why have portals? What purpose do they serve? who finds them useful? what basis is there for having them in the first place? who says we need them?" etc etc... is simply not helpful to anyone; i.e. to any participants in this debate, on any side. I am saying this with respect and deference for everyone involved. asking sincere questions is totally fine. however, I would like to tactfully suggest that a constant barrage of questions, on the elementary reasons for a major part of Wikipedia that has broad WP:consensus, is not helpful to anyone, including those posing the questions,. we have been down this road before. I suggest that for everyone's sake, we simply move on. Let's simply try to discuss improving portals individually; if we can't do that, then let's just change the subject, and move on to discussing some other different topics entirely. I'm happy to discuss with anyone, either way.

With respect, we do not have volumes of time available to continuously respond to elementary concerns and issues on matters that were settled via community discussion and consensus a while back. If you do not know why portals as a whole, or any significant group of portals, exist, that's fine; however, if that's the case, then I would gently suggest that perhaps one might simply read some relevant essays such as WP:Portals for that. of course, if you have constructive points or ideas on how to improve portals, then you are welcome to make them.

But yes, with respect, periodically, yes, I may bring some of this this to ArbCom's attention. Now that we have a written decision pertaining to this issue, including a direct, written recommendation from ArbCom to sort all of this out, in a positive community-based fashion, it seems valid and somewhat useful to bring some aspects of this to ArbCom's attention from time to time, simply to keep them apprised, and to avail ourselves and our community of the positve resources and expertise that Arbcom might offer, simply to keep our community on the right track

In other words, since ArbCom has already been apprised, involved, and has seen fit to issue its own polite recommendations to the community at large, the time to keep them apprised and semi-involved is now. obviously, I absolutely do not plan to open a whole new case on this any time in the forseeable future. therefore, a useful and practical way to improve this debate is to utilize the case pages here, that already exist.

I do plan to pursue any discussions on this topic in a respectful, constructive, and positive way. All opinions and ideas are welcome. the only thing I object to is any input seeking to negate or question portals as a group, seeking to polarize the debate, rather than seeking positive and constructive ideas for common effort, and for simply improving individual portals on an individual, case-by-case basis. I do appreciate the valuable input of all editors involved, and evberyone who took the time and effort to make their views heard. seriously, thank you.

On behalf of the Wikipedia community I thank the ArbCom for its time. I would also like to thank my colleague and fellow editor, SmokeyJoe for their time, their effort, their considerable insights and expertise, for their work in editing Wikipedia as a whole. I look forward to further positive and constructive discussions on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe
I'm not sure, but I think User:Sm8900 above is talking about me, my posts at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, and I think he misunderstands me considerably.

The future of portals is the alluded to RfC. I think the period of pushing the low end of portals through MfD has passed. The remaining portals are much higher quality than the ones deleted. I think a dramatic rescoping and restructure is the answer, but this means merging, splitting, etc, which is not deletion, and per WP:ATD, MfD should not be the venue. Start with a more carefully written RfC than the many portal RfCs attempted in the last year.

ArbCom cannot manage this portal content and structure discussion. The case is closed. Go to User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Question by GoodDay
If BHG were to open an RfA. Would BHG be allowed to respond to questions related to & about the Portals case? GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * it was on my mind, as we can accurately assume that the portals topic would be brought up by questioners at an RfA for BHG. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Statement by User:Reyk
The arbitration committee (wrongly IMO) decided to punish BHG by taking her admin bit away. At no point during the proceedings or the announcement of the punishment were non-admin rights mentioned. You should count yourself lucky that BHG has been punished to this extent already, and not grasp for more. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 00:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
BHG was de-sysopped for not meeting the higher admin conduct requirements (whatever your viewpoint of that), not for not being able to write content without needing it reviewed, not for writing problematic templates, not for breaches of file-moving policy etc etc. As such any sanction would be purely punitive, unless you can prove, right now, how you think it would be preventative. Even then, why are you here instead of going to the authorising admin? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Portals.: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Portals.: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Has your initial question been answered? In your last comment you mention that you simply wish to keep ArbCom informed, so I'm not sure if that means you are no longer looking for clarification. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Sm8900. The Arbitration Committee stepped in in this instance to handle interactions between two editors that had gotten out of hand and were not able to be addressed by the community via normal dispute resolution. In your first bullet point I think you're asking if we've introduced additional tools to manage disputes in the portal space—something we would typically do by way of discretionary sanctions. We have not authorized discretionary sanctions on the portal topic area, and so standard dispute resolution venues are your best bet. As for negative sentiment towards portals in general, there's nothing the ArbCom can (or should) do about that—people are entitled to like or dislike portals as a whole, and to express that opinion in portal deletion discussions. I don't see it as being much different from the inclusionist/deletionist perspective—so long as someone is basing their opinions on policy, there is nothing wrong with holding a general opinion of things like this, and if they aren't basing their opinions on policy, they can and should be discounted by closing administrators. If editors are being disruptive and doing things like "denigrating editors", my advice would be to first seek dispute resolution in the standard venues. If problems continue and are not resolved by standard DR, you should bring a new case. I don't speak for the other arbitrators, but I do not see us stepping in in individual discussions, which is what you seem to be requesting. I hope this addresses your questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial thought would be that a candidate should be allowed to respond to optional questions on the banned topic, but should not spend an inordinate amount of time on the topic in the opening three questions, nor participate in the discussion section of the RfA about the banned topic. Interaction bans other than permitted exceptions, should still be observed at RfA. A balance must be struck to allow the community to query the candidate on the topic while ensuring RfA is not used to merely re-argue the case. If this question becomes more than academic, a fresh clarification request should probably be posed. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , those user rights may all be added or removed by any administrator at their discretion. If you have concerns about whether they are appropriate, you would be advised to raise them first with the granting administrator. Personally, I don't have any problem with granting BHG these rights. – bradv  🍁  03:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bradv. AGK  &#9632;  08:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest we archive this as there's nothing for us to clarify or amend. The decision had nothing to do with the rights TonyBallioni granted BHG. The fact that we had a case called Portals doesn't mean that ArbCom is now going to oversee or police content discussions in that area. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What Joe said. There is nothing to do here. Assigning advanced technical rights to users who lost their admin-bit is common practice and there is no ban on doing that in the Case's remedies. Regards So  Why  11:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is not germane to the actual scope of the case and can be closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pile-on, this request can be wrapped up. There is no support for any further action against BrownHairedGirl ( disclosure, I opposed one of the actions already taken ), and the ArbCom is not going to regulate the content issue of whether portals should exist and how many. The one interesting question raised is whether we would tweak BHG's topic-ban if she were to consider a future RfA, but we can cross that bridge if and when that becomes other than a hypothetical question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have anything to add other than I agree with my colleagues. I think we have enough votes to properly close this ARCA. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by TomStar81 at 02:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture

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 TomStar81
In lei of the fact that the ongoing 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak is causing many people to come forward with homemade remdies, "miracle" cures, alleged vaccinations, etc, (two simple examples: ) when the scientific consensus has unilaterally been that no such cure or vaccine for the virus exists, I seek to clarify whether - in this very specific case - the ruling made in the acupuncture case may be reasonably construed to apply to our article on the virus pandemic. I ask for this clarification as it becomes increasingly clear that this issue is dominating news stories in an attempt to preemptively arm discretionary sanctions for the article should those who come here seeking to add such fringe information to the article, and to get clarification whether in specific cases of this nature the acupuncture case may be construed as extended to untested and/or unproven cures, remedies, vaccinations, etc for outbreaks of diseases.

Statement by Roxy
Could the request either state what the difference between Complementary and Alternative medicine actually is, or drop the word 'complementary'. This would be in line with reality. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response GW, but nevertheless if Arbcom is going to rule on the *subjects*, they should define them in future, or ... Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Katie and Bradv just a heads up that these DS don't include only pseudoscience:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

It's pretty explicit about including WP:FRINGE science, which doesn't always have to be full on pseudoscience. This wouldn't be the first time the nuance of DS were glossed over focusing on the case name (I've done it too), so just making sure you had that info on hand with respect to your comments so far. WP:FRINGE/PS covers rough distinctions (it can be nebulous in some areas), but the take home is that there is a spectrum within fringe science rather than it being entirely synonymous with pseudoscience. Basically, if fringe stuff is a problem in the coronavirus articles, any admin should be free to use the DS for that unless we significantly change our fringe guideline. Just making sure the nuance of the DS weren't lost in the other nuances you two were trying to bring in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
Sorry again for over-correcting. I think there is consensus for General Sanctions, and that, informally, such a thing is already in effect. Not to be repetitive, but ensuring MEDRS standards remains key. That said, I believe this time correctly, I've just topic banned someone from the COVID-19 topic area citing ARBCAM. El_C 19:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

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



Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * At a glance I would say either this or Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which while it hasn't been cited in a while, appears to still have DS authorized. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That was my understanding as well. This is pseudoscience or fringe science, hence it's covered already. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this appears to already be covered by discretionary sanctions. DS are already authorized for any edit[s] about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Acupuncture) and for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted (Pseudoscience). The ruling in the Acupuncture case applies to any kind of complementary and alternative medicine, not just acupuncture-related topics., my understanding is that "complementary medicine" is specifically when alternative medicine is used alongside science-based medicine, as explained in the Alternative medicine article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting my agreement with Bradv, that COVID-19 in general does not fall under the Acupuncture or Pseudoscience DS areas; only edits or sections that related to alternative medicine or fringe science. If DS are desired for the entire topic area, I agree that a new authorization (such as the one currently proposed at AN) would be needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. I cannot think of any cases that would not fall under either "pseudoscience and fringe science" or "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" already. Regards So  Why  12:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that with the now enacted community general sanctions this request can be closed. Regards So  Why  08:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, discretionary sanctions cannot be applied to coronavirus articles simply because someone might add pseudoscientific information – there must be evidence of disruption of that nature. If we need extra administrator tools to deal with general disruption of articles related to the ongoing pandemic, we might want to consider temporarily authorizing discretionary sanctions specifically for the coronavirus topic area. – bradv  🍁  19:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting here for the record that general sanctions have now been authorized for all content related to COVID-19, broadly construed. I believe that resolves the issues raised in this request. – bradv  🍁  22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We've had some list discussion about having the community address this, and I think that's the best course. General sanctions can be authorized by consensus. Like Bradv, I don't see that we can use the Acupuncture or Pseudoscience cases in the coronavirus articles because those articles aren't pseudoscientific in nature. Try to get general sanctions authorized at AN first, and if that fails, then we can have a look at authorizing discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Katietalk 17:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted, this has been addressed via the community-adopted general sanctions. I believe this request can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (June 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by AndewNguyen at 21:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)
 * I request that ArbCom open a review (I am not sure which clause this falls under, but I assume it's the discretionary sanctions.)

Statement by AndewNguyen
I am requesting that ArbCom examine the long-running series of disputes over this topic, which have escalated in the past few months, especially the past month. Several administrators and non-administrators have argued an arbitration case or review is needed to address this situation. This view was expressed at Arbitration Enforcement by the admins User:In actu, User:Ivanvector, and User:Barkeep49, and more recently in this discussion by user:SMcCandlish and the 2600:1004 IP user.

The following are some of the recent or current community discussions about these articles, although I may have missed some:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#Grayfell (May 2019)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive261#Oldstone_James (February 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#Peregrine_Fisher (March 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive263#Jweiss11 (March 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264#Race_and_intelligence (March 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Talk%3ARace_and_intelligence (January 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Books_from_Cambridge_University_Press (February 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rindermann%2C_Intelligence (April 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence (April 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Self-requested_closure_review:_RfC_on_race_and_intelligence (April 2020)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Peer-reviewed_journal_R&I_articles_as_WP:PRIMARY? (April 2020)

The following are some of the issues that need to be examined:


 * There is a concern, expressed in several of the recent Arbitration Enforcement reports, that some editors are attempting to remove or exclude well-sourced material from the article for dubious reasons.
 * There is a concern, expressed mainly in the RFC, that some users (especially NightHeron) are violating BLP policy by repeatedly stating that some living people are white supremacists, without presenting any sources that call them that.
 * There is a concern, also expressed in the RFC, about possible meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing.
 * There is a concern about whether or not TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was improper.

I have not added the list of editors that should be parties, but see the comment by In Actu in which he suggested who the parties should be to such a case. If ArbCom decides to open a case or review, I request that they exercise their own judgement about who the parties should be, or follow In Actu's suggestion.

When this situation was escalating at the end of March, I took a break from Wikipedia for 4 weeks, so upon my return I'm disappointed to see that it is continuing to spawn new disputes among the same group of editors. Without ArbCom's intervention, it is likely to continue coming up again and again indefinitely.


 * @Joe: An argument now being made on the article's talk page, especially by NightHeron, is that the RFC outcome means it's no longer necessary for statements in the article to be based on any reliable source. The argument to ignore what reliable sources say about this topic was made by many of the people who voted "yes" in the RFC, and there was a fear that TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC would be seen as an endorsement of that position. SMcCandlish especially expressed that concern, both during the RFC and during the closure review afterwards. This is the most important concern about whether his closure was improper: whether it will be initerpreted as superseding the WP:Verifiability policy, as appears to indeed be happening. Now that the closure is being interpreted in this way, it seems inevitable that there will continue to be many more noticeboard reports over similar issues.


 * I don't completely understand the difference between making a request here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but I made it here because that is what was suggested by the admins at Arbitration Enforcement who argued that a review is needed. I ask that ArbCom please consider this request on its merits, instead of whether it was made in the correct venue. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

In the time since I made this request, another new noticeboard thread has been opened, so I've added it to the list above. --AndewNguyen (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Steve Quinn I think what SMcCandlish and Ferahgo are saying about the discretionary sanctions not working is that certain editors are now able to violate content and behavioral policies with impunity. For example during the RFC NightHeron apparently doxxed another Wikipedia editor, although the diff is no longer visible. No one else reacted to that or took any action. Isn't doxxing another Wikipedia editor normally a severe offense? If this topic area has reached the point that not even doxxing has any action taken about it, that's a sign that the discretionary sanctions aren't working. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (R&I)
This may need a new full case. There are two deeply entrenched camps, and there is a good deal of argumentation that seems to an outsider to be intellectually dishonest, a sort of "teach the controversy" approach. Accusations of bad faith abound, not always without merit. Admins have tried to deal with the issue and failed.

Above, we have "there is concern" over TonyBallioni's well-reaosoned close of the recent RfC. That seems problematic: there was no consensus to overturn, and debate was often about the apparent invention of new policies on the fly. Guy (help!) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Following discussion at (permalink),  has been blocked from talk:Race and intelligence and I have extended that to this page, following 's comments below, which highlight this IPs disturbing tendency to extend and disrupt discussion of this topic. It appears the IP has an undisclosed conflict of interest, through a close link to a WP:FRINGE player off-wiki.

It seems likely to me that the removal of this one single individual, with their remarkable talent for argufying, may be transformative. The talk page archives show, to my reading, many examples of stonewalling, sealioning, circular and tendentious argument by this IP and I think we should close this and see what happens without that one highly disruptive, prolific and, as it now turns out, probably bad-faith voice.

I therefore join with those others here who urge rejection of this request, especially since it contains no actual request for amendment or clarification. Guy (help!) 22:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I applaud 's comments below. The demarcation between minority and fringe is as vexed - and as hard to discern - as that between science and pseudoscience. The solution is almost always more input from more people who do not have a dog in the fight. Guy (help!) 22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by slatersteven
I was involved in the RFC and made the point that the claim "blacks have a different form of intelligence" is used by some as an example of white privilege (for example our system of maths is set up for the way white brains work). I was pointing out how this can in fact impact on articles about that (after all if its a fringe to say race affects intelligence that applies even when it is used as an excuse for black underachievement). But the RFC came to a conclusion, and I see no reason not to respect our processes. I however would be concerned if it could be shown the close ignored opinions based upon an essay, or presumptions of being a NAZI!.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor 2600:1004:b100::/40
Many thanks to AndewNguyen for making this request. As one of the people who thinks that an ArbCom case is needed, I had recently suggested to several other editors that someone should request arbitration. Now that this finally has been brought before ArbCom, I can mention something I've been wanting to mention for about a month, but that would have been inappropriate to bring up outside of ArbCom or AE.

It has been evident to me for a long time that NightHeron is a parody account, most likely being operated by someone associated with the alt-right. It's reasonably well-known that a large portion of the material related to human intelligence and intelligence researchers at RationalWiki is deliberate parodies (see the discussion here and here, among other places). The people who write this material are trying to make RationalWiki such an obvious caricature of left-wing talking points that no one takes the site seriously. Wikipedia has been vulnerable for a long time to the same type of trolling, and that appears to be what's happening now.

It is important to recognize the distinction between actual leftist beliefs, and the beliefs that members of the alt-right claim that leftists hold, and how perfectly NightHeron's editing matches the second description. Aside from race and intelligence, nearly all of NightHeron's editing has been to hot-button political topics such as White privilege, Male privilege, Ilhan Omar, and Abortion. This is not a random selection of topics - it is the precise set of topics that the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory claims are being used to undermine the culture of Europe and the United States. As a further way of advocating this conspiracy theory by basing his edits on its claims, during the RFC NightHeron was actually citing a book by a communist party member, which itself cites the works of Karl Marx, and arguing that this is a mainstream source.

There are three actions in particular that I think demonstrate NightHeron's status as almost certainly a parody account.


 * First, when NightHeron was challenged to provide a source supporting his statement that Heiner Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", the source that he provided was The New Observer, a right-wing fake news site that propagates anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The New Observer article that he cited is not publicly accessible, apparently because it either is paywalled or requires registration to view. By citing this article he let his disguise slip momentarily - why would any non-member of the alt-right not only be reading that site, but have access to the non-public articles there?


 * Second, as NightHeron explained in his comment here, he has been evading scrutiny with the use of multiple accounts. The explanation he gave there (that his other account uses his real name) is not convincing, because he could simply rename the account if he wanted to avoid editing under his real name. Presumably, his main account is the one that he uses for pushing his actual, right-wing point of view.


 * Finally, I wish to call attention to NightHeron's comment here, in which he stated that The same IP-editor recently made a similar accusation [of BLP violations] against me on the user-page of another admin, Barkeep49, who'd also been involved in the AfD/DRV. After I learned of the accusation by chance, I was able to defend myself, and nothing came of it. Barkeep49's actual words to NightHeron were, So as to the other pieces, I do think, now that you're here, that you need to be very careful when describing people as white supremacists. More careful than you've been to date - the stuff on Piffer is not nearly strong enough, for instance. NightHeron's statement that Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", cited to a right-wing fake news site, came after he was given this warning. So this is a case of an an editor gloating about how he was merely warned by an admin instead of sanctioned, and that he's thus entitled to continue the same behavior. (Incidentally, this behavior also has included an attempt at doxxing another Wikipedia editor.)

None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out. 2600:1004:B159:2CC4:F8F8:76FE:335B:DEF6 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If you aren't able to see the evidence for what I'm saying, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the ways that members of the alt-right act when they're impersonating leftists. This is something that happens quite regularly, the NPC Twitter meme being a well-known example. This pattern of behavior becomes fairly easy to recognize after you've seen enough examples of it.


 * Regarding your question about behavioral issues that AE can't handle, I described one such issue in my comments here and here (the last two paragraphs). This is a case where an intelligence researcher lost his job as a result of the pattern of BLP violations in his Wikipedia article, and it was the catalyst for my becoming involved in Wikipedia, as well as for several other editors. (NightHeron was not the user responsible in this case.) His biography was tagged as an attack page twice, and six different users attempted to remove the violations, but their changes were almost immediately undone in each case. When the attorney of the person that this happened to contacted the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, he was told that it was the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to address this issue. But when the issue was raised at AE, the admins there took no action because the user responsible had not been notified of the discretionary sanctions with the correct template.


 * All of this happened about a year ago, but the fact that both AE and the WMF legal team took no action in such an extreme case - as well as the fear among many other intelligence researchers that they may eventually lose their own livelihoods in the same way - is the original cause for many of the disputes that are happening currently. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Gerhard Meisenberg's attorney sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, explaining how the additions to his Wikipedia article led to him losing his job, on June 17 of last year. The evidence was presented in that e-mail, but it included personal details that would not be appropriate to post in public. As a member of ArbCom, can you look at the contents of that message?


 * I don't want to have a long argument with you or act in a way that you consider disruptive, but you must understand that many of the people who feel they're in real-life danger because of this situation are my professional colleagues. So it's very difficult for me to accept that there truly is nothing ArbCom can do about it. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, in case you weren't aware, the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address. 2600:1004:B16C:96C5:758A:B689:DD57:B12C (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron
I'd prefer not to waste everyone's time with a detailed reply (or any reply) to the IP-editor 2600.xxx's cockamamie conspiracy theory about me. If anyone wants me to respond to any specific allegation, I'll do that and I'll try to be brief. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Several of the no-voters on the RfC are using this forum to re-argue their position. Most recently, Literaturegeek has made some outrageous statements about the differences between supporters and opponents of the RfC. While claiming to be basing their appeal to ArbCom on core policies, these no-voters are ignoring the core policy that Wikipedia works by consensus. In this case the RfC lasted 35 days, had the participation of about 50 editors, and reached the consensus that the belief that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is a fringe view. The close of the RfC was upheld overwhelmingly by admins at WP:AN. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as I declined to respond to the charges against me by the IP-editor (in the statement above), I'd also prefer not to respond to Literaturegeek's barrage of accusations of misconduct against me (in Literaturegeek's statement below). At this point I don't think it's appropriate to re-argue the issues in the RfC or to trade accusations. I think that the real issue is the refusal of some of the RfC's no-voters to accept consensus. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49
I do not think that a full case would be warranted at this time. My concern over retaliatory AE filings, which caused me to suggest this, has since abated. I think the content issues are being worked through in the ways described by policy. I think the community in the RfC review and AE actions taken is showing itself capable of handling this dispute for the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that 2600:1004 has now been TBAN'ed by the community from Race and intelligence an action I support. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni (R&I)
I generally agree with Barkeep49 above that I don't think a case is required, and in all honesty I don't think any amendment is needed either. The standard grounds for a case is that the community process is unable to work. In all the recent cases cited, the community process is working. I closed the recent RfC and took it for self-review because I knew otherwise someone would have. That was closed endorsing the outcome both on the merits and as rejecting the argument that my close was somehow improper. That brings an end to the community process for that content based question and the behavioral question that some tried to introduce was also resolved there as not having consensus either.I'd add the on top of all that I don't see what a case would add. There's nothing particularly new here, and DS already exist. If there is misbehavior in the content areas, just take the people misbehaving to AE. If someone is seeking ArbCom to review a content RfC that has already been reviewed by the community on both behavioral and content questions and resolved successfully on both point, that is outside of ArbCom's remit.If people feel someone is violating the conduct standards of a DS area, they should request enforcement at AE. If there are people engaging in retaliatory filings, that can also be dealt with at AE. If people are trying to use the closed RfC to argue for things it doesn't support, AE can be used. If people are stonewalling the implementation of a well-attended community RfC on one article's talk page, AE is also an option. There is zero evidence anything other than DS is needed here. People should let the DS process work. It's here to avoid repeated cases over the same issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
Note that I have partially blocked the IP range from Talk:Race and intelligence page as a normal admin action. I would have notified them on their user talk page, but of course, no such user talk page exists as such. El_C 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal by PaleoNeonate
I would like to also mention my post here which includes more context and the RFC was here. I have not had time to work on this since, but considering that we're here, it was my intention to eventually propose as Clarification&Amendment a motion for WP:ARBR&I that is similar to a precedent in the abortion area: WP:ARBAB (temporary measure) and WP:ARBAB (allowing admins to as a discretionary measure protect talk pages when necessary). — Paleo Neonate  – 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by jps
Anyone else find it interesting that the person who filed this is a WP:SPA with a penchant for editing from a pro-eugenics POV? That the account was inactive since 30 March and waltzes in to file this now that the RfC has closed? Oh, so very interesting, isn't it? jps (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Regarding the IP, from ANI, "Trolling":


 * I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg  are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am amused to see that Ferahgo the Assassin, a former front-line warrior in the R&I conflicts – who over the course of 6 years was topic banned, site banned, un-sitebanned with R&I restrictions and finally un-restricted – and is still an editor with a definite POV concerning the subject, had the gall to express an opinion here as if she is an impartial observer. I call that chutzpah. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave
Except for the RfC closure which was discussed and endorsed at AN, the specific concerns raised here haven't been brought to a noticeboard (aside from side comments in tangentially related threads) or become an intractable situation that needs the attention of ARBCOM. I would expect an editor coming off a month-long hiatus to at least engage in the ongoing talk page discussions before seeking arbitration remedies. If that fails, I don't see anything that can't be resolved through the standard AE/DS process.

More than anything, this topic would benefit from a few admins willing to wade into the mess and address user conduct issues as they happen. Swift admin actions like blocking an IP range and issuing inline warnings can quash bad behavior before it escalates while avoiding noticeboard drama. It's encouraging to see that this taking place and I'm optimistic that our normal consensus building process will suffice for the time being. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

can you tell us what steps were taken by editors who were aware of the alleged doxxing incident? Did anyone file an ANI or AE report or perhaps send an email to ArbCom? If you're claiming that our processes failed to address the issue, you should present evidence that an effort was indeed made to utilize those processes. –dlthewave ☎ 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I think this badly needs further ArbCom review and clarification, if not a whole additional RfArb. (And I'm okay with being named a party, as I've been long-term involved in this and related topics, e.g. as a "voice of reason and science" shepherd at Race (human categorization), and am even responsible for that article title; also the author of WP:Race and ethnicity; and I'm the opener of the back-to-back WP:VPPOL RfCs that led to religion and ethnicity being removed from most biographical infoboxes. I am definitely involved.)

On Race and intelligence, we've been through months of back-to-back dispute resolution methodologies on this (from AfD attempts to noticeboardings to a recent RfC with a close that said nothing we didn't already know and failed to address the central policy question, about suppression of sources). This has all been basically to no avail at all. The current restrictions and AC/DS regime for this topic (for several years now) have had no useful effect at the community level, only for swiftly blocking trolls/socks (who were already blockable under existing policy anyway). We're right back to the same two entrenched camps trying decide how to slow-editwar their way to a doctrinal victory. This is not how WP is built. My previous comments in the RfC this month, and in previous rounds, and in very recent/ongoing thread at User talk:SMcCandlish cover this in more detail than anyone would want.

The short version is that the idea "there is a connection between race and intelligence" is basically a fringe-science viewpoint. However, research demonstrating population differences at various discrete tasks are not always fringe (though they almost always point to socio-economic and other cultural factors, not genetic ones, and it is often later, follow-on, cross-disciplinary research that demonstrates this). Likewise, research demonstrating heritability of minor deltas in performance at discrete cognitive tests of various sorts are also not all fringe. But population != gene != "race"; and isolated cognitive tests (e.g. regurgitation of strings of numbers from short-term memory, or whatever) != "intelligence". Yet there is a putsch here to effectively censor mention of all such research from Wikipedia, including a smear campaign against publishers of such research as "fringe scientists", which is basically a WP:BLP and WP:NPA policy failure. This has been predicated upon an "ends justify the means" far-left extremist position, being brought to bear against the misinterpretation and mis-spinning of such research by racist far-right extremists.

What we're dealing with here is an umbrella subject that is basically artificial (both as to "race" as to "intelligence"), but this is something that people are going to continue overgeneralizing to, both in bad research and in bad press, and which our readers are going to continue searching for and reading about. WP has a responsibility to get this right: to present why the central idea is – according to a broad scientific consensus, not just dogmatic socio-politics – pseudo-scientific; what evidence there is of population differences in some discrete cognitive tests (usually statistically insignificant), and why it does not equate to "intelligence" or to "race", but is most often related to level of Westernization, society-internal class and economics, and other cultural biases in the testing; and what claims have been debunked, how, and why.

, which are going to rely on long-discredited "research" to "prove" a bunch of racist nonsense. WP is the place where, for the average reader, discrediting has to live. It can't live here if people keep mass-deleting all material relating to the claims and the research flaws that led to them, and to their debunking. This cannot be hidden away in the back of the closet. This is one of those "sunlight is the best disinfectant" matters.

While ArbCom cannot decide a content matter, it certainly can decide when particular parties are violating policies and pillars to enforce their own politicized viewpoint, and ban them from the topic. ArbCom can also identify topic-specific PoV-pushing patterns of this sort, proscribe them, and add more DS to enforce those proscriptions, so that a new crop of combatants a month after the current batch are T-banned can't just re-start the same disruption. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would add that (now T-banned or not), 2600:... makes a good procedural point: "the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address." That's not the first time this sort of buck-passing cycle has occurred, and it always resolves back to ArbCom having to clarify or take a new case, so we might as well just get on with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't even aware of the doxxing/outing you referred to (though the party you name as responsible for it is one of those whose behavior I already thought should be examined with an eye to a T-ban). So, that specific incident didn't have anything to do with my comments above, which are more generalized.  This is simply a hot-bed of non-stop editorial strife, in which people at both extremes are getting away with all sorts of things that are counter to policy and to the purpose of Wikipedia.  When AE finally gets around to leveraging any of the extant DS about it, it's generally a one-sided application.  While I'm sure it does not have the intent of a supervote, it is likely to have the effect of one, due to WP's strongly left-leaning internal editorial bias.  I lean that way myself, but I'm self-analytical enough to recognize that it  a bias, and that no matter how much I might agree with the politico-philosophical impetus behind bad-acting antics, they are still bad-acting antics and should not be excused, nor permitted to continue. If the current AE enforcement regime on this topic is having this result, it means that ArbCom hasn't made it clear enough what is proscribed and that it isn't proscribed only for people right of center.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo
SMcCandlish's comment that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is on point. Clearly the discretionary sanctions haven't been effective, at least in recent months. I don't foresee the community being able to untangle the long-term problems in this topic area on its own. I'm curious if has an opinion here, as an arbitrator whom I believe understands the scope and depth of the issues. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Quinn
I am a little confused as to what's happening. I don't actually see any requests for Amendments or Clarification, except a generalized comment by User:Ferahgo saying the discretionary sanctions have not been recently working. But nothing specific is being requested in that post. In any case, I think discretionary sanctions and the dispute resolution process in this area are working just fine. As was stated below, frequent disputes are expected in a topic area such as this. It's only a problem if the dispute resolution process breaks down - and it hasn't. Frankly, I am glad to see it working. It's the way it's supposed to be. It may not be fun sometimes - but that's showbiz. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am adding that TonyBalloni has given a good summation of the tools currently available to resolve issues, and which issues apply to what venue. An arbcom case is certainly not necessary at this time. In fact, maybe we should post Tony's statement to the top of the R & I talk page (humorous), or at least provide a link to the statement (humorous). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek
The amendment that I think would help, in terms of trust and confidence as well as the long-term future of this topic area, is for RfCs that are likely to lead to major changes to the topic area (e.g. deletion of articles or an RfC that could result in a major rewriting of the topic area as a whole) require to be closed by a 3 admin panel, to guard against bias and WP:SUPERVOTEs. There is a recent example in this topic area where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion: this AfD, Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination), where, if you click the show button for the overturned close, below the three admin close statement, you will see that a very substandard close as delete occurred, which many in the deletion review felt was very POV or even a WP:SUPERVOTE was made that caused a lot of wasted community time in a deletion review and almost resulted in a major article being deleted without just cause. A three admin close panel reached the opposite conclusion to the alleged supervote and overturned it and closed the article as “keep”. See the deletion review here: Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12%23Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination). The deletion review was only successful because the Close was so poorly worded where even the closer themselves pretty much said as much in their close, otherwise, like I say, an article could have been deleted without just cause.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  08:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Another area of clarification that this topic area requires is what takes precedent when an RfC close conflicts with policy? The ‘race and intelligence’ ArbCom case confirms the no original research policy, etc, however the recent RfC close effectively instructs editors to misrepresent the weight and conclusions of academic sources because there really is no academic consensus in this subject area: there is indeed differences of opinions between anthropologists and educational psychologists, neuropsychologists who research intelligence. Take for example this 2020 survey published in Intelligence (journal) of intelligence research psychologists (which actually answered the RfC question but supposedly wikipedians know more than the experts) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. The RfC instructs the community to misrepresent the entire discipline of psychology and falsify an academic consensus that does not exist instead of explaining the controversy neutrally. Although I have never edited the race and intelligence article I did watch list it after becoming involved in the associated Articles for deletion discussion and indeed editors are now actively ignoring NOR/WEIGHT etc., citing on the talk page the RfC close. From following the AfD, RfC etc., I believe that the problem is more complex than ‘racists versus anti-racists’, I think many of the editors fall into two different camps, those who don’t like racism but personally find pseudoscience more unacceptable and those who find racially offensive datasets and interpretations thereof more offensive than pseudoscience/misrepresenting sources. The RfC, if carefully read, shows that ‘Yes votes’ provided mostly original research or misinterpretations of sources to justify their arguments whereas ‘No votes’ were backed by sources and strong WP policy arguments. So what takes precedent, an RfC close or WP policies? Currently the article talk page has turned into a new escalating battleground which I feel attention from ArbCom could benefit. If you would like some diffs I can provide them if requested but will wait to see what the Arbs feedback is first. The question for ArbCom clarification is: should the conclusions of sources and the weight of sources be misrepresented as well as original research be permitted in article editing in order to comply with the RfC close?-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  04:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to NightHeron
The RfC was hardly a fair environment NightHeron: Editors who voted no were routinely aggressively personally attacked by several editors as being racists, even like myself who have no history of editing in the topic area; these personal attacks undoubtedly put off members of the community from commenting or voting against the RfC or its close review, thus biasing the results. Also during the RfC, authors of RS were repeatedly attacked, mostly by you, as white supremacists if said sources went against the RFC; these attacks were unsourced BLP violations. Requests were made repeatedly to stop making serious BLP violations during the RfC but these requests were repeatedly ignored. As for the community review of the close, that RfC was massive and I doubt more than a few people voting in the review would have read that RfC from top to bottom which is why a three admin panel close would have prevented all of this controversy and division.

NightHeron if my concerns are unfounded that the RfC close encourages, even forces, original research etc., then why are you now implementing the RfC close via original research, misrepresenting sources, synthesising your own original opinions, etc? Why can you not just follow what reliable sources say? See examples below:

NightHeron engaging in original research, misrepresenting sources.

requests a source for a change from ‘no direct evidence’ (which was what the source said) to ‘no evidence’ as he quite rightly holds the view that they have very different meanings. NightHeron insists no source is needed to effectively misrepresent/falsify what sources say. NightHeron then justifies original research and misrepresenting sources by inappropriately going off topic and comparing the viewpoint of her opponent to homeopathy rather than arguing with sources. to uphold the RfC NightHeron argues in favour of misrepresenting and misquoting sources.

Insertcleverphrasehere points out to NightHeron that he has inserted original research into the lead of the article and simply requests that it is supported by sources in the body of the article, which NightHeron replies to by declining to remove the original research despite a lack of sources.

NightHeron uses his personal opinion to determine what is fringe for edits to the article, maybe he is correct maybe he is not, who knows, but geeze you need sources and consensus, per WP:NOR.

In these diffs ( and ) NightHeron personally attacked other editors who disagree with him apologists of scientific racism. This type of behaviour was a constant theme towards people who commented against the RfC and it continues in the topic area.

NightHeron has taken the position that content in reliable sources are reliable except when the reliable sources go against the RfC close, then certain parts of the reliable sources by subject experts become fringe. Thus NightHeron becomes the expert who does an original reanalysing, per WP:SYN, of sources of what parts are reliable and what parts of a source are not and thus sources become misrepresented.

So, yes, there are issues of behaviour and ongoing policy violations occurring in this topic area. My view is the RfC close has exacerbated behavioural issues in this topic area rather than helped.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
( I have only acted as an AE admin here)

With the community topic ban of the IP user or users, I would like to give AE and the wider community another chance to solve this. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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



Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * ARCAs usually contain a question about or request to modify specific remedies (see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration). If your intention is to request a new case on race and intelligence, it should be made at WP:ARC with all the parties listed and notified. But personally I would not accept a case on the basis of "concerns" alone. Race and intelligence is a fraught topic that's already subject to multiple sanctions. That there are frequently disputes about it isn't particularly unexpected or problematic in itself. It would be a problem if these disputes weren't being resolved, but almost all the discussions you linked were formally closed by an experienced admin with an appropriate, consensus-based outcome. That would suggest that the normal dispute resolution procedures are working. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did AE refer this to us? In the thread 2600:1004 linked, Swarm's close was just Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. In any case, if we do need to look at this afresh, it needs to be a case request and not an ARCA. The difference is more than procedural hair-splitting: ARC has guidelines on formatting so that we can actually assess whether there is a reason for ArbCom to be involved, will make sure the parties are properly listed and notified, and is much more widely viewed than ARCA. As bradv says below, there is no request here so we will have to archive it soon. Please consider filing a case request if you think this needs further attention. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for this topic, so most of the conduct concerns that come up should be able to be handled to AE. If there's something that cannot be handled at AE we can of course have a look, but it's not clear to me that there is any such concern expressed in this thread. However, I am very concerned by the extraordinary allegations presented by the IP above, for which there is an acute lack of evidence. This does not strike me as an accusation made in good faith. –  bradv  🍁  01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2600:1004:B100::/40, you still have not offered any evidence for your accusation. I don't dispute that there are people who pretend to have the opposite point of view from their own in order to troll others, but your allegations that NightHeron is guilty of this behaviour are baseless. Furthermore, the AE discussion you link lacks evidence, in that it doesn't prove that someone lost their job due to a BLP violation in an article, nor does it provide a clear explanation of what those alleged BLP violations actually are. The aspersions against other editors need to stop. I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but I'll say it anyway: choosing to edit without an account cannot be used as a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. – bradv  🍁  02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the IP range has now been topic banned by the community, which addresses the concerns I expressed in my previous comment. While some of the opinions expressed above have been enlightening and informative, and those editing the topic area would do well to read them, I still don't see any specific requests to clarify or amend the existing R+I case. Assuming there are no further comments from the other arbs, I think this discussion can be archived. – bradv  🍁  01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested a specific clarification or amendment of the prior case decision that would be helpful, so I don't see anything useful for us to do here at this time. The accusations by the 2600 IP are without merit and I note the subsequent community ban of that editor. The discretionary sanctions authorization remains in place and can be invoked as needed. Questions such as whether certain RfCs should be closed by multi-admin panels are questions of policy not for decision by ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been asked some time ago to comment,I apologize for not posting this here earlier, but: " I think the question is whether  RfC and AE enforcement on this topic is fair, done by neutral admins not having a prejudice on the issue. The number of people involved, their differing amounts of real-world knowledge of the subject, and of Wikipedia, the intractable RW nature of the controversy, the length of time this has been discussed at Wikipedia , all make this a singularly difficult situation.. But whether we have jurisdiction and responsibility depends upon whether we have the right to be the final resort to correct gross failures of NPOV.  Earlier committees have indeed thought we did: I refer here to the decision Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience in  2006 (UTC) and the subsequent decisions based on it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * an expansion of this comment is forthcoming by Monday. .  DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a number of areas where it is relatively difficult or impossible to distinguish minority science-based positions from fringe positions. This provides an opportunity for those having a particular POV to argue that their opponents are fringe, rather than minority; those with the opposite POV will argue their position is minority, not fringe. People deliberately or inadvertently confuse what is the actual general scientific view now with what it was 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, or think that scientific questions can be settled by finding whoever is the most impressive authority, or the more authoritative journal, or some contrived reason to reject a source that tells against one's position. People assume there is one clear scientific consensus when the situation is amorphous, or just the opposite.  Saying that WP adopts a Scientific POV does not necessarily help much.
 * The result of this is that in many controversial areas the NPOV/SPOV has a tendency to match the preconceptions of a majority of those WPedians who happen to be interested enough in the question to join the argument here. This can cause confusion even in purely scientific areas, including medicine; it can cause great confusion when the question is a mixture of science and politics, as it probably is in R&I; it is blatantly incompatibility with a NPOV in fields which dominated by those who think there is a SPOV that supports one or another political party. We are amused or horrified now by the POV presumptions in  the 1906 Brittanica; we should be just as concerned about our own.
 * I think the whole issue needs to be revisited. We can't say here what the NPOV (or SPOV) is on any particular issue--those are questions of content. We should have a good deal more to say about the fairness of the process by which the contents is determined and expressed in our articles. I'm not sure the question originally asked here is the right formulation for a case, which should not be limited to R&I. Maybe "the process of forming consensus on article content"? or even "ensuring representation of all responsible positions"?  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And there's another aspect to it: the often successful attempts to delete articles on the proponents of fringe (and sometimes, even minority views). One example is climate change, with efforts to remove articles on notable scientists often in other fields who have not accepted the scientific consensus in this one. (I don't want to judge, but it seems like attempts to conceal that there are a few genuine scientists who don't accept it, as well as the much larger number of cranks) Objections are typically raised to the sources, or to the number of publications, that would not be raised if their views had remained orthodox. This destroys the apparent NPOV of WP, because if a reference source lists only supporters of one side of a position but not its opponents, a reader coming here would assume we are biased.  (There has also been an analogous effort to maximize the number of article on people supporting some forms of political economics (just as an example).  It goes in all directions. We cannot judge here at arb com which people or books or beliefs are notable, but we can discuss and try to deal with the process which leads to biased decisions.
 * What it all amounts to, we need to find a way to deal with the inadvertent result of our process in promoting the dominance of the majority POV, not the NPOV. Maintaining the integrity of our basic policies is our job, tho specific decisions are up to the community . DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by David Tornheim at 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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


 * diff of notification TonyBallioni
 * diff of notification Seraphimblade


 * Information about amendment request
 * David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove restriction

Statement by David Tornheim
I am appealing my topic ban from GMOs imposed by in July 2016—almost four years ago. I have not made any edits in the area since then.

In April 2019, I appealed this topic ban, and it was reduced by  to a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed.

I have not edited articles related to glyphosate or GMOs since then. I would like to have this restriction removed.

After four years, this restriction appears to be more punitive than WP:PREVENTATIVE. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)




 * Can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area?


 * I mentioned this in my previous appeal last year, where I said, "If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources." I also commented on the fact that the science has fallen out of date, where a nearly 20-year-old report has been superseded.
 * I have a Bachelor of Science from University of Cincinnati and Master of Science from University of Southern California, and can bring a science background and knowledge of proper review of scientific literature to articles. I edit under my own name.
 * (a) understands the reason for their ban * * * (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward
 * I explained that in my response to Seraphimblade in my previous appeal. In particular, I said that I will focus on content, not editor.
 * At the time of my 2016 topic ban, I had only made about 3,000 edits; now I have made over 12,000 edits. I am far more familiar with the policies and guidelines around casting aspersions and civility, and I now understand the importance of collaborative editing and how to resolve conflicts when there is disagreement.
 * I am now far more familiar with sourcing requirements than in 2016.
 * (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas
 * I believe my edit-history speaks for itself. I provided a number of examples of areas I was involved in, in  my appeal of 2019 in the initial post.  Since then, I have continued to work on vandalism reversion and created articles on the John Robinson Circus and Tillie (elephant).
 * I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope.
 * (1) I wanted to demonstrate continued restraint.  Often, editors who have been blocked or topic-banned immediately return to their past behaviors as soon as the ban is lifted.
 * (2) Shortly after the reduction in my topic-ban, I sought clarification on the scope of the topic ban. I was puzzled by the responses and simply stayed away.
 * (3) That almost any edit in GMO might be construed as related to glyphosate was a big deterrent.
 * I value my reputation on Wikipedia. Editing under my real name, my reputation at Wikipedia reflects on me personally and directly.  In four years of the topic ban, I have learned from my mistakes.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (2) Shortly after the reduction in my topic-ban, I sought clarification on the scope of the topic ban. I was puzzled by the responses and simply stayed away.
 * (3) That almost any edit in GMO might be construed as related to glyphosate was a big deterrent.
 * I value my reputation on Wikipedia. Editing under my real name, my reputation at Wikipedia reflects on me personally and directly.  In four years of the topic ban, I have learned from my mistakes.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: Motion
Thank you for the motion and vote of confidence, and for an opportunity to clarify why I did not edit in the GMO area and have not done so in the nearly three months since I opened this appeal.

I appreciate your saying I am a "productive and sensible editor".

I am confused as to why there was some expectation that I could only get the remainder of my ban lifted only if I successfully edited in the ambiguous area that includes GMOs but does not include anything related to glyphosate broadly-construed.

A reasonable person might argue that glyphosate broadly-construed includes anything related to GMOs. Our article Genetically modified organism says:
 * The majority of GM crops have been modified to be resistant to selected herbicides, usually a glyphosate or glufosinate based one…in the USA 93% of soybeans and most of the GM maize grown is glyphosate tolerant.

Because of the strong connection between glyphosate/Round-Up and herbicide-resistant GMO crops, the top Google search results for GMO (top 4), genetically modified organism (top 6), Google Scholar genetically modified organism (top 5), GMO Wikipedia (top 5) all mention either glyphosate, Round Up and/or herbicide-resistant GMOs.

Because glyphosate and the corporations that make it are so interconnected to GMO herbicide-resistant crops, I sought clarification  on April 26, 2019 about the scope of the revised topic ban. However, the two of the admins who enacted the lessened restriction both gave responses that felt frosty to me: It appeared the two admins saw it as a problem that I was even asking for clarification about what was and was not okay to edit. It is not obvious to me what the scope is, which is why I asked.
 * I’m a little confused about what you wish to clarify, though, because it's fairly clear.
 * I’m not sure what’s confusing here....If you think an edit may be related to [glyphosate], don’t make it. Pretty simple. Put another way: if a reasonable informed third-party thinks that an edit is related to glyphosate, you shouldn’t be making it.

If you received these replies, would you venture into the topic area and risk being accused or perceived of deliberately attempting to skirt the revised topic ban’s ambiguous boundaries?

In an abundance of caution and to avoid further annoying anyone, I took their advice:
 * (1) I did not ask further for clarification here at WP: ARCA or anywhere else.
 * (2) I did not edit anything remotely related to glyphosate, i.e. anything involving GMOs, pesticides, companies that make these products, etc.

I thought this approach a prudent and simple choice demonstrating patience and restraint that was being asked of me.

I edit under my own name and prefer not to have this restriction associated with me or my account, when I have not edited in the area in years. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To the arbs: Thank you for your votes in support of lifting my restriction. I really appreciate it, and I will make every effort to heed your advice. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
No real thoughts on this. I’m happy with whatever the arbs decide. My standard comment is that a sanction working should not be taken as evidence that it isn’t needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I was rather apprehensive about narrowing the original sanction's scope, but it appears that doing so hasn't had any negative consequences. I suppose this could be tried, with a clear understanding that if the problems occur again, the topic ban will be put right back in place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
As someone who spent a lot of time trying to curate the GMO topic and deal with the disruption David Tornheim and other editors caused, I'm going to ask arbs to carefully read the comments (especially admins) from both David's original topic ban AE, and the appeal, especially in the context of how frustrated the community was with what David was constantly stirring up in this topic. A lot of David's actions outlined there more or less forced us to need a DS-enforced RfC on the scientific consensus for genetically modified food safety. There (and before) David frequently engaged in denialism on the consensus, and in the real-world, that is generally treated similarly to climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, etc. Such WP:PSCI policy violations generally require a significant demonstrated change in subject matter competence for sanctions to be not needed.

Even at that AE appeal less than a year ago, the topic ban reduction was pretty tepid among admins, and part of the expectation was that David could use it demonstrate they could edit appropriately in the broader GMO area. Instead, they haven't edited the area at all. That's somewhat akin (though not exactly the same) to the problem of an editor being topic banned, "retiring" for the length of it, then appealing it saying that haven't caused problems since. In the real world, fringe proponents have shifted the goal posts away from GMO safety to glyphosate to make that the new point flash pan controversy filled with fringe theories us agricultural/science editors have spent a lot of effort separating from actual science. That David wants to directly jump into this new controversy without any other GMO edits is a serious red flag. Contrary to their last appeal's comment I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms..., the kind of stuff they engaged in went well beyond being a newbie and shows disregard for what they actually were banned for. My specific comments at the appeal have more background on that.

Prior to the ban, David's main area of disruption was primarily in GMOs with serious WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY issues, which is documented pretty well at their original AE ban and the previous sanctions listed there. Part of the behavior issues that the topic ban was meant to handle was to keep David away from science curators in the topic such as myself in lieu of a one-way interaction ban. That has to do with a specific GMO principle we passed at arbcom on aspersions (e.g., the Monsanto shill gambit). There's a lot of other history behind that principle, but a major reason for David's ban was hounding editors and disrupting content discussion with that gambit and encouraging others as you can read about in their original AE ban that led to two others getting sanctioned at well. See David's Monsanto must be pleased thread for another example of what we had to deal with until admins finally stepped in.

If anything else, it still looks like the WP:PREVENTATIVE ban is still working, and David hasn't given us any reason to think otherwise given how serious their behavior issues were before the topic ban (most comments at the last appeal were very generic that struck me as a mix between empty and incomplete apologies). As I asked at the last appeal, why would David be so interested in coming back into a topic they were so dead set against the science on? Their last appeal really didn't address the problems they caused at all, and this appeal has even less. We really need a good reason given past behavior to let David into controversial areas on this subject beyond it's been awhile and the topic seems calmer now. If anything, that's because the sanction was working correctly. I might have different opinions on more periphery GMO editors that were banned/sanctioned (13+ at last count), but David was one of the core editors in this subject that led to the original GMO case and problems afterwards.

Obviously I've had to deal with a lot from David in the past I've tried to distill down into something manageable, but if you boil this all down into one line, if David still can't even directly address the serious behavior that led to their ban, then the appeal should be denied. They haven't said or done anything different since the last appeal, glyphosate is still controversial, and this appeal seems to be significantly lacking for establishing what would be considered low-risk upon return. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing David's most recent response, I'm concerned they especially skirt around one of the core issues. They say they have a science background, yet outright denied the scientific consensus and significantly disrupted the topic as part of it. The "updating" the science thing goes back to WP:TE type issues that came up in the GMO RfC I mentioned above. An issue there wasn't not using scientific sources, but cherrypicking low quality fringe articles and taking up community time pushing that. What David has said on having a science background doesn't differentiate them from before their topic ban, but I realize it's not easy for arbs either since you need to somehow assess subject matter competence changes to address the fringe advocacy history, especially with no edit history in the unbanned areas. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assess if the POV problems wouldn't come back.


 * On the old rejected change they do mention, the science hasn't really changed in that area significantly (I'll stay out of those weeds), so David's comment is already a red flag for me. It may seem minor at first glance, but those kind of edits using attribution or middling language to lessen the apparent weight of a source were a common problem back before the ban (normally something from the from a secondary source like the EPA wouldn't even need attribution). In reality though, that entire section was already since updated over the years looking for more current sources. Editors still decided to use the source in question (ref 80) along with a more current one in part because nothing was really superseded. This isn't exactly an area lacking attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder since this is still open that group battleground behavior was an issue at David's original ban where Jusdafax was also sanctioned. Jusdafax's Unless one assumes bad faith comment is just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes. That case partly shows why those of us science editors actually in the subject are so cautious about this all.
 * Otherwise Nosebagbear's comments are a fairly even-handed read of the situation. There are plenty of GMOs that don't deal with glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Side note

 * Just a slight aside, but I also wanted to update arbs on the general status of the GMO/pesticide topic. Back at the original 2015 case, only a few editors were actually sanctioned just because of the sheer number of problems to sort through. Slowly over time, other disruptive editors were topic-banned (or some interaction bans) as I mentioned with the 13+ sanctions above. However, that left a lot of fatigue on the few editors who did remain trying to handle the tough content while also juggling with problematic behavior from editors and not wanting to run to AE each time giving the appearance of policing the topic. It wasn't until recently that things mostly settled down in 2018 and a flareup that took up a chunk of 2019. That's largely why I'm so cautious from a WP:STEWARDSHIP perspective now.


 * In general, agricultural topics don't attract as many subject matter experts, but in the real-world, the subject does attract a lot of WP:FRINGE stuff that finds it way to the encyclopedia when you get people coming in with advocacy issues. The volume of that may be higher in things like climate change or alt med, but there are also more editors to handle that in those topics. We've lost some good editors in part because of how long it took to really tamp down on behavior issues here, so I would ask arbs to consider for future GMO/pesticide discussions what their risk tolerance for an editor in the subject should be. I know I'd like to go from maintenance to fleshing out mode in the subject again now that it's been in a relative lull for a few months, but being stuck with new or old behavior problems has often put a stop to that for me. Those of us left in the subject have had a lot on our plates, and while the DS have helped take some unnecessary burden off them, I think I can speak for a lot of us that we shouldn't be handed something that has a decent risk of stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

On motion

 * Bradv, I'm a bit concerned about your comments that all GMO topics may be related to glyphosate is a compelling explanation. On one end of the spectrum in terms of full WP:AGF, that's a very poor subject matter competence issue for an editor like David who is not new to the subject at all. They could have edited Genetically modified animal, subsections of Genetically modified maize, Genetically modified insect, Genetically modified fish, Genetically modified bacteria, Genetically modified tree, Genetically modified virus, Religious views on genetically modified foods, etc. for just an extremely small partial list without even needing to touch on glyphosate. No one should be making such an argument in reality, nor should it hold water with even a cursory glance at the subject. Just off the top of my head, that would be like saying you can't edit in climate change topics if you're topic-banned from Al Gore.


 * On the other end of the spectrum in terms of WP:FRINGE though, which has been an already established issue with David, is that glyphosate has been treated as a sort of pervasive boogeyman in the subject by fringe proponents, similar to what we see with moving goalposts on vaccines "causing" autism pseudoscience. One of the issues in this subject is fringe proponents blaming all perceived ills on a topic of the day, namely glyphosate lately.. When I see someone making an argument that glyphosate is so pervasive in the subject that it cannot be approached without needing to address glyphosate, that does throw up a red flag about continued POV mentality issues even after all this time of being banned.


 * I understand arbs are not going to be up to speed on all the fringe stuff that happens in this subject (apologies for my section length in trying to help with that over these months), just as how they may not immediately see red flags in the nuts and bolts of a climate change denial case, but those comments should add more concern, not less. I've said more than enough about the history with David previously, but this bit on what the subject matter actually entails did need to be brought up. As Capeo alluded to, such seemingly innocuous language can instead be major red flags to us subject editors who've dealt with it first-hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nosebagbear, (and current commenting arbs Joe, SoWhy, Newyorkbrad, and Bradv) it's definitely the latter in this case on your comment speaking as a public sector agricultural scientist (i.e., no COI, etc.) since you ask . I mentioned all the GMO subjects above they could have edited, but I neglected to say the DS/topic bans don't cover just GMOs. They also cover pesticides, and many pesticides have nothing to do with GMO (or glyphosate) at all outside of a select few. I'll just link Pesticide as a start to that rabbit hole. Even giving the incorrect idea that someone couldn't edit after their GMO & pesticide ban without hitting on glyphosate a generous buffer for the sake of argument, I'd guess that at least 75% of articles would have no conflict with the glyphosate ban. We just cannot misrepresent the topic by saying that glyphosate is so pervasive, and I linked above how that mentality gets into WP:PSCI territory. Even Arbs cannot override that policy and endorse such a viewpoint without running into problems with that. That's just the inherent nature of the subject though.


 * The approach you do mention though is pretty much what was suggested at the last AE. Why the ban should be lifted without them following that advice with ample opportunity to do so is what concerns me given their previous focus on glyphosate. Let them demonstrate it in topics within the old ban they have nothing to do with glyphosate. Even I can't argue against that, and it shouldn't be difficult for David considering how much they used to edit in the subject (and should know better than to make the claim they did). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jusdafax and WP:ASPERSIONS
Sigh, I wasn't going to post here further, but since Jusdafax pinged me twice I'll briefly respond to the hounding (I don't like my section length, but it could be worse for being an active editor in the subject of a 3+ month ArbCom request). In short, Jusdafax had a warning logged in the AE sanction log for casting aspersions (a principle from the original GMO case) for their battleground needling in GMO topics in association with David's original AE case.. It's an enforcement action regardless of how you try to split it, shouldn't be a red herring from why the warning happened, WP:SANCTION is clear to look at the logs, and it does seem like hounding to me when they try to paint such a small detail into "hostility", "locking down the topic", etc. against their warning.

I won't entertain the rest they mention here since that's been dismissed as misrepresentations of me previously and the aspersions principle is supposed to protect against repeated mischaracterizations that need a wall of text each time to debunk. That and this request is about David's ban. That kind of throwing shade is just getting needlessly tiring, so I would seriously welcome any advice from arbs/admins on stopping the harassment without reinforcing their lock down a subject narrative by needing to go to AE for help for continued sniping. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
This seems like a bad idea to me - the anti-GMO brigade are hammering hard at Monsanto right now after the capricious court award. Guy (help!) 22:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A formal logged warning is indeed a sanction. Wikilawyering quibbles over the precise terminology used to describe a thing that definitely happened is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, so you should probably stop that about now. Guy (help!) 08:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
It's a bit sad to see this stall. I thought the appeal had merit and deserved a bit more consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is really a rather simple request. We are approaching 2 months since the filing. Hopefully this can be handled soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear
While there might not be a benefit to immediately become a hyper-active editor in a field that an editor was recently Tbanned in, not editing in any of it (but still planning to) is almost as problematic.

Certainly we could deduce that the editor is more patient than they were, which is a plus. But we can't tell that their editing has become any better, whether they can handle dispute in their controversial field and so on. Thus, I'd like to advise the following:

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) 's appeal to be declined
 * 2) A recommendation/request be made to Tornheim to get at least some activity in the now open bits of their original TBAN to show it as a viable field for them
 * 3) A shorter timescale than ARBCOM refused appeals are often suggested with to be given. I can't see any reason why 3 months of helpful contribution by Tornheim, after his lack of issues thus far, wouldn't be sufficient, so make that the timescale before a permitted re-appeal (rather than 6 months etc etc)

Statement update post-proposal
 * Slightly oddly here, I'm going to have to say the above statement is somewhat conditional, and conditional on knowledge I don't have. If editors with a firmer knowledge of the sphere agree that it's hard to talk about GMOs without tripping a glyphosphate TBAN, then by all means this should be removed as the editor righly played it safe. If they could have edited GMO articles a bit more then I feel my above, hopefully moderate, suggestion still holds up. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax
I am in agreement with Seraphimblade and Mr Ernie that David Tornheim’s restriction should be lifted. Four years really is a long time on Wikipedia.

DT’s statement here is direct. His answers to the questions are reasonable, regarding his not editing in the GMO field since he was partially unbanned in 2019: the conditions appeared to him to be open to interpretation.

A look at his User page and his last 500 edits, all made this year, show a diverse ongoing commitment to the project. Unless one assumes bad faith, I believe there is no good reason not to lift the remainder of the topic ban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Update, May 12, 2020 - I agree with Capeo that this now nearly two-month-old request is indeed "really not fair to David," who shows exemplary patience with the long-lasting process here. However, Capeo provides no diffs regarding DT's editing, and argues that DT should essentially be permanently topic banned, despite the fact that "David has been prolifically and constructively contributing." I would ask, what else exactly does David Tornheim have to do? DT has repeatedly proved his worth to Wikipedia in the nearly four years since he got his only block. Give the guy some credit, assume good faith, and let's move on. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Update, June 15, 2020 - I am encouraged by the motion, the several additional favorable comments and by David Tornheim's further clarification yesterday, which is clear and precise, with appropriate diffs and reasoning. He exhibits both outstanding patience and prudence during this several month's-long process. A request for adminship lasts a week. His request here has now dragged on for almost a quarter of a year. I submit David Tornheim has more than passed the test, and I salute him and those supporting the end to his years of sanctions. Jusdafax (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding erroneous statements here and elsewhere by Kingofaces43
I can seldom focus on the walls of text Kingofaces43 posts. Few others here share his views. However, I notice that Kingofaces43 incorrectly states, in his mass of words on this page, that "Jusdafax was also sanctioned." As my log shows I have never been sanctioned with either topic ban or block. It is true I got an official warning, my one and only, I believe, but a warning is not a WP:SANCTION.

Since it's difficult to believe that Kingofaces43 does not understand the difference between a warning and a sanction, I have to conclude that Kingofaces43's comment regarding my being "sanctioned" is designed to damage my credibility. He has a documented history of doing this. Some examples: Kingofaces43 has misrepresented others on GMO topics in just the past few weeks, and this recent GMO thread on User:Levivich's Talk page makes for interesting reading, starting with Kingofaces43's inappropriate GMO templating of Levivich, and Levivch's strenuous objections.

In May, 2019, King was informally admonished by Administrator Vanamonde93 for this misrepresentation termed "patently untrue", again on October 29, 2019 for the same behavior "You've repeated that erroneous statement here." and the next day again calling King's statement "a misrepresentation."

So, right in front of ArbCom, Kingofaces43 escalates with claims that I have been sanctioned while he accuses me of "just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes." My diffs show an ongoing pattern from Kingofaces43 of false assertions made with impunity. These are not aspersions I am making, these are stated facts with diffs.

The relevance here: I'm extremely concerned about David Tornheim's way forward on GMO's/glyphosate editing per Kingofaces43's open, unrelenting hostility towards editors he disagrees with. King's statement regarding this pending end to David's sanctions as "…stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom," I take as a threat, and an attempt by Kingofaces43 to lock down a subject he claims special rights to as a steward and curator. As the committee prepares to close this request, I suggest King's behavior be noted per the above, and he be formally warned.

Again, I heartily thank the committee for their deliberations regarding David Tornheim, which have now reached an appropriate and nearly unanimous conclusion. Jusdafax (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging. Jusdafax (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo
I haven’t been around for quite a while now, but I’ve still checked my watchlist with some regularity. This ARCA has been open for way too long and it’s really not fair to David. Decide one way or the other. My opinion, as someone who took part in the whole GMO blowout, is to maintain the status quo. I haven’t done a deep dive, but it seems that David has been prolifically and constructively contributing outside the GMO suite for some time, while avoiding the parts of it he’s not technically TBed from. That’s a good thing. What gives me pause is his contention that he wants the update these articles with “the most recent science.” Much of the conflict regarding David arose from selectively reading sources and insisting on primary and/or discredited sources. I’m not seeing much benefit to opening that door again. Capeo (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
Four years is a long time for a t-ban. This editor has a single block dating back to 2016, so it isn't like the project has had to deal with a relentlessly disruptive editor. I recall a recent ArbCom case request wherein some of the arbs declined it because the episodes that prompted the filing are now stale - and they were only a year old. Continuing a t-ban that has since become a very narrow segment of the original t-ban seems rather counterproductive. David has responded positively to feedback, he comes across as sincere, and he has diligently honored his t-ban while it was in force, which to me indicates restraint and willingness to do the right thing. We aren't doing the encyclopedia any favors by continuing this narrowly scoped t-ban without any indication or evidence that removing it will present a risk of disruption to the topic area. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
This request seems to be stalled. One plus of letting DT back into GMO content is that his work there will be carefully watched, unlike the backwaters of editing Venezuelan topics, where he has been editing and where there are far fewer eyes and knowledgeable editors. If problems surface at GMO again, a more permanent solution can be sought, more quickly. Otherwise, all these topic bans accomplish is to unleash problem editors on other content areas. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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



Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse. Katietalk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area? Typically when topic bans are lifted we would want to see that the appellant (a) understands the reason for their ban, (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas, and (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward. You claim in your request that you haven't made any edits in the GMO topic area since that ban was lifted, so why does it need to be lifted further? How would doing so benefit the project? – bradv  🍁  19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Bradv, I'd like to hear what kind of editing you plan to do if the ban is lifted. I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope; normally that would be a good path towards demonstrating that the remaining restriction is unnecessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon reading David's replies and the comments by others, I am agreeing with that lifting the ban after four years might be beneficial to the project. I also think David is sufficiently warned that any return to old behavior will swiftly result in sanctions again. Regards  So  Why  07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this has sat for so long. I was going to go on about how busy I've been but it really is inexcusable for a simple request to sit for this long. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. This has been open for quite a while now, and it wouldn't be fair to archive it without considering a motion. With regard to my question above, the assertion that all GMO topics may be related to glyphosate is a compelling explanation for why David Tornheim hasn't taken advantage of the reduced topic ban. –  bradv  🍁  02:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to some of the comments above I'll clarify my comment a bit further. I am by no means claiming that all GMO topics are related to glyphosate, as I am not qualified to make such a determination. However, the assertion that some admins may consider the entire topic area to be related to "glyphosate, broadly construed" is a reasonable explanation for why David Tornheim might be cautious about editing in this area, and why he has thus far avoided it. Additionally, looking at this from the other perspective, the topic ban has been in place for 4 years and no one has presented a compelling argument here for why this particular editor continues to pose a risk. The concerns I expressed in my original comment above have been answered. – bradv  🍁  16:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Per my comment above and bradv. Regards  So  Why  07:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I was on the fence here, because I really would have liked to see some editing in the topic area when we loosened the restrictions last time. However, I also can respect wishing to leave a wide berth around one's restrictions, which is often wise. Let's give this a shot, and if disruption occurs the sanctions can always be reimposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) It is a well referenced area. if problems occur then it can be dealt with readily Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support, which is why it's taken me this long to cast a vote, but four-plus years is a long time. Although I can see the counterarguments, I'm persuaded that we shouldn't hold it against an editor that he's stayed far away from the edges of his topic-ban, when that ordinarily is just what we counsel topic-banned editors to do. I urge David Tornheim to show the same caution if he now returns to editing on GMOs and related issues: start with less controversial aspects, use the best sources, avoid reverts, and engage in civil discussion where needed. If problems recur, discretionary sanctions remain available against this as against any other editor; I sincerely hope that will not prove necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) With the understanding that if there are further problems in this area, the ban will be rapidly re-instanted and it will be extremely difficult to appeal it again,and there could be further sanctions. I say this in the sincere hope that it won't come to that and there will be no such problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) With apologies for the long delay, and thanks to the additional comments that have helped me understand this topic area., the narrowing of your TBAN from GMOs to glyphosate was really your opportunity to show that you can contribute to this topic without the problems from before reoccurring. I've seen you around at AfD and the Teahouse many times, so I know you're a productive and sensible editor, but contributing to contentious and fringe topics has its own set of challenges. If you can do some editing on GMOs and come back in a few months, I'm sure I could support this, but absent that evidence I think it's better to be safe than sorry. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Given the time that's elapsed since this discussion began, I'm going to wait another couple of days for community input on the new proposed motion before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (June 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nableezy at 06:04, 20 May 2020 (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


 * notification of El C

Statement by Nableezy
I'd like some clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR. My reading of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 is that the only thing that requires awareness are sanctions enacted under 5A (discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator), and that the 1RR is a general sanction that does not require formal awareness of the discretionary sanctions for the topic area and that users may be blocked for violating that sanction without any formal alert (obviously a request to self-revert being offered). Is that correct, or is formal notification of the discretionary sanctions required prior to any violation of the 1RR required?

Statement by Zero0000
In the case of articles with an ARBPIA editnotice, that notice whacks you in the face as soon as you hit the "edit" button. So I wouldn't oppose a ruling that the existence of the notice implies awareness of the sanctions. Zerotalk 07:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni (ARBPIA)
I’ll ping on this as he’s been helpful explaining this before, but traditionally the understanding was that the General Prohibition was not DS, but a direct sanction from ArbCom. As such, it did not require formal DS awareness. From a practicality perspective, yeah, this is helpful to not be DS. No one isn’t warned first, and most people in these areas know the rules and the formal notification doesn’t accomplish much. For 500/30 in particular, requiring the same requirements of DS could actively work against the sanction. We do have editors who intentionally search for pages not under ECP so they can edit them because they’re that passionate about the issue. Enforcing 500/30 with the page level requirements for DS would effectively make it protection-only, which would cause issues. Blocks for 500/30 aren’t that common, but we do need them as a tool, and the DS awareness criteria there would work against the intent of the sanction: to prevent new editors from causing disruption in this area, which is very difficult to define and preemptively protect. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
Feels strange commenting here! Exactly as Tony said, sanctions that ArbCom imposes directly (as in not by an admin under DS) operate with a separate system of rules. Unless the ArbCom decision requires that a warning be given before a sanction is imposed then a warning is ArbCom-mandated. However, a best practice approach would require that before being sanctions an editor knows what they're doing is wrong. If they're attempting to, for example, game the system as Tony suggests then they definitely know what they're doing is wrong and can be sanctioned without a formal warning having been given. Just regarding Zero0000's point above, it's important to consider that people editing using the mobile interface won't be shown the edit notice so that needs to be considered if using only that to determine whether the editor knows about the sanctions and so should be sanctioned or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
Just a short note that I read the first three arbcom member comments here and I am... very positively surprised. In my professional view as a sociologist who studied, among other things, ArbCom, English Wikipedia is way too into punitative blocks, with prevention being sidelined. To hear three members of ArbCom say otherwise, and do it very clearly, is very refreshing. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Neither the 500/30 restriction nor the 1RR restriction require a formal alert in order to be enforced. However, in my experience most editors who violate 1RR are warned and asked to revert before they receive a block, and that approach should continue to be encouraged. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and this policy extends even to arbitration enforcement blocks. – bradv  🍁  14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What Bradv says. A notice/warning is not required, but we don't have be jerks about it. Having the authorization and ability to block without warning doesn't mean that blocking without warning is necessarily a good idea. Katietalk 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with both of the above. As I've written before, we have become far too obsessed with procedural requirements and formalities. The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others, and I think we ned to amend arb com policy to make it more explicit. The primary purpose of arbcom is to settle disputes, not punish editors. Sometimes a person is so disruptive that a dispute can only be dealt with by removing them from the field, but do do this by discretionary sanctions is usually a very poor idea, because it is much too sticky. For arb com to sanction, a majority vote of a committee to do it; for an ordinary block, another admin can unblock, and if challenged it goes to AN and the the block needs to be reviewed by consensus ; but for DS a single admin can do it, and it is almost impossible to revert--the ds process is  biased towards keeping the block. In other words, a single editor can do what arb com itself considers beyond its acceptable practice.
 * The absolute minimum is to greatly simply the rules for notice, which have been getting progressively complicated beyond what anyone can decipher.
 * But the basic reform is that the DS should be removed unless there is an affirmative consensus of uninvolved admins to retain it. (This is the opposite of present policy at WP:AC/DS section 9.2-- an appeal should succeed unless there is a clear consensus of uninvolved admins to sustain it). A further improvement could be made by limiting the time length of such sanction against individuals to 1 week at the very most, unless affirmatively endorsed by the community. A second improvement would be is restricting the types of individual DS to bans, topicbans, interaction bans, or  page bans, with no special or usual requirements beyond the standard.  A third would be limiting the number of times a single admin can do DS action agains an individual.  (Similar restrictions might well apply to community blocks and bans, but arb com probably cannot legislate that on its own, except by accepting a willingness to review all bans and blocks, which is permitted by policy, but limited by our current practice, and is probably beyond our capability ). As is obvious here, the necessary changes will be complicated.
 * There is fortunately an easier way: all DS should be turned into ordinary restrictions, and DS never again enacted as a remedy. This is fuly within the power of arb com; it is our own internally invented procedure.  They were originally done because there were unblockable editors--situations where some editors could not be blocked because their admin friends would immediately unblock; this is no longer a problem, as few such irresponsible admins remain. At present, the cure is worse than the disease,  DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As one of the drafters of ARBPIA4, if I recall correctly our intention was that the template and edit notice was enough warning for the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions. Of course admins should us their judgement and not block people for good-faith mistakes, but at the same time, ARBPIA is probably the project's most contentious and abuse-prone topic area so a quick block to stop edit warring followed by an explanation might also be appropriate. With the "General Sanctions" we wanted something relatively simple and flexible and the last thing we want to do is recreate the byzantine nightmare that is the DS notification regime (per DGG). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)