Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 88

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (2) (December 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Articles part of the ARBPIA arena


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Articles part of the ARBPIA arena
 * Removal of Haredim and Zionism

Statement by Sir Joseph
The article Haredim and Zionism has nothing to do with the ARBPIA arena, or if it does 5%, and it should be removed to clean up those areas under ARBPIA sanctionable spaces. This article used to be edited heavily back in the early 2000's and had some disputes involving some sockpuppets but the article and disputes if any in general do not involve Israel-Palestine and just involve intra-Jewish halacha response to Israel as a Jewish State.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This article seems fairly stable. It doesn't seem to be much of a focus of the Israel and Palestine partisan divide that causes so much disruption on Wikipedia. Removing the cumbersome discretionary sanctions such as 1RR doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. If an issue later arises it can always be put back under these sanctions. You can leave it to administrator discretion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand your position here Amanda. However, Since everyone's here, you could review whether to whitelist this article and also offer the clarification that AE is to be used for the whitelisting of articles. From your comments it does seem as if we are breaking new ground on how an article should be reviewed for if it falls under a certain set of sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ARBPIA is broadly construed. Haredim groups that support the PLO and Hamas, zionism. There's not an actual question of why this was put under Arbpia honestly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, There's not some secret committee that puts articles under sanctions. By the actions of arbcom articles are put under sanctions. ARBPIA for instance use language like "broadly construed". This is every article on wikipedia and every new article created that relates in anyway to the Arab and Israeli conflict. This is whether they are marked or not on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you feel an article falls under ARBPIA and someone has violated it AE would be the appropriate location to take it to. ARBCOM members could we trouble you to link the template to make other editors aware of ARBPIA?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, do I think it's ripe for abuse? No. Save for 1RR Sanctions are not placed without prior warning with ARBPIA. Regardless of whether a page is marked or not you can be sanctioned after being warned. In the event that an article is not actually under sanctions you can make that clear at AE or any time after being banned. This article only mentions Zionism but also supporters of Hamas and the PLO. There's not actually an argument that you can make that this is not a part of Arbpia. It has already been dcided what is a part of ARBPIA. Anything that is a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Your making an appeal to fear that the system can be gamed. Your alternative could be gamed as well. Gaming the sanctions is a can lead to discretionary sanctions. Instead of hypothetical show where this actually happening so that something can be done.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone was not warned about 1RR they could be blocked for 1rr. Where is this article that was put up by sock?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So again it's all about a hypothetical but not an issue that is actually happening? If a page does not have this warning on it but it is an ARBPIA article and you have already been warned ARBPIA you can receive discretionary sanctions. If a page is not ARBPIA and it has this warning on it and you receive discretionary sanctions you can use that in your defense. If this actually becomes an issue ARBCOM should do something about it and that's if giving sanctions to those gaming the system doesn't fix it. As far as I can tell this hasn't actually been an issue. When there are actually issues on wikipedia the unpaid volunteer editors of ARBCOM do not need to waste their time on hypothetical issues that others bring to them. The possible negative hypotheticals that could be brought to them are to numerous to calculate. In short, unless it's actually broke they don't need to fix it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From what you understand? I don't have any further comment here. This is to painful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional Statement by Sir Joseph
I just want to add one more thing, something similar to what I wrote on the Jew case above. How do I know that the ARBPIA template was even added correctly to this article? For all I know some admin assumed it to be in the same sphere as Israel-Palestine and just copy-pasted it. Looking at the original ARBPIA articles, I could not find this article listed. I do think it would be a good idea that when articles are added/deleted/amended/etc. a record is kept, so that when a template is put on the page, we know where to look to find out why, and we can see the reasoning behind it. It could very well be that there was a discussion about this page years back in some archive long gone, but that's neither here nor there (but it is somewhere), but I do ask you to consider that in the future for all ARBCOM cases, when you add articles, to please maintain or track on the talk page of the article the date of the discussion. Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment after reading Amanda's comment, does being included in the Wikiproject Israel automatically put you under this AE? That doesn't make any sense. I know of tons of articles that are under Wikiproject Israel not under sanctions so I still don't know how this article got placed under sanctions and that's why there should be somewhere it is discussed before something so drastic as placing an article on restrictions occurs. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily want a whitelist, I would like to know how this article got included, and how other articles get included and do all project articles get included automatically. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reverted an IP edit to Yom_Ha'atzmaut because I assumed that would be under sanctions. I was surprised to find no such template, so my question still stands. How do articles get put under sanctions? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Pluto2012, looking at the article, and the history while it may be a contentious area, it is not something as serious as the IP area and my question still remains, why is this article in the IP sanctions automatically? There has to be a process in place, not every article in WIKIPROJECT:ISRAEL is subject to IP sanctions. This article, for example is stable enough and contrary to Pluto2012's assertions, any conflicts in edits is handled on the talk page. The last edit war on that article was in 2006 if my memory serves me. Putting a disputed tag on an article doesn't mean I think it belongs in the IP area, it just means a fact in the article is under dispute. As for Zero's statement that because it has the word Zionism it must be under IP sanctions, that is also not true. This is not necessarily dealing with the IP conflict. This is dealing with internal Jewish religious issues and how to deal with Zionism. That doesn't bring it to the level of the IP conflict and again, look at the edit history. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho, and if we can just paste a template on a talk page, don't you think that would be ripe for abuse? If I decide that a page is subject to ARBPIA, then I post it to a talk page then I take you to AE and you're blocked for violating something you never even knew was part of ARBPIA. ARBCOM won't investigate who put the template. The template is on the page. What about removing from the page? My statement still stands. There ought to be a process, in all ARBCOM cases where pages are marked with a template. Who decided that this page is subject to ARBPIA? Maybe it wasn't ARBCOM, I couldn't find the diff. I found lots of WIKIPROJECT:ISRAEL articles not under ARBPIA, should I just tag them with the template? I think that's a terrible idea. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho, I just found an article that had a template placed on it by a sock blocked user. If someone were warned for 1rr on that article, they would be blocked because nobody would've known that the template didn't being.Sir Joseph (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Har Nof had a template put in June by a sock. I found it because I was wondering why it was there. That article has nothing to do with the IP conflict, broadly construed, and indeed, I found that it was just placed there. I removed it, but in this case the article is not heavily edited so it was simple to do. What happens in an article that is edited? After a few weeks or months, that template becomes fact and it becomes a sanctionable article even though it has nothing to do with ARBCOM area. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I can gather, the sock put the template on and then brought someone to AN and the user got blocked for violating ARBPIA, so it's not hypothetical. We have a user putting on a template and an admin blocking based on that template. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're complaining about, EdJohnston blocked a user based on a sock's placement of a template that didn't belong. The sock was in an edit war, placed the template and then reported the other user. He knew how to game the system. I don't know how you can't see that as a problem when there is no official record when articles are placed under sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not every mention of Jerusalem means that the article is under ARBPIA. I don't think EdJohnston was correct when he blocked that user, and he even said that all ARBCOM said with regards to Jerusalem was arbitrated the lead to the article. We should not be having secret articles subject to restrictions. There ought to be a process to how articles get placed under sanctions and "broadly construed" does not mean just mentioning the word "Israel." That is pretty ludicrous. Regardless, you can't have a system where people get sanctioned for something as "broadly construed." Sir Joseph (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But having an entire article placed under restrictions because of that is ludicrous. We are discussing Israel, does that mean that AE is now under 1RR? Certain topics are contentious and need 1RR. But most topics don't need 1RR and if something discusses it tangentially, then I don't think it should change the entire article. And if you look at ARBCOM, you'll see how often they have things brought because of "broadly construed." Sir Joseph (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012
This articles deals with a very contentious topic in the I-P conflict, which is the anti-zionism of some Jewish communities. Some of them, the Naturei Karta are well-known and even used in the propaganda war between Israel and its ennemies and opponents (eg Iran). Sir Joseph himself added a tag several weeks ago stating the article was disputed. I think it should remain the ARPBIA list. There is no added value to remove this and at the contrary it could be used a a pretext of edit war. Any improvement can be discussed on the talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
An article about Zionism is an article about the I-P conflict. I think the argument to the contrary is simply mistaken. Zerotalk 12:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
, you have your facts slightly wrong regarding NoCal100's typically hypocritical behavior on behalf of the State of Israel using his All Rows4 sock account. He warned the user on 1 June 2015 here, reported him the same day here, and placed the ARBPIA template on the talk page on 3 June 2015 here as a result of comments at the 3RR report. The edit warring was covered by 1RR, regardless of the presence or absence of the ARBPIA template, because it was about the status of Jerusalem i.e. whether Wikipedia can use its neutral narrative voice to refer to places in West Jerusalem as being in Israel. Yes, the sock successfully gamed the system, as has happened countless times (even the ARBPIA discussions are contaminated by evidence presented by socks), but it wasn't dependent on the presence or absence of the ARBPIA template or the notion of the article being a member of a set of 'ARBPIA articles'. It's because, in practice, 1RR has been enforced at the content level, even if it is just one word or sentence that is interpreted as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, despite the ARBPIA restrictions talking about things at the article level. Since the 500 edit/30 day restriction is currently being enforced by editors rather than by software, perhaps that restriction will also be enforced at the content level rather than the article level in practice.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But you can and do have a system where people are sanctioned for something as "broadly construed". You can and do have a system where an edit war over a sentence that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, like the status of Jerusalem, is treated as being within scope of ARBPIA regardless of the article in which the edit war takes place. That seems better to me because it means that the restrictions can be enforced at a finer scale than the article unit. It's often not possible to decide whether something is an 'ARBPIA article' in a repeatable way, but it's very often possible to decide that specific content in an article, and editor actions related to that content, are within scope of ARBPIA. It's usually obvious. Admins, unlike bots so far at least, can usually recognize when something, a sentence, a paragraph, a section, an edit war, is within scope of the ARBPIA restrictions. I agree that not every mention of Jerusalem means that the article is under ARBPIA. If editors could simply refer to Jerusalem as Jerusalem throughout Wikipedia these issues would never occur. But if an article says "Jerusalem, Israel" for example and an editor thinks that violates policy, everything that follows from that point will be within scope of ARBPIA and admins are likely to treat it as such. Ed blocked the editor for an ARBPIA 1RR violation. It wouldn't make sense to have a situation where similar edit wars, over the status of Jerusalem for example, something that is clearly within scope of ARBPIA, were treated differently because they took place in different articles.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:30, 21 December 2015 (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.

Palestine-Israel_articles: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Looking t the article, I don't see how editing it would affect the actual problem area.  DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
 * I'm inclined to agree with Serialjoepsycho 2 that there seems little chance of a problem occurring if we restore the normal editing environment to this article. If problems do occur then I'm happy for the restrictions to be reimposed by an uninvolved admin following a request at ANI or AE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on what is or isn't part of this, but I do see where people could see it, but again, it doesn't seem to be an issue. As for whitelisting, I'd rather find a more broad approach so we aren't hearing ARCA after ARCA of please uninclude x article. I dug, and their seems to be no context to the addition. Maybe this is a good job for AE to use discretion on removing the topic areas? (Only throwing a suggestion) -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline and kick to AE to use their best judgment. I do not like the idea of a white list at all -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Decline Doug Weller (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Articles part of the ARBPIA arena


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Articles part of the ARBPIA arena
 * Removal of Haredim and Zionism

Statement by Sir Joseph
The article Haredim and Zionism has nothing to do with the ARBPIA arena, or if it does 5%, and it should be removed to clean up those areas under ARBPIA sanctionable spaces. This article used to be edited heavily back in the early 2000's and had some disputes involving some sockpuppets but the article and disputes if any in general do not involve Israel-Palestine and just involve intra-Jewish halacha response to Israel as a Jewish State.

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This article seems fairly stable. It doesn't seem to be much of a focus of the Israel and Palestine partisan divide that causes so much disruption on Wikipedia. Removing the cumbersome discretionary sanctions such as 1RR doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. If an issue later arises it can always be put back under these sanctions. You can leave it to administrator discretion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand your position here Amanda. However, Since everyone's here, you could review whether to whitelist this article and also offer the clarification that AE is to be used for the whitelisting of articles. From your comments it does seem as if we are breaking new ground on how an article should be reviewed for if it falls under a certain set of sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ARBPIA is broadly construed. Haredim groups that support the PLO and Hamas, zionism. There's not an actual question of why this was put under Arbpia honestly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, There's not some secret committee that puts articles under sanctions. By the actions of arbcom articles are put under sanctions. ARBPIA for instance use language like "broadly construed". This is every article on wikipedia and every new article created that relates in anyway to the Arab and Israeli conflict. This is whether they are marked or not on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you feel an article falls under ARBPIA and someone has violated it AE would be the appropriate location to take it to. ARBCOM members could we trouble you to link the template to make other editors aware of ARBPIA?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, do I think it's ripe for abuse? No. Save for 1RR Sanctions are not placed without prior warning with ARBPIA. Regardless of whether a page is marked or not you can be sanctioned after being warned. In the event that an article is not actually under sanctions you can make that clear at AE or any time after being banned. This article only mentions Zionism but also supporters of Hamas and the PLO. There's not actually an argument that you can make that this is not a part of Arbpia. It has already been dcided what is a part of ARBPIA. Anything that is a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Your making an appeal to fear that the system can be gamed. Your alternative could be gamed as well. Gaming the sanctions is a can lead to discretionary sanctions. Instead of hypothetical show where this actually happening so that something can be done.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone was not warned about 1RR they could be blocked for 1rr. Where is this article that was put up by sock?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So again it's all about a hypothetical but not an issue that is actually happening? If a page does not have this warning on it but it is an ARBPIA article and you have already been warned ARBPIA you can receive discretionary sanctions. If a page is not ARBPIA and it has this warning on it and you receive discretionary sanctions you can use that in your defense. If this actually becomes an issue ARBCOM should do something about it and that's if giving sanctions to those gaming the system doesn't fix it. As far as I can tell this hasn't actually been an issue. When there are actually issues on wikipedia the unpaid volunteer editors of ARBCOM do not need to waste their time on hypothetical issues that others bring to them. The possible negative hypotheticals that could be brought to them are to numerous to calculate. In short, unless it's actually broke they don't need to fix it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From what you understand? I don't have any further comment here. This is to painful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional Statement by Sir Joseph
I just want to add one more thing, something similar to what I wrote on the Jew case above. How do I know that the ARBPIA template was even added correctly to this article? For all I know some admin assumed it to be in the same sphere as Israel-Palestine and just copy-pasted it. Looking at the original ARBPIA articles, I could not find this article listed. I do think it would be a good idea that when articles are added/deleted/amended/etc. a record is kept, so that when a template is put on the page, we know where to look to find out why, and we can see the reasoning behind it. It could very well be that there was a discussion about this page years back in some archive long gone, but that's neither here nor there (but it is somewhere), but I do ask you to consider that in the future for all ARBCOM cases, when you add articles, to please maintain or track on the talk page of the article the date of the discussion. Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment after reading Amanda's comment, does being included in the Wikiproject Israel automatically put you under this AE? That doesn't make any sense. I know of tons of articles that are under Wikiproject Israel not under sanctions so I still don't know how this article got placed under sanctions and that's why there should be somewhere it is discussed before something so drastic as placing an article on restrictions occurs. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily want a whitelist, I would like to know how this article got included, and how other articles get included and do all project articles get included automatically. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 02:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reverted an IP edit to Yom_Ha'atzmaut because I assumed that would be under sanctions. I was surprised to find no such template, so my question still stands. How do articles get put under sanctions? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Pluto2012, looking at the article, and the history while it may be a contentious area, it is not something as serious as the IP area and my question still remains, why is this article in the IP sanctions automatically? There has to be a process in place, not every article in WIKIPROJECT:ISRAEL is subject to IP sanctions. This article, for example is stable enough and contrary to Pluto2012's assertions, any conflicts in edits is handled on the talk page. The last edit war on that article was in 2006 if my memory serves me. Putting a disputed tag on an article doesn't mean I think it belongs in the IP area, it just means a fact in the article is under dispute. As for Zero's statement that because it has the word Zionism it must be under IP sanctions, that is also not true. This is not necessarily dealing with the IP conflict. This is dealing with internal Jewish religious issues and how to deal with Zionism. That doesn't bring it to the level of the IP conflict and again, look at the edit history. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 01:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho, and if we can just paste a template on a talk page, don't you think that would be ripe for abuse? If I decide that a page is subject to ARBPIA, then I post it to a talk page then I take you to AE and you're blocked for violating something you never even knew was part of ARBPIA. ARBCOM won't investigate who put the template. The template is on the page. What about removing from the page? My statement still stands. There ought to be a process, in all ARBCOM cases where pages are marked with a template. Who decided that this page is subject to ARBPIA? Maybe it wasn't ARBCOM, I couldn't find the diff. I found lots of WIKIPROJECT:ISRAEL articles not under ARBPIA, should I just tag them with the template? I think that's a terrible idea. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho, I just found an article that had a template placed on it by a sock blocked user. If someone were warned for 1rr on that article, they would be blocked because nobody would've known that the template didn't being.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Har Nof had a template put in June by a sock. I found it because I was wondering why it was there. That article has nothing to do with the IP conflict, broadly construed, and indeed, I found that it was just placed there. I removed it, but in this case the article is not heavily edited so it was simple to do. What happens in an article that is edited? After a few weeks or months, that template becomes fact and it becomes a sanctionable article even though it has nothing to do with ARBCOM area. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I can gather, the sock put the template on and then brought someone to AN and the user got blocked for violating ARBPIA, so it's not hypothetical. We have a user putting on a template and an admin blocking based on that template. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 03:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're complaining about, EdJohnston blocked a user based on a sock's placement of a template that didn't belong. The sock was in an edit war, placed the template and then reported the other user. He knew how to game the system. I don't know how you can't see that as a problem when there is no official record when articles are placed under sanctions. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not every mention of Jerusalem means that the article is under ARBPIA. I don't think EdJohnston was correct when he blocked that user, and he even said that all ARBCOM said with regards to Jerusalem was arbitrated the lead to the article. We should not be having secret articles subject to restrictions. There ought to be a process to how articles get placed under sanctions and "broadly construed" does not mean just mentioning the word "Israel." That is pretty ludicrous. Regardless, you can't have a system where people get sanctioned for something as "broadly construed." Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But having an entire article placed under restrictions because of that is ludicrous. We are discussing Israel, does that mean that AE is now under 1RR? Certain topics are contentious and need 1RR. But most topics don't need 1RR and if something discusses it tangentially, then I don't think it should change the entire article. And if you look at ARBCOM, you'll see how often they have things brought because of "broadly construed." Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 19:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012
This articles deals with a very contentious topic in the I-P conflict, which is the anti-zionism of some Jewish communities. Some of them, the Naturei Karta are well-known and even used in the propaganda war between Israel and its ennemies and opponents (eg Iran). Sir Joseph himself added a tag several weeks ago stating the article was disputed. I think it should remain the ARPBIA list. There is no added value to remove this and at the contrary it could be used a a pretext of edit war. Any improvement can be discussed on the talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
An article about Zionism is an article about the I-P conflict. I think the argument to the contrary is simply mistaken. Zerotalk 12:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
, you have your facts slightly wrong regarding NoCal100's typically hypocritical behavior on behalf of the State of Israel using his All Rows4 sock account. He warned the user on 1 June 2015 here, reported him the same day here, and placed the ARBPIA template on the talk page on 3 June 2015 here as a result of comments at the 3RR report. The edit warring was covered by 1RR, regardless of the presence or absence of the ARBPIA template, because it was about the status of Jerusalem i.e. whether Wikipedia can use its neutral narrative voice to refer to places in West Jerusalem as being in Israel. Yes, the sock successfully gamed the system, as has happened countless times (even the ARBPIA discussions are contaminated by evidence presented by socks), but it wasn't dependent on the presence or absence of the ARBPIA template or the notion of the article being a member of a set of 'ARBPIA articles'. It's because, in practice, 1RR has been enforced at the content level, even if it is just one word or sentence that is interpreted as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, despite the ARBPIA restrictions talking about things at the article level. Since the 500 edit/30 day restriction is currently being enforced by editors rather than by software, perhaps that restriction will also be enforced at the content level rather than the article level in practice. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But you can and do have a system where people are sanctioned for something as "broadly construed". You can and do have a system where an edit war over a sentence that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, like the status of Jerusalem, is treated as being within scope of ARBPIA regardless of the article in which the edit war takes place. That seems better to me because it means that the restrictions can be enforced at a finer scale than the article unit. It's often not possible to decide whether something is an 'ARBPIA article' in a repeatable way, but it's very often possible to decide that specific content in an article, and editor actions related to that content, are within scope of ARBPIA. It's usually obvious. Admins, unlike bots so far at least, can usually recognize when something, a sentence, a paragraph, a section, an edit war, is within scope of the ARBPIA restrictions. I agree that not every mention of Jerusalem means that the article is under ARBPIA. If editors could simply refer to Jerusalem as Jerusalem throughout Wikipedia these issues would never occur. But if an article says "Jerusalem, Israel" for example and an editor thinks that violates policy, everything that follows from that point will be within scope of ARBPIA and admins are likely to treat it as such. Ed blocked the editor for an ARBPIA 1RR violation. It wouldn't make sense to have a situation where similar edit wars, over the status of Jerusalem for example, something that is clearly within scope of ARBPIA, were treated differently because they took place in different articles. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:30, 21 December 2015 (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.

Palestine-Israel_articles: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel_articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Looking t the article, I don't see how editing it would affect the actual problem area.  DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
 * I'm inclined to agree with Serialjoepsycho 2 that there seems little chance of a problem occurring if we restore the normal editing environment to this article. If problems do occur then I'm happy for the restrictions to be reimposed by an uninvolved admin following a request at ANI or AE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on what is or isn't part of this, but I do see where people could see it, but again, it doesn't seem to be an issue. As for whitelisting, I'd rather find a more broad approach so we aren't hearing ARCA after ARCA of please uninclude x article. I dug, and their seems to be no context to the addition. Maybe this is a good job for AE to use discretion on removing the topic areas? (Only throwing a suggestion) -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline and kick to AE to use their best judgment. I do not like the idea of a white list at all -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Doug Weller (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline contentious area and greenlighting 3RR would send a bad signal that that behaviour is somehow ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. The article contains substantial content that's explicitly relevant to the ARBPIA area of conflict (e.g. Haredim and Zionism, Haredim and Zionism), and I see no reason why it should be treated differently from any other article subject to these sanctions. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline the article in question is, and should be covered by the ARBPIA restrictions. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We would likely need to do this by motion since it's our sanction. However I see no need to do this for this article so decline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (1RR) (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NE Ent at 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles


 * 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
 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

Statement by NE Ent
The 1RR rule prohibits editors from reverting non-IPs more than once a day and no newbie rule says low edit registered editors can be reverted, so when reverted new editor  per the no newbie rule  blocked her per the 1RR rule. Please fix the 1RR rule, and then get a clerk to change the wording on ARBPIA so this doesn't happen again. NE Ent 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment on motion
The long standing WP:BOLD pillar explicitly states "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." (emphasis original). A remedy that a good faith editor "may be blocked without warning" is, I believe, unprecedented in arbcom proceedings, and in any event, an incredibly bad idea. NE Ent 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Corrected. Nonetheless, remains incredibly bad idea. The editing atmosphere is, of course, an artifact on longstanding real-world animosity between Palestine and Israel and not a reason to comprise Wikipedia principles. It costs very little to require an editor receive a 1RR warning before using administrator tools. NE Ent 17:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ks0stm
Fixing this would be helpful. At first I assumed based on ARBPIA that the 1RR restriction did not include an exception for non-IP new users, but apparently the restriction against new editors says that it can be enforced through reverts? It's quite confusing the way it's set up right now. Either way, I've unblocked since I now assume that the intent was for such reverts to not be subject to 1RR. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if it turns out these two restrictions do conflict and Huldra's reverts indeed were not supposed to be subject to the 1RR restriction, I would like permission to RevDel the block out of Huldra's block log, per WP:CRD. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Replies in your own section, please. 2. I may have a relatively low edit count compared to some other editors/admins, but I am by no means "inexperienced" or "bullied". I explained my rationale at ANI, but for reference: "I unblocked because the restriction against new users, which can be enforced "by reverts", was enacted after the 1RR restriction. I therefore think it a more reasonable assumption that the new user restriction supersedes the 1RR restriction." Still, the restrictions do seem to conflict each other, and it is something I would welcome clarification from ArbCom on. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would welcome hearing the committee's thoughts on 3RR's applications to this, but again, I assume "by reverts" to give license to surpass 3RR the same as for vandalism. I could be mistaken on this, however. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The part I quote is at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know, then. We'll see. I still feel like I made the right call to unblock, whether or not my call to block was correct. The waters are too muddy on this for me to feel comfortable leaving that block in place, which I hope is an understandable position. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
ARBPIA only applies to 1RR, but as I understand it, "regular" WIKIPEDIA policy applies to everything else, such as 3RR, which she did violate. The user should have been reported to 3RR or EDITWAR and have been sorted out. Once the revert goes past 3RR, doesn't that mean everyone is in violation of WIKI policy? As I understand it, from 1-3 revert, there is a free pass on reverting an excluded user, once three reverts, then that user should be reported to AIV or the like. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 02:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments moved to
 * Right, I meant that after 3 reverts, Huldra should not have reverted and should have reported the other user. Both users should have been blocked at this point for 3RR violations. As for your point, I agree. Reading Dan Murphy's comment and others, it is no wonder why certain areas are not welcome anymore. The fact of the matter is that she violated 3RR. That is out of ARBPIA. She was blocked and she should not have been unblocked. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 02:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Ks0stm Here's the text from the ARBPIA ruling: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." The link to that includes 3RR, which would presume to go along with what I wrote above, that 1-3 reverts is disregarded for IP users, after 3RR you need to follow general Wikipedia guidelines. It has always been assumed that general Wiki policies apply above those of ARBPIA. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 02:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ks0stm The case itself, and the template itself still have the wording that general Wikipedia policies apply. Furthermore, can ARBCOM violate Wikipedia policies when Wiki is more stringent? It's one thing for ARBCOM to prohibit 1RR, since Wikipedia allows 1RR, but Wikipedia does not allow 3RR. There is a procedure in place for 3RR and that is reporting to the admins. In this case, I believe that from 1-3 reverts is free, but after 3, the user should be reported either to admins or to AE, but you still can't revert more than 3 times since Wikipedia does not allow it. Regardless, I don't think you should have unblocked before you had a consensus. At the very least the clear evidence of the template is that 3RR is not to be violated. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think giving users carte blanche is a real bad idea, least of which is that 24/7 reverts won't solve anything if the user will not be reported to AE. At a certain point enough is enough and the reverting has to stop and general guidelines come into play. I think this is just more trouble than it's worth. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter what happens, at the very least, the template needs to be modified so that editors and admins have clarity on what the new rules are. As it is now, IIRC, the template is not clear at all and is the reason why we're in this mess. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going to request revdel of wrong blocks, I want my 1RR block from Feb 2014 done as well. If you look at the logs, I was not given any notice of 1RR or DS. The DS notice I was given on my talk page (Archive 2) was given the same time as my 24 hour block. That means that Callanec gave me an illegal block, I would like that cleared from my Wiki record. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 04:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
Due to Arbpia3, Terrible towel7, with less than 500 edits is under ORR. They inserted their own original research, interpreting the meaning of a primary source and effectively created a BLP violation. Huldra was neither in violation of 1RR, 3RR, 6RR, or 20RR, due to the BLP exemption. Terrible Towel was in violation due to their first single edit. The edit warring that followed is enough not to consider any leeway in whether or not they were aware of ARBPIA3 in the first place as they went well beyond a 3RR violation. I hope in the future Huldra will go to the edit war noticeboard instead of continuing on with such an edit warrior but they did nothing wrong. It would probably help to clarify what procedure to take when an ip editor or other user under 500 contributions makes an edit. Are they exempt from revert rules?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When Other Legends Are Forgotten, please save the wikilawyering. Ex post facto? Is this not the first revert by them? While they say BOP-violation, this is clearly a typographic error and they meant BLP violation. How ever there's no need to take my word for that, why don't we just ask if there's any question to this. Your quoting policy but you make no actual argument as to why this would be exempt under the BLP. Terrible towel did use a primary source. They themselves interpreted it's meaning, which is original research. There's really no question here if this was a BLP violation or not, you have not found a loophole in the part of the policy you quote. Material challenged or likely to be challanged and all that jazz is what this comes down to. The primary source used and the users original research do not meet wikipedias standards of verification. They made the position first that it was a blp violation and later that it was vandalism. It probably had something to do with the wp:pointyness of the users few attempts to discuss it with huldra . I'm not sure your part in this. From my perspective as a neutral observer you seem to have an axe to grind with Huldra. I'd caution you if that is the case, standing before arbcom is probably not the best choices of locations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your hesitation on the revdel and as I understand from your choice of words you feel as if such a revdel will sully the record of Ks0stm. I'm guessing a paper trail is left behind with revdel? I also note that it is Ks0stm that suggested the revdel. If there is a paper trail can it read that this was a good faith block and they had asked for the revdel personally? Or anything to the effect that leaves it clear that this block was not of any impropriety on the part of them?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by When Other Legends Are Forgotten
She WAS reported for 3RR, and initially blocked for that - correctly. Then we had her usual supporters bully and mislead an inexperienced admin into unblocking her. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved from, please comment only in your section.  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 03:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

, the newer restriction adds newbie editors to the same category as IP editors, and puts both into a 0RR restriction, which means they can be reverted without violating 1RR. But it does not mean (at least not as worded in the ARBCOM decision) that they can be reverted without limitation. In fact, the wording of the original decision strongly suggests that this is NOT the case, since that decision said that  while  IPs  can be reverted without violating 1RR, they  are still subject to regular edit warring rules like 3RR.

"BLP" is not some magic pixie dust whose invocation grants you immunity. The BLP exemption makes it clear that "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". It really strains credulity to suggest that quoting  a person verbatim would be a BLP violation. regardless, this smacks of ex-post facto rationalization. When Huldra made this report -   -  she was claiming "vandalism " (which it is of course NOT). On Terrible Towel's page, she was invoking the WP:PIA3 restriction.

- you state that "The GP already allows for users to revert edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure an unlimited number of times. " - but it seems administrators don't currently see it this way (see my recent exchange with User:Bbb23  here. It would  be good to have explicit language that  says  this, or alternatively, replace the current proposed language that says " Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit." (which could be construed to en exemption from 1RR, only) with the following:  " Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit and the 3RR limit" . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

- if the intention is, as Guerillero states above, to allow for an unlimited number of reverts of edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure ', then adding the text "standard exemptions to 3RR apply" makes is worse, not better, since this means 3RR is still in force with its standard exemptions. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * has been blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
Wow. What a mess. was doing the right thing, enforcing Arbcom sanctions and protecting an article. That's quite clear, under the provisions of the "GP", and the partisan wikilawyering about 3RR is irrelevant and unseemly. thought they were doing the right thing, but the Arbcom sanctions were confusing. Once they realised this, they continued to try to do the right thing by unblocking and coming here, asking Arbcom to help fix it. Let's hope Arbcom can continue the theme, by doing the right thing themselves: fixing the confusing sanctions, and allowing the unnecessary block notations to be deleted from the record of a 10 year user with a clean block log. Of note is that Huldra does valuable, important work in this difficult, fraught area, where many would not be willing to, so that clean block log is both highly commendable and very important to them - allowing the notations to stand would surely hinder their valuable work, as opponents abuse their existence "in battle". Begoon &thinsp; talk 07:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

, you say "Ks0stm's block was though made in good faith and they should not be sanctioned for it, and for the same reason I'm initially reluctant to revdel the entry in the block log" - I agree that the block was a good faith error, caused by confusing ARBPIA/ARBPIA3 wording, and that sanctioning Ks0stm would be ludicrous. I don't think anyone has suggested that. I don't, however see how the "same reason" makes you reluctant to remove this error from Huldra's block log, particularly given their 10 year clean block log, editing in a troublesome area, where any entry in a block log is likely to be used as a "cudgel" against them in inevitable encounters with tendentious editors. In fact, I'm sorry, I can't parse that "same reason" logic at all. Apologies if I'm being dumb... It does concern me greatly that an editor doing good work in a difficult area should be left with a stained record, through no fault of their own, when the remedy is simple, and obvious. We should be thanking and encouraging work like this - not potentially hindering or discouraging it. Begoon &thinsp; talk 10:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To the arbitrators basically saying "we never revision deleted a block log before, so we don't think we should now", that says a couple of things to me. They have tried to explain the difficulties this will cause them. Do you find their concerns invalid? To the arbitrator who has opined that they have no issue with this simple, obvious remedy - thank you, not for the first time. Begoon &thinsp; talk 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you have not considered the particular circumstances here: unclear arbcom restrictions caused an admin to err, and a good-faith user to be penalised for nothing. It's an arbcom error - who else should correct it?
 * Secondly, I don't think you were elected to duck difficult issues and cling to some nebulous "precedent", rather to resolve them, and this obvious resolution is in your gift, and requested by both the blocking admin and the blocked user.
 * Finally, you don't seem to have understood the particular issues this will cause for this editor in the area they edit (I do hope they continue to do so, after this, but could not fault them for reconsidering...).

Statement by Kingsindian
This is a rather simple request. The General Prohibition WP:ARBPIA3 remedy obviously supersedes all other remedies. It explicitly states that the remedy may be enforced by reverts. One only needs to update the text of ARBPIA template to match it. Guerillero's proposed text seems ok to me. For, in the future, you may want to use the magic word "WP:ARBPIA3" in your edit summaries, to instantly get a "win" (example of me doing it is here, and WOLAF here). The wikilawyering by WOLAF, arguing that Huldra should be reblocked, is truly disgusting; I will not comment on it any further. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that the template have a wording which suggests that the editor (who is reverting the IP/editors with less than 30/500), link to WP:ARBPIA3 in the edit summary? It is a non-binding, simple suggestion that would save a lot of trouble, and makes it clear to the IP/editor as to why they are being reverted. This would both avoid WP:BITE to genuine newbies and give a clear direction to trolls/socks that they are wasting their time, as well as a pointer to uninvolved admins like Ks0stm who don't know about this. (See my examples above). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am simply suggesting that the remedy include the wording in addition to the fixing of the wording you mentioned before. That would just serve as a public service announcement, kind of like warning signs on cigarette packs. Of course the wording of the template needs to be fixed, I am all in favour of that. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I myself have a clean block log, and I kind of understand Huldra's point. I have never been harassed like she has, so I will defer to their judgement about whether it will be used in the future. If ArbCom is concerned that this will set a precedent, I don't see any grounds for this. This is a very unusual situation concerning a very unusual remedy concerning a very toxic area. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
For the record: I do not want any sanctions against  ...we all do mistakes, and he did unblock me very soon afterwards, and apologised. Also, for the record, I *did* report the "new" editor to the vandal board. (If anyone checks, you will see that what they tried to add to the article was not actually supported by the sources. So IMO it was both a BLP-violation, in addition to ARBPIA3 violation.)

However, I would *really* like to see my block-log wiped clean. User:Thryduulf: I think the gloating here would be very disheartening to any editor. Please rev-del my block-log....and then we can all move along, Huldra (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The block has been, and will be used against me, again. Guaranteed.  (I edit in a  .....rough neighbourhood…  there are always plenty of new editors like “When Other Legends Are Forgotten” around.)
 * Does not this come under Non-contentious housekeeping?  I know one thing: If this block-log stands it will make me deeply regret that I removed  the  BLP-violations, like I did. And also I will  never  remove  BLP-violations again, when I risk filling up my  block-history. It is as simple as that. I repeat; this is all very disheartening.  Huldra (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Kingsindian: when using TW, (which I mostly used for revering the BLP, as it is quick), then we don´t get an opportunity to have an edit-line. I did try (and thought I had) said it was a BLP-violation in the first revert.
 * User:DGG : I don´t understand you. If the discussion here ends with concluding that the block can be rev-delled, and it is, well then, wonderful! That the discussion remains open here, does not worry me.
 * And that several of you have had, and live quite easily with wrong blocks is a bit different from my situation. None of you edit in the IP area. To be blunt: I don´t think you know what it is like. I know admins and arb.commers can be harassed and threatened, but I have been more or less systematically targeted for 5 years now, from Grawp, his copy-cats, and, if I can judge from their political views: Kahane supporters. (Typically people who admire people like Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir: not nice people.)  So I get this if I comment on AN/I, or this, this or this during normal editing. You can wade through my log-page, if you like. Again: this  will be used against me, again. Guaranteed.  Please do not make my editing-life more difficult than it already is. Huldra (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by LjL
Some people above say that WP:3RR restrictions still applied, but this seems like a clear case where they don't per WP:3RRBLP, and did in fact mention she was reverting a BLP ("bop") violation in her first revert's summary. Furthermore, she stated she was under the (most probably correct) impression that the editor she was reverting was a WP:SOCK of a blocked editor, which is of course another exception to 3RR.

Therefore, given there was in fact no misbehavior at all on Huldra's part, I not only support the unblock, but I second the request (which actually comes from the admin who originally blocked her) to strike the block from her otherwise 10-year clean block log. LjL (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I might misunderstand something, but why do you seem to think that a revdel of the block would reflect badly on the blocking admin (any more than a note would, anyway)? Having two blocks in the block logs, even if one of them serves as a clarification of the previous one, is surely not the same in the eyes of the editor mistakenly blocked as having a genuinely clean block log - which she deserves, as I think we agree she has done nothing wrong (by the way, I think she did report the matter to a board, possibly WP:AIV, so she did her "duty" in that respect, too, though I don't have a diff and you should ask her about that). LjL (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Slakr
As a heads up, at one of my usual haunts, WP:AN3, I was already assuming 1RR/3RR exceptions for reverting 30/500s in response to this remedy, as this seems self-evident and logical given a lack of active technical enforcement alternatives (e.g., no edit filter or new usergroup+page-protection option). As such, I had already made changes to toward the beginning of this month with that assumption in mind so that it also reflected that it's an exception to 1RR to enforce the remedy. I only stumbled upon this now, but given the input here, I'm assuming that's what everyone's agreeing with anyway, but should Arbcom believe differently, feel free to either ping me to update it or obviously just update it with whatever wording's appropriate. :P -- slakr \ talk / 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
The proposal by Guerillero is ambiguous and I'm not even sure what it is supposed to mean. The premise "When not impeding the enforcement of the General Prohibition" lexically appears to refer to the actions of the editors who are limited, but I expect it is intended to refer to the actions of an enforcing administrator. Who exactly is impeding what, exactly? Please rewrite it more clearly. Zerotalk 08:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

's proposed amendment of the 1RR rule massively widens the existing rule. The Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles says "any article", not "any page". Please be sure that you are really voting for what you think you are voting for. Zerotalk 08:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iselilja
The blocking incident here was obviously an accident waiting to happen. It's very problematic to revert IPs/New users without linking to the General Prohibition in the edit summary and also inform the user on their talk page about the rule. It is natural that good-faith editors otherwise will be confused and feel mistreated; and may try to reinsert what they believe is an adequate edit to the encyclopedia and the result will be an edit-war requring blocks. Of importance is also that a "new user" in English Wikipedia can be a well-established user at a project in another language which don't have these rules; and for such users it will be upsetting to be reverted without explanation and then end up blocked if they reinsert a fully valid edit. Otherwise, I think the blocking of Huldra reflects the problem of many administrators on Wikipedia blocking serious users for a simple (perceived) mistake without warning them and giving them a chance to explain themselves first. Iselilja (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector
I know this request is basically completed, I just want to jump in here and say this is exactly what I said would happen if the (what we're now calling the "no newbies rule") were to be enforced by reverts and not by a technical restriction. This revision isn't going to fix that problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2016 (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 (1RR): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles (1RR): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * There are two questions here: how do past cases interact with previous cases and how far can one go when enforcing our new General Prohibition. I am going to tackle each one individually. From everything that I have seen as an arb and as a clerk, newer arbcom decisions overrule older decisions when they conflict (lex posterior derogat priori for you legal nerds). Normally this involves striking text that conflicts. However, the 1RR as it stands is such a convoluted mess that this is impossible. If we were going to reform it, which I think we should, the remedy should be no more than a few lines. Something like When not impeding the enforcement of the General Prohibition, editors are limited to one revert per page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict per day. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. sounds the best to me.  As for how to enforce the new GP, I think, as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with a rev delete --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While that is a quick fix, and a decent one, I once spent a month working for a retired diesel mechanic who had a classic Western Pennsylvania last name. He always liked reminding me and the other guys who I worked with that he didn't care if we messed up. What he cared about was that we didn't "pass the buck" and owned up to our mistakes. I think that arbcom needs to adopt the same philosophy. Quick fixes pass the buck onto the AE admins to effectively rewrite our remedies, in an unwritten fashion, so that they work together. We can fix this quagmire, why shouldn't we? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My take on this is is that if someone is enforcing the general prohibition then 1RR does not apply. If the edit being reverted would be considered good or potentially good if it was made by someone who was not a new user then 3RR does apply. In this case the edit was original research and possibly a BLP violation, so there was no possibility of it being accepted regardless of who made it and so I see it as exempt from the 3RR too. However whenever anyone finds themselves getting close to or exceeding 3 reverts they absolutely report the matter at ANI or the edit warring noticeboard so that other editors can verify their interpretion and block as necessary. I also support Guerillero's suggestion of allowing new users to be blocked if violate the 1RR even for a first offence. Ks0stm's block was though made in good faith and they should not be sanctioned for it, and for the same reason I'm initially reluctant to revdel the entry in the block log (I am open to having my mind changed about this however) but I have no problem with a very short clarification block if Huldra desires. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade regarding the revdel - it's not about reflecting badly on anyone. WP:REVDEL states "Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper." This block was not "grossly improper" and there is nothing libellous or offensive in the summary, meaning there is no need to hide that this good faith mistake was made. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of applying 3RR (and, obviously, 1RR as well), reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users does not count as a revert. Huldra's actions were not in violation of the restriction and the editor should not have been blocked. We should amend the restriction so that it doesn't create similar problems in future and here's my proposal: clear vandalism of whatever origin and edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support revision deleting block log entries except in the exceptionally rare case that the block log message contained private or sensitive information. If a block was mistaken, a notation to that regard will serve. Other than that, I think it's been pretty well said by my colleagues above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about "reflecting badly on the blocking admin", and it has nothing to do with that. The presumption is always in favor of transparency and not hiding things that happened just because they were in error. I see no reason here to deviate from that. Huldra's block log is clean as things stand right now; the blocking admin unblocked with a clear statement that the block was erroneous and should not have been placed to start with. There's no need, from there, to hide the fact that it ever happened at all, or really to take any other action whatever. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guerillero's suggested modification of the remedy. But the usual course for mistaken blocks is a clarifying entry on the log, and it is sufficient in this case. If we revdel it, everything here would still remain, so I do not see what the revdel would accomplish.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to add an exemption to the 1RR remedy that allows people to revert editors who are not allowed to be editing. I also agree that any action against Ks0stm would be unnecessary, as it quite clearly was a good-faith attempt to enforce a remedy. I'm not terribly keen to revision-delete Huldra's block log—we have been asked to hide block log entries for unjustified blocks in the past, and I don't believe we've ever granted them. Block logs are simply logs of past blocks, warranted and otherwise; they are not meant to be some sort of badge of honor, nor are they meant to be an at-a-glance record of a user's behavior. I don't have a clean block log simply because of my own error a few years ago, but I don't think it's ever once been used against me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed/ We do need to add such an exemption. How about Salvio's "l: clear vandalism of whatever origin and edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure may be reverted without restriction."? Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug. NativeForeigner Talk 23:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Block logs are not revision deleted as a rule, one reason is a revision deleted block log doesn't inherently mean that the block was incorrect. I was once blocked incorrectly, and now the blocker and I both sit on the arbitration committee. So that's something. I like Guerillo's rewrite, but per Doug's comment about clarity of text I would suggest: Editors are limited to one revert per page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict per day. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. This limitation does not apply when an editor is enforcing the General Prohibition --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , the use of a descriptive edit summary has long been best practice across all wikimedia projects, and I would encourage anyone reverting as per an ArbCom ruling to explain that in their summaries (at a minimum). Edit summaries are also a poor form of communication, and not everyone checks them (although I would hope an experienced user from another project would after finding they were reverted). --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)*
 * See Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles where "without warning" was originally used for this set of articles. You might not like it but I don't think removing this now would improve the editing atmosphere. Doug Weller  talk 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know how much Huldra has done for the project and how much she sacrifices for it, but on the matter of the log I find myself swayed by Thryduulf's "there is no need to hide that this good faith mistake was made". Please consider it a battle scar you can wear with pride. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the block log thing, I've been vacillating between 'block logs are just records of button-clicks and not lists of demerits, and we shouldn't be further reinforcing the already-too-common latter view' and 'a person who has put a lot of work into a difficult topic area wants a mistake fixed and I'd feel like a bureaucratic jerk to say no'. I lean toward the second view, but consensus seems to be for the first, in which case I'm awfully tempted to go block myself. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 1RR


Proposed:


 * (1) The General 1RR restriction that is part of the Palestine-Israel articles case is rescinded including all modifications of the remedy. (2) In its place, the following remedy is enacted: Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.


 * Enacted --Mdann52 (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. It has the same outcome as Salvio's but doesn't try to salvage the christmas tree bill that is the current 1RR and uses less words. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Swapped in Kirill's wording -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) With Kirill's wording. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And as amended. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) With Kirill's wording. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) as amended.  Doug Weller  talk 14:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose

At the moment as I don't understand how Salvio's suggestion of "clear vandalism of whatever origin and edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure may be reverted without restriction." is covered by this. It appears to contradict it. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Abstention struck after support vote. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain
 * The GP already allows for users to revert edits made by IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure an unlimited number of times. If you want to throw in an explicit exemption for vandalism, I think one is implicitly included,I would have no issues -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been criticised for our use of language. Can you suggest something better than "while not impeding the enfocement of the..."?  Doug Weller  talk 11:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit.  Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense." Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think we need to exempt reverting "obvious vandalism". Someone's going to come back here and ask about it sooner or later. Doug Weller  talk 13:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore I have added our standard exemptions phrase as we've added it to every nth motion from here to Gamergate. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by JzG at 00:52, 29 December 2015 (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


 * diff of notification DrChrissy

Statement by JzG
DrChrissy is under a topic ban from "all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted". DrChrissy is currently edit-warring to include negative text from Mercola.com, an extremely unreliable source, to (e.g. ). Fish are not plants, but the locus of dispute is GMOs generally.

.
 * 1) Should DrChrissy be editing articles on genetically modified non-plant organisms?
 * 2) Should non-plant GMOs be covered by the 1RR remedy?

Statement by DrChrissy
ArbCom, what am I doing wrong here? It appears some of you are basing your decisions on a potential topic ban expansion on my editing of a single page - Genetically modified fish.
 * Am I edit warring? No. JzG stated I am edit warring, but I am almost the only editor on there! ...it is difficult to have a war with oneself.  There have been no comments left on the talk page since December 21st - so anyone arguing that I am edit warring has not attempted whatsoever to engage in any discussion.
 * Am I breaking 1RR or slow edit-warring by reverting? No - I have made only one reversion since the remedies of ArbCom were published.
 * Are my edits POV? I can see how this might be perceived at the moment, however, the way I tend to edit articles is to present one point of view and subsequently others to balance the article. There are only 24 hrs in the day to edit and we are told that articles should always be considered as "work in progress".  I have not yet had time to present other points of view and, of course, other editors are welcome to do this.  Moreover, if my editing is being seen as POV, I have not been notified of this either on the article Talk page or my own Talk page.
 * Are my sources RS? I believe this criticism relates to just the Mercola source. When I first introduced the content, I did not know who the author was (how many content editors do know this?).  Since I have been informed of this, I have not tried to reintroduce the material - I AM listening to criticisms.
 * In short, I am really at a loss to understand why some arbitrators think my topic ban should be enlarged. If this is to be a learning process, I need to know where I am going wrong.  Please tell me.
 * DrChrissy (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Capeo...rather than going on ad nauseum about edits/sources, etc. here to try and discredit me, why not just make the edits you want to? Surely that would be the best approach to building a better encyclopaedia. DrChrissy (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Capeo...sorry, I do not buy your flimsy time argument. The time to create your last-but-one posting going into great deal about just one source would have easily allowed you to make several constructive edits to the article.  But rather than do that, and us perhaps engaging in discussion at the article Talk page which is where it correctly belongs, you bring it here to a Noticeboard.  You are simply raising content issues - and these are not dealt with by ArbCom.  I believe your approach is so uncollegiate as to be adversarial.  Why are you so averse to content editing? DrChrissy (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn Thank you very much for confirming Trypto's observation that there is no edit warring at the page. Please, if you feel my edits are one-sided, edit the article to add balance. Many of the edits simply have no other "side" to them, but if you believe differently, I encourage you to edit accordingly or open up discussion on the Talk page. Regarding my use of the Wired article, I actually asked the very question of whether it was RS at the Talk page shown here[] before introducing the content. I received no negative comments so I assumed it was OK to use. I am trying very hard to learn here, so I think asking the question was the right course of action and one showing I am willing to engage in discussion and take other editor's viewpoints into consideration. DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not recognize your name as one of the original arbitrators here - please could you tell me why you have posted here. DrChrissy (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I think all parties in the GMO case should be informed of this considering the implications for current and future clarifications.  In my own case, perhaps you could indicate a diff where I have edited contrary to the intent of my topic ban to protect GM plants. DrChrissy (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I did not "move to" editing Genetically modified fish after my topic ban - the article's history page shows clearly that I have been editing the page since August. Secondly, I used the Mercola source because this quoted comments - I was not using it as a source of Mercola's own interpretation of GMO matters.  Third, please look carefully at the original clarification.  The first part relates to "edit warring".  It has been made abundantly clear by other editors that there is no edit warring whatsoever going on at that page. DrChrissy (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * New motion I have just seen the new motion to extend my topic ban.  Could I please ask the proposer for evidence (diffs) that support their proposal - otherwise, how can I defend myself? DrChrissy (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo
So at what point do I get to say I told you so? That article is horrible. DrChrissy has added almost nothing but negative material (the vast bulk of an article that barely bothers to explain what GM fish even are) using completely non-notable primary papers or outright WP:FRINGE sources. Often they're cherry picking data from the papers that aren't fringe, without context, giving an impression that doesn't even agree with the actual conclusions of the papers. This isn't shocking since they don't seem to understand WP:FRINGE or what constitutes the scientific mainstream. Or even sourcing really. The whole controversy section is basically what DrChrissy finds controversial about GM fish and not what any notable sources seem to. Capeo (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to further display the selective use of even okay sources look at the second paragraph of AquaAdvantage Salmon under Controversies. Note how only raw data is grabbed from the source with no context at all to paint a much bleaker picture than the conclusion of the paper.  In fact the 41% natural hybridization in the wild sentence literally has no bearing on the conclusions of the paper at all and DrChrissy leaves out that this has only been observed as a result of translocation.  Not to mention it has nothing to do with GM Fish and specifically leaves out the first part of the sentence, that it was cherry picked from, that states natural hybridization rarely exceeds 1%.  Now look at the impression that whole paragraph gives versus the conclusion of the paper: "Despite the apparent low probability for genetic introgression into the brown trout genome, the ecological consequences of decreased salmon growth in the presence of transgenic hybrids indicate that hybridization is relevant to risk assessments. Although transgenic hybrids would probably be rarer in the wild than in our experiment, our results indicate that transgenic hybrids have a competitive advantage over salmon in at least some semi-natural conditions. Still, it is entirely unclear whether this would be observed in truly wild environments. If this advantage is maintained in the wild, transgenic hybrids could detrimentally affect wild salmon populations. Ultimately, we suggest that hybridization of transgenic fishes with closely related species represents potential ecological risks for wild populations and a possible route for introgression of a transgene, however low the likelihood, into a new species in nature."  Also, because this is just cherrypicking a primary study there's nothing that even indicates anything is actually controversial about this to anyone other than DrChrissy themselves.  Unfortunately you can dissect most of controversy section in the same manner.  Misrepresented primary sources with no secondary sources giving context or even expressing how any of this is controversial to begin with. Capeo (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly DrChrissy has seen the above because they have since added the last sentence of conclusion, as a quote, into the paragraph noted while still leaving the cherry picked and misleading data. I happened to look into the claims and sources in the paragraph above.  It claims AquaBounty said their fish cannot breed and then says "however" there's a 1.1% chance of fertility as though AquaBounty denies this when the 1.1% source is from AquaBounty.com.  Further the next sentence seems to imply the chance is higher based on a sentence taken from an abstract that, when read in full, actually confirms the claim:  "Spontaneous triploidy was found to be rare (0.06% and 0.22% when eggs were stored in vivo or in vitro, respectively). Three larger scale trials (n =15,814, 10,419, and 19,593) using normal pressure, high pressure, or high pressure plus aged eggs, yielded triploidy frequencies of 99.8%, 97.6%, and 97.0%, respectively. Overall, among all pressure-treated groups (n =54,787 fish), 1.1% exceptional diploids were detected. If families with obvious high levels (>2%) of diploids are excluded, the frequency of diploid exceptions is 0.32%" (emphasis added). Not to mention this paper has been cited a whole 16 times and seems completely non-controversial. Capeo (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , a couple reasons, one being time constraints. I'm only able to devote maybe an hour here or there and sometimes no time for days.  The other being, given your more recent postings about how you think fringe and POV should be interpreted, I see nothing but conflict heading down that road.  And I'm not trying to "discredit you".  We're talking about your editing not you personally.  Now I've got to be well over the word limit by this point so I'm going to bow out.  Clerks, if this needs trimming let me know.  I should be on again for a bit later. Capeo (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that in the time since this was brought up (not edit-warring BTW just a NPOV issue) DrChrissy's response to the lack of neutrality pointed out is to expand the least neutral sections. This, "Many of the edits simply have no other "side" to them" posted above, elucidates the issue better than anything I can say.  Between this ARCA and the one above these issues have been lingering and the response always seem to be doubling down.  Arbs, if you are going to propose any amendments, I'd say sooner is better than later. Capeo (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , since when is blatant POV pushing not disruptive? I could sympathize more with your view if not for DrChrissy's reactions to being told their editing is an issue.  They've collected two TBs now.  Right up until the GMO case was closed and sanctions took effect DrChrissy did all they could to stuff their views into the Glysophate article.  One slight attempt to fix the slant of the GM Fish article is insta-reverted.  Here we have three arbs suggesting DrChrissy's editing is not neutral and the reaction is to double down again and expand the controversy section even more.  It's not like fringe and due weight issues haven't been explained to them a million times now.  I guess you have more faith than I do. Capeo (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
Please hold on a minute. I've been editing Genetically modified fish too. And I am concerned that JzG has misstated several things, and his misstatements are being taken as fact. He is probably right about the issues of POV to some extent, and my personal opinion is that DrChrissy has been adding too much detail from primary sources, but these things seem to be getting addressed at the page. And the Mercola source is unambiguously not an RS. However, the edit warring and 1RR issues are not as JzG says. As for his question 2 (should non-plant GMOs be covered by 1RR?), the page in question already has the edit notice stating the GMO decision about DS and 1RR, and it displays every time one edits the page, so I think that question has already been answered. More importantly, I'm not seeing DrChrissy edit warring over the Mercola source or over anything else. I'm just not seeing the reverting, unless I'm missing something. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Following up on my comment from yesterday, I want to re-emphasize my statement that there is much less going on here than what JzG accused. I'm glad that Aircorn and Dialectric have reconfirmed my observation that there has not been any edit warring. There just hasn't. And I don't at all see a battleground at this page, neither on DrChrissy's part nor in the edit summary from another editor that was cited by Dialectric. And I want to point something else out, too. The purpose of the GMO decision was not, and should not be, to prohibit editors from adding anti-GMO content. Much of what Capeo is saying is based on: DrChrissy adds sources that criticize GM animals, oh look, that's POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Well, no, it's not disruptive, in this case. DrChrissy is not violating the existing sanctions at that page. (And I trust no one will think that I, of all editors, am sympathetic to an anti-GMO POV.) I do think that DrChrissy's view of NPOV looks POV from where I am, and I sure do not like that statement about there being no other side, but DrChrissy is not being disruptive about any of this. I can sympathize with ArbCom that DrChrissy has been trying your patience with all the noisy appeals to you and to Jimbo, and maybe that also annoyed JzG, but there is no basis here for you to expand DrChrissy's sanctions. On the other hand, there are other pages, where other editors are doing quite a bit to make GMO-2 probable, but this isn't where that's happening. You need to close this with no formal action. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Capeo, I really do not want to argue with you, because it isn't you or I who makes the decisions here. I'm trying to see this as real people editing, and real people are complicated. I agree with you about DrChrissy doubling down at the glyphosate page, but I think that, even though DrChrissy has added some stuff to the fish page we are actually discussing here that will end up being reverted, I'm seeing zero evidence that there will be a battle over it, at least not one waged by DrChrissy. And in case anyone did not notice it, DrChrissy has also been adding material that is pro-GM to that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I would be negligent if I didn't point this out, in the context of the existing interaction ban:,. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
The article in question is on my watchlist. The feed is dominated by Dr Chrissy, but there is no edit warring going on. I am very concerned with the one sided nature of the additions and feel trouble is brewing on that article. That someone would even think wired could be a reliable source is also worrying. AIR corn (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently there are bigger GM Fish to fry that are taking up my limited editing time, but one day I hope to turn my attention to this article. There are plenty of sides to these articles, that is why they are so heated and why we are here now. AIR corn (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed wording of Dr Chrisseys potential ban includes "commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them". However, at the trend seems to be against adding this to the other topic banned editors. Obviously there is still time for these motions to go the other way, but I thought I should point this out in case it had been missed. Personally I think it would be unfair to extend the topic ban here unless the same is done above or evidence is provided that this editor is disruptive at those articles. AIR corn  (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dialectric
Jzg has not provided diffs which support his claims of edit warring. I have also been following the Genetically modified fish article and second Tryptofish's position that DrChrissy has not been edit warring on that page, and that in fact no edit warring has occurred there. This issue was not discussed on the article talk page or on DrChrissy's user page before the filing. Curt edit summaries like jps ' 'removing Mercola. Completely unreliable source' diff ) without explanation/elaboration on talk are likely to exacerbate battleground problems in this already contentious area. Dialectric (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (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.

Genetically modified organisms (2): Clerk notes

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



Genetically modified organisms (2): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The answer to question 1 is yes they can under the restriction that was crafted for them. Should they? That is for them to decide. For question 2, those are covered by 1RR. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems we should have made the remedy to include "genetically modified organisms", rather than just plants. The "reference" cited was "Act now to stop genetically engineered fish from receiving approval". Someone citing a reference with "Act now" in the title is someone who seems to have difficulty with the concept of neutrality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been talking about changing the wording, now seems to be the time. Doug Weller  talk 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug and Seraphimblade. The intent here was to allow DrChrissy to constructively edit parts of the GMO topic area to demonstrate that he can edit in a neutral and collegiate fashion regarding GMOs. His actions since the close of the case have demonstrated that he cannot and so an extension of the topic ban is in unfortunately in order. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, extend to all genetically modified organisms. The leeway provided by allowing non-plant articles to be edited appears to not have the desired effect. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , it is now 2016. The new committee members are active. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , new Arbitration Committee members take over every year on 1 January. There was a month long election, and it was announced in several locations across Wikipedia. My earlier point was echoing Seraphimblade:
 * Your topic ban permitted you to edit GM articles not related to plants.
 * So you move to GM fish, and you make this addition here. The belief that such a reference would be suitable for such a contentious topic, which is very close to your topic ban (or any article for that matter) is concerning.
 * It appears that you are delving into areas that will cause you trouble, but because fish are not plants you are not expressly forbidden from editing in said areas. The solution as I see it is to extend the topic ban to include non-plant organisms. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So fish aren't plants, eh? I think that needs a cn tag. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe we should stand for constructions like "Person X has been quoted as summarising a study by stating that..." Drmies (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no edit warring; let's be clear about that. So that charge is out, and whoever brought it up (!) should be ashamed at this misrepresentation. On the other hand, and this is about the same diff Kelapstick linked earlier, the edit summary here is...well, unacceptable from someone who should know what they're doing, and it's the kind of thing that has been brought up before in DrChrissy-related discussions. Worse, their intractability on the talk page really makes it clear that they are out of their league when it comes to sourcing and such. Granted, they were having a discussion with jps, which is the online equivalent of eating concrete with spicy mustard, but still. To approach this from another side, I was ready to not support extending the scope of the topic ban until I saw the commentary on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (DrChrissy)


Proposed:


 * DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer.  Doug Weller  talk 13:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) kelapstick(bainuu) 14:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) obvious -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Sadly, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Recuse
 * 1) I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: GoodDay (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoodDay at 15:53, 1 December 2015 (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


 * here

Statement by GoodDay
Since I've been restricted (in June 2012), a new tool has been added to Wikipedia. This tool gives editors the ability to 'Thank' editors for their edits & posts, via a THANK button. My question is - Am I allowed to THANK editors for any edits or posts made in relation to my restriction diacritics? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to BMK - the 2 times that I was reported at AE for breaches of this restriction (both situations happened at my talk-page & my now deleted secondary talk-page), the results were a 1-week block & a 1-month block, respectively. I wanted to make absolute certain, a 3rd AE report wouldn't be made on me, merely because I THANKED anybody for making an diacritics changing edit or just posting about diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification - The only editors I would thank, would be those who's edits or posts I happen to agree with. I certaintly wouldn't pester any editor or editors, that I had differences with in the past concerning diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to Steven Crossin - There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm not asking arbitrators for 'permission'. I'm asking arbitrators if my restriction covers 'thanking' editors. I'm seeking clarification & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Having read over the opinons of arbitrators. It appears that none of them are forbidding me to thank editors in the area-in-question. Therefore, I'll thank editors on my own discretion. Fear not, 1 or 2 thanks per year, is hardly going to cause any disruptions. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To Thryduulf - FWIW, I'm not under any IBAN. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that part of my comment is speaking "in general terms", i.e. not about you specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

To Guerillero - I've no desire to try & influence anyone concerning diacritics. Your's is the first message to suggest penalties, regardless. If arbitrators want to officially or unofficially tighten my restriction via barring me from THANKING editors in this area? then so be it. I appreciate the clarification of this matter & will comply with your ruling. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

To all arbitrators - Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I planned to thank editors who made edits & posts that I agreed with. I wasn't looking to torment anyone. Anyways, I would appreciate it, if this request were closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To GorillaWarfare - This restriction has been in place for 3.5 years, with arbitrators showing no signs of ever lifting or easing it. I think, I've been quite patient about it. I certaintly haven't been frantic, as there's been no f-bombs flying. :) GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, isn't this clarification case suppose to be archived? GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I'm not sure why GoodDay thought it was necessary to bring this here, since he got fairly good advice when he asked the same question on WP:AN a couple of days ago. It's not like ArbCom doesn't have a couple of other things on its plate at the moment. BMK (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that you shouldn't do it, then. If you've under a sanction to avoid diacritics (probably "broadly construed"), then if you make a habit of thanking people for diacritic-related edits, you're not really avoiding the subject, are you? The answer seems pretty clear: stop obsessing about diacritics and find something completely and totally unrelated to do. BMK (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @GoodDay: "I would stay away from the topic area" is not exactly a green light to thank people for their edits in the topic area. As for your discretion - well, to be frank, your lack of discretion concerning diacritics is one reason you are under a topic ban in the first place, so I still think you would be better off turning your back to that subject entirely and doing something else - don't even monitor it for people to thank. BMK (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Crossin
Kinda have to agree with BMK here, GoodDay. While not really objectionable and as the arbs say, there are worse things you could do, I'd encourage you to focus on other things. Probably a better use of your time, tbh. Steven  Crossin  (was Steven Zhang) 05:17, 7 December 2015 (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.

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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


 * , Special:Log/thanks will show who's been thanked, but not the edit - although as there is a timestamp, so that can narrow down the edits that may be affected. Mdann52 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I can think of few things less objectionable than thanking people. Even so, technically, the language of the restriction is "making any edits", and thanks are not edits. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. As a general principle: occasionally thank people if you like their edits, but don't do it with the intent of being objectionable. Spam-thanking people, or thanking people who have asked you not to interact with them, will likely lead to sanctions for disruptive editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euryalus. GoodDay raised this issue at AN - User:BMK, for what I think are good reasons and can be read there, thougt it was a bad idea, and User:Nyttend pointed out that WP:IBAN prohibits it between IBANed (sp?) editors, Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would stay away from the topic area. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to further state, that using Special:Thank or another non-editing tool to further a dispute that you are topic banned from will quickly lead to your ban being restored or or any logged or unlogged action in relation to being added to your topic ban. Please do not take our kind advice as a carte blanche to continue your dispute. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've commented previously that you (GoodDay) should completely stay away the topic area you were restricted from, and I'm going to reiterate that advice now - let it go. In general terms, people who are topic banned should not be making any edits or logged actions relating to the relevant topic area, and thanking someone does breach an interaction ban. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's technically allowed, this type of skating right up to the line (if not over it) is not the proper way to handle a topic ban. A topic ban means to stay well clear of the area, not try to game it and try to find ways to shout from the sidelines. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've received quite a few thanks here which are obviously not to be taken literally (for example, someone who wrote an article I deleted). I take it as an acknowledgement, even though it may have been meant as ironic or a mild form of protest. (People in such situations have even given me a barnstar a few times). I think the possibility of use in this manner sufficiently great, that it should indeed be covered by the restriction.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would I support a sanction based on the use of the thanks tool on a page that falls within the topic ban? No, probably not. But this does strike me as a frantic attempt to participate in the topic area without technically being in breach of a ban, which frankly makes me think the ban was a good decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline for reasons outlined above by DGG and GorillaWarfare principally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of the thank button is a logged action, and the use of it in an area one is topic banned from editing is a violation of the topic ban. So please don't do it, because I would really to see the inevitable AE report brought up for something such as this. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A technical question: as far as I can tell, the thanks log only shows the editor giving the thanks and the editor receiving it, not the specific edit for which the action was taken. While the latter information is obviously available to the recipient, is there any way for others to determine it?  If not, then any topic ban applied to the activity strikes me as unenforceable. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirill is right; it's not possible for anyone other than the recipient (or a developer, I suppose) to see the notification or identify which edits were thanked. So there's not enough of an audit trail to call this a topic ban violation. But, use some common sense and don't do it. (And on the other hand, if you get one or two thanks that are borderline topic ban violations, don't come to AE about it.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG, that it should be covered by the restriction. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 14:32, 12 January 2016 (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 Sir Joseph
I put in an AE against someone but........... but I did have a question for clarification. The most recent decision of the ARBPIA specified that any editor may revert an IP editor or < 500 poster without regard for the content of the post.

1)If the IP is adding correct information, and another editor leaves it in, does it then still get to be reverted, and if it does, does it get to be reverted hours later? For example, an IP editor adds some content, I, or someone else looks at it and realizes it to be a good edit so it's left in. Is it still considered revertable or is it now part of the article? Does it make sense that it can be reverted 5 hours later, even if the article was edited by another editor in the meanwhile?

2)If the IP is adding/removing information and the non-IP is just reverting without looking since IP-IP-IP says we can, what can a non-IP editor do to not run into 1RR rules when he wants to keep that information in?

I understand that someone might not want to get involved, but there are issues when you revert blindly without looking at the content. I've seen it several times already and most recently yesterday/today which is what made me post this clarification request. There certainly has to be a time limit on the IP reversion, or at the very least once another editor has edited the page after the IP editor, then that IP editor's edits should not be considered revertible.
 * @Serialjoepsycho, so you're OK with someone reverting an IP edit's content indefinitely? At a certain point, the edit becomes part of the article and should no longer become an "IP edit subject to unlimited revert." If another editor edited the page and hours passed by, then that edit should not be allowed to be blindly reverted. You say it's not broke, but I disagree. When you blindly revert content from an encyclopedia without looking at content, that obviously is damaging to the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @SJP, it first says "ALL anonymous IP edits and then registered 500/30. Of course what is not an anonymous IP? Does that then open it up to a known IP editor who doesn't want to register for whatever reason? That's another headache. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 20:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This is a very simple matter. WP:ARBPIA3 is (though not called) a topic ban. WP:BANREVERT already covers it. If it's not broke don't fix it. It's not broke.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have a problem with someone reverting an IP edit's content indefinitely? Absolutely. But then that's not actually what we are talking about. We are talking about someone reverting a topic banned editor, that is IP editors and all other editors with under 500 edits who are topic banned from editing ARBPIA articles. Anyone who is not topic banned is free to reinsert this material. Now this person may also be reverted, but we have talk pages. They can go to those talk pages and give a coherent justification for those changes. If they fail to get a consensus they can open an RFC or some other form of dispute resolution and seek a consensus. There is nothing new with WP:ARBPIA3 other than how these editors get released from the topic ban. Reverting banned users is not new. It's certainly not a broken system because you couldn't settle a content dispute at AE. That is actually intended.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I question the actual clarity. Reading it myself I took it to apply to IP editors under 500 edits and registered editors under 500 edits. If this is intended to entirely block all IP editors it might be apt to change the language. Probably something to the effect of All anonymous IP editors or accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited.... Specifically changing the conjunction and to or.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (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 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * WP:ARBPIA3 is quite clear: any IP edit to the affected pages may be reverted on sight, regardless of how much time has elapsed or whether there have been subsequent edits. If another editor wishes to re-instate the same content, they may do so using their own account, subject to the various other restrictions in place (such as the general 1RR)—but this must be done with an explicit new edit, and not by merely choosing not to revert the original one. (The extra work involved here is one of the reasons why I think we need to use an edit filter approach that disallows the original edits in the first place, rather than forcing other editors to revert them by hand.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nocturnalnow at 17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Topic ban from "American Politics after 1932" imposed as a discretionary sanction under Remedy 1.2


 * 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''


 * NorthBySouthBaranof
 * D.Creish
 * Vesuvius Dogg
 * Spartaz
 * NuclearWarfare
 * EdJohnston


 * Information about amendment request
 * Narrow the scope of the topic ban to Huma Abedin.

Statement by Nocturnalnow
I did a lot of clean up work here and added how Clinton's office was involved. The encyclopedia will not have my service on these types of articles if you leave the ban as is. I'd be much happier with a time limited or more scope limited ban, and the encyclopedia would be happier too :) Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
The checkusering of an IP which had made two comments on two separate project pages indicating a knowledge and understanding of policies, etc. can only be described as good-faith. As for narrowing the scope of the topic ban, I have no particular opinion, other than to restate the issues that Nocturnalnow presented on Huma Abedin; to wit, a persistent determination to use her Wikipedia biography to depict her in as negative a manner as possible, apparently because of his personal political disagreement with Abedin and/or Abedin's employer, Hillary Clinton. If the committee believes that Nocturnalnow can be trusted to edit other articles and biographies of modern political figures in a neutral, policy-compliant manner, I have no objection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Vesuvius Dogg
is understandably upset at a broad ban, particularly because his problematic editing history under this ID has been limited to Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. I have said before that a topic ban related to these two seems to me more appropriate than the broader ban, which seems vindictive in spirit. (I'm a disinterested editor w/o interaction history w/ Nocturnalnow or editing history on those two pages.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

 * I don't believe there is anything add beyond the contents and discussion in the relevant AE thread . I do not intend to comment further unless there are specific questions for me from the committee.  Spartaz Humbug! 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I have no statement to make at this time. Drop me a note if my input would be valuable.  NW  ( Talk ) 22:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by L235
I'm seeing phrases like reasonable exercise of admin discretion being used. Is the Committee considering these appeals with the standard of review being abuse of discretion? It seems bureaucratic to even use a standard of review like that (only overturning if the enforcing admin erred) rather than considering appeals fresh, on the merits, "if I were the enforcing admin, considering everything, would I have imposed this sanction or a lesser one?" -style review. If the Committee does defer to enforcing admins on appeal at ARCA, could that be made clear in the procedures? It's not currently clear that the Committee will defer to enforcing admins, or to what level the Committee will do so. Kevin ( aka L235 t  c   ping in reply ) 03:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I don't participate much at AN/ANI, but, for example, block appeals (which are much more analogous to sanctions appeals than DRV/other closure reviews) are granted or durations shortened based on a consensus of editors believing that they would have made a shorter block themselves, even if they would also hold that the block could be reasonable under the blocking policy. I don't suppose this is related to this specific request, though, so I'll shut up unless you want further reply. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mouse001
I do not agree with the admin's decision and I believe that it was unfairly biased against NocturnalNow. Much of the statements that were made by NorthBySouthBaranof and others supporting the ban were discredited, including the reasoning for including two out of four of the "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy" that were presented in the arbitration request. Disregarding the "truth-fudging" by NorthSouthBaranof, I think many reasonable and objective people would see this is minor mishap that should not result in NocturnalNow receiving topic ban from US Politics, let alone a ban from Huma Abedin.

NocturnalNow also raises a good point about the conclusion by Ed. I believe it was improper because it was determined so speedily without adequate evaluation of NorthBySouthBaranof's statements and sound reasoning provided by others who opposed the ban.

Lastly, if this ban is to be kept I suggest that NorthBySouthBaranof to receive a ban as well, else this would be evidence of a double standard on Wikipedia, because he is responsible for much of the edit warring at Huma Abedin and holds sole responsibility for the first two diffs that he himself listed under "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy". He was found just as much responsible for the BLP violations as NocturnalNow in the very first arbitration request that he submitted against NocturnalNow, and he has again committed violations (that are worse than those committed by NocturnalNow) so he should be held to the same standard. He also appears to have a habit of using language that is unfit for Wikipedia because it does not foster constructive discussion.--Mouse001 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir
Commenting to point out continued canvassing by this user (see ), including soliciting a response from Mouse001 who commented above. This behavior was pointed out by on AE in this edit.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:08, 28 December 2015 (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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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


 * Cleaned a bit. Kevin ( aka L235 t  c   ping in reply ) 20:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Notes: I've notified the listed parties and added diffs. Also, a quick reminder to the filing editor that pursuant to WP:ACDS, once this request has been reviewed by the Committee via this ARCA request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 t  c   ping in reply ) 20:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll actually recuse to give a statement. Kevin ( aka L235 t  c   ping in reply ) 03:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade. I strongly object to the idea that it is within our mandate or even a good idea to change admin's non-egregious decisions because we disagree with them. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * indefinite and not me infinite; in 6 months to a year I might entertain an appeal based off of a user's ability to edit non-disruptively in other areas. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NW is not a CU and the use of CU is not in this forum's remit nor does it have any bearing on your appeal. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  07:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic ban is certainly a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, so I would decline to alter that in any way. As to the checkuser, I think there was good cause to believe that the IP was in fact an experienced editor editing project space while logged out, and I think it was reasonable to check. Regardless, as the check came up empty, it wouldn't have had any effect on the ultimate outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "abuse of discretion" would be a good way to describe the standard. That's really the standard when we review any administrative actions&mdash;not "Would I have done the exact same thing?" but "Is this a reasonable and defensible action given the circumstances?". I would see it as far more bureaucratic for us to be nitpicking and second-guessing every admin action, or reversing or modifying them in cases where they were not egregiously excessive, abusive, or obviously mistaken. That's always been common practice when reviewing admin actions, not just with us but in cases like a DRV or closure review as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per SeraphimBlade. Doug Weller  talk 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Devcline  DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by JzG at 19:58, 17 December 2015 (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
 * SageRad

Statement by JzG
There was some discussion as to potential ambiguity in the scope of the topic ban, stated as "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". SageRad raises an interesting edge case: agent orange. Technically, I think this would be classed as a chemical weapon. Its components are 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, both of which are clearly agricultural chemicals. The harm caused by agent orange appears to be primarily due to contamination with dioxins, which are not, themselves, agricultural chemicals.

At the risk of stirring a hornets' nest (or at best tilting at windmills), it would seem to me reasonable that SageRad would be allowed to edit the articles on agent orange and dioxins, but should not edit the articles on 2,4,5-T or 2,4-D. That would seem to me to be a reasonable interpretation of the topic ban, given that 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D are IMO not especially controversial, so sufficiently distanced from glyphosate, Monsanto and GMOs, the true locus of dispute. Clearly, however, if he were to pitch in and do so without clarification, it might be perceived as a breaching experiment, so he has, wisely, sought clarification. I do not think the Talk page in question is going to yield that clarification any time soon, so I bring it here for more formal consideration.

I believe it would be pragmatic, just and fair to allow SageRad to edit these articles partly on the basis that otherwise it would be hard to find any article on a topic of interest to the environmental movement that was out of scope, and partly because Wikipedia's justice is intended to be reformative, not retributive, and I think this would offer an are of editing where SageRad could be productive, where he is interested and knowledgeable, and where he could establish a reputation for conflict-free editing which would, in time, restore his honour.

I'd also like to ask that SageRad's comments below be considered as privileged, i.e. exempt from the topic ban, but would counsel caution until that's clarified. It is notable that some sanctioned editors are already attracting unwelcome attention due to talk page and meta-commentary in various venues, I do 'not think SageRad is one of these and I have absolutely no wish to make things worse. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Addendum: It's also pretty clear that Monsanto is core to the dispute, so edits like might be more problematic even though they do not actually relate to GMOs or agricultural chemicals, other than in the involvement of the one company which, more than any other, acts as a focal point for the righteous anger of the anti-GMO and anti-pesticide lobby.


 * So: I think the scope is unclear in that it does not include a key subject within the original dispute and does include things that are not really at issue within the original dispute. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Wuerzle: I asked about SageRad because he asked the question. My question is about scope. The second example per Addendum above is another example of an edge case, this time an edit which isn't included but people would probably think it should be. The proposal at the foot of this discussion seems to me to be heading towards the somewhat revised which I think several people would accept as a more accurate reflection of the locus of dispute. I could go on but there's no real point - people who assume I am evil will continue to do so whatever I say. Believe it or not, I am actually trying to do the right thing here. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The suggestion by Minor4th to explicitly include Monsanto in the banned topic areas has obvious merit. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SageRad
Well, i'm finally able to write a statement here. I know the terms of the topic ban and i abide by them. I won't edit about agricultural chemicals or GMOs. Simple as that. I've been abiding by that. Agent Orange is not an agricultural chemical, and on that article i was just tying up one edit to include photo-essays based on a discussion that had built consensus over the last month or two. That's all.

I've been abiding by the topic ban, not editing on agricultural chemicals or GMOs. I've never even been that interested in editing about GMOs anyway. Glyphosate was the main article of any real scientific substance that i edited in the topic area, and it's nice to see how the Sturm und Drang continues in my absence. It comforts me to see a data point that i was not the sole source of any conflict there. It feels about the same when i take a glance on the talk page there, but of course i recognize the topic ban. It's the realpolitik here. I think the topic ban definition is clear enough. Let's call it a day. We've been through enough with this.

If it's an agricultural chemical, i won't edit it. Even if it's phosphate fertilizer. But like Mark Bernstein said, farms use water but i'd feel free to edit about water if there was any reason to, because water is used in 10,000,000 ways, not primarily agriculture. Many pesticides contain some chlorides, even sodium chloride. But i've read the fascinating book called Salt which is about the cultural history of salt in human society, and if i felt like editing about salt to expand that article, i wouldn't feel inhibited just because salt is a trace ingredient in some pesticide mixtures. I hope that's clear enough, and i hope it is alright as an interpretation of "agricultural chemicals and GMOs". If it's a chemical for which a primary use is in agriculture, i would not edit on it. If it's something tangentially used on farms among other places, like diesel fuel, for instance (it runs tractors but it also runs everything else on the planet) then i would feel ok to edit on it. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for taking your time to consider this. SageRad (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * On seeing the motions presented...

The ArbCom case took months, a huge amount of work and time, and it was on a specific scope: agricultural chemicals and GMOs. That was the decision, and that's what i've abided by. If you want to topic ban me from any other topics, then have another ArbCom case, in which i can also speak and defend myself through the whole process, with the knowledge of what the new scope includes.

The scope of this case was clear, and i've been 100% willing to abide by it. I have not edited on any agricultural chemical or any topic that focuses to any non-background level on GMOs since the topic ban was enacted. That's easy enough. I'm even done editing on Agent Orange if it pleases the court, even though that is not an agricultural chemical (though one component of the mixture is a currently used agricultural chemical, so there is this bit of potentially construed overlap).

Anyway, i think the current scope is very clear, and that if the scope is to be significantly expanded then it would need another arbitration process. You can't have a process that bans a person from editing on, say, nuclear power, and then after the fact add that "We also meant you can't edit about geothermal power" without giving that person a fair chance to be part of the process on that new topic. Well you could, but then it would be a very clear top-down dictatorial process, and not what we hope for here at Wikipedia i thought. SageRad (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ScrapIronIV
I will quote from the case decision: "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

Whether for military use, or otherwise, Agent Orange is clearly an agricultural chemical. It is defined on the article page as an herbicide and defoliant. It does not even need to be "broadly construed" make that determination. Mixing two herbicides to make a third type of herbicide does not make it stop being an herbicide, and herbicides are agricultural chemicals.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
I urge ArbCom not to fall into the futility of trying to micromanage remedies. The remedy is stated as precisely as it needs to be. And JzG should leave efforts to help SageRad to other editors. Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will further note that the statement by Wuerzele below massively violates his/her topic ban. I have informed him/her of this and urged that the statement be removed. Looie496 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret
I am not involved in the topic area but took part in the recent arbcom case on GMO's. The request for clarification is a good one. The name of the case was "Genetically modified organisms" and the scope should match the area of the topic that was discussed, namely Genetically modified organisms and topics that relate to it. The scope should not be widened to include any chemical that can possibly be used on plants, it should be chemicals as related to genetically modified organisms. After all water is a chemical, its sprayed on plants, even GMO's. Should Water be included? Perhaps if the article references uses with GMO's. But not about a river, or a lake, or a water cannon used by the military. Agent orange is a military chemical, not a general purpose agricultural chemical. It is a herbicide, not used on GMO's, and from what I can tell not used in farming. I urge the arbs to clarify the scope of these banns in that they are within the scope of GMO's. AlbinoFerret  23:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that JzG's bad behaviour in this area is continuing from the time of the case. He was excluded from the findings because of not being a named party, something that should be looked at again. His edits are not that of a careful admin in a contentious area seeking consensus before making large changes. He should know better. AlbinoFerret 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that WP:BANEX should allow the banned editors to post here, per banex "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." is allowed. Since arbcom gave the ban, I can think of no better place for clarification than the noticeboard set up for that exact purpose. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The current wording of "agricultural chemicals" is sufficient. The question is, are chemicals not used for agriculture, or " the practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food and other products." covered under this ban? Agent orange is a military chemical that to my knowledge has no agricultural use. If so can an arb please point to me where in the case this was brought up and the evidence/FOF presented that supports including non agricultural chemicals? AlbinoFerret 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

These are chemicals made by Monsanto, are they under the ban? This is the tip of the iceberg, and a path to a punitive slippery slope. Topic banns should be based on the case evidence and behaviour discussed in a case. Not on what could be or what might be or fears of those who engaged in a battleground that caused the case to happen. AlbinoFerret 01:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (in lubricant for electric motors, might be on a farm)
 * saccharin (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
 * aspartame (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
 * polystyrene (you can grow plants in a Styrofoam cup)
 * How about Chemical weapons (they might kill plants and livestock to)
 * Agent orange (its another chemical weapon, it is not an agricultural chemical.)

Since Kingofaces43 has gone down the slippery slope I wrote about in my last post here, I think its a good idea to point out the problems with it. Kingofaces43 points out that Sagerad has edited DuPont. But looking at the edits themselves, a removal of unsourced material about charges at a hardware store, and a chemical used to process Teflon I see no intersection with GMO's or agriculture. The chemical companies, like DuPont make hundreds if not thousands of chemicals and other things that are not agricultural or GMO. Widening the ban to include these chemicals would be purely punitive and not preventive because no evidence of a problem exists now or in the case. In effect trying to stop a problem before it happens. I urge you to consider this before closing the section. On the other hand Jytdog asks for amendment to allow editing some GMO's. I think this should be denied. It is clearly within the bounds of GMO's and he was a major person in this case with demonstrated issues during the case. It is way to soon to start relaxing bans. I also think if this area is open to him, it should be open to all the banned editors. That is just inviting a shift of location for a battle to happen. AlbinoFerret 08:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no way of specifying exactly what articles should be avoided, because, while it is true that some articles have irrelevant sections, equally, others not anticipated have sections that will be relevant, of where sections could be added that would be relevant. We should therefore be talking about topics,or edits,  not articles. However,  there have been at various times  arb enforcement actions that  gave seemed disproportionate, and we should be   reluctant to give unlimited discretion there. I do not consider a scheme that leaves the details to whatever admin comes along and makers it exceptionally difficult to change them to be acceptable, but that is what we have for lack of any practical suggestions for anything better.   So in effect I see no alternative to our laying down broad restrictions, and  looking extremely unfavorably on attempts to test the limits or argue about the boundaries.  DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But is Teflon, Styrofoam, chemical weapons with no agricultural uses, etc really testing boundaries? Or is the addition of these to a ban a bad reaction on the part of editors commenting here that helped cause the problem in the first place and a possible attempt to punish those they disagree with by pushing for the additions? Bans are supposed to be preventative, what past bad behaviour in these topics (Teflon, Styrofoam, chemical weapons with no agricultural uses) are you trying to prevent with these bans that has been proven to have happened? AlbinoFerret  10:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But there seems no better way to do it. If enforcement were reasonable and actually did use discretion, there would not be a problem. But to the extent it is not, then  topic bans are often going to similarly unfair because in many cases there are no clear boundaries. What does this leave us to do, between the alternatives of admonishments and outright banning? DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The better way is to leave it as it is. GMO, agricultural chemicals, and biographies of people linked to these topics. Block anyone violating the bans in place now, give the bans in place time to work before widening them. The current bans covers very wide area as it is, and it targets the areas that were proven in the case to be problematic. Adding an ever larger areas is a slope to catch people who some have disagreements with isnt an answer and you will probably soon see another request to widen it more if this one is given. Look at the editors commenting asking to increase the scope, mainly those have had bad dealings with the people they want to see the bans widened on. AlbinoFerret  10:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that all the banned editors should understand that even if a article is not specifically about the banned topics, if it has sections/paragraphs/claims that deal with those subjects they should stay away. Its what I suggested in my opening comment here. If any article, not just the chemical companies, has sections that deal with GMO's, agricultural chemicals, and biographies of people linked to these topics, they should be off limits to them. Blocks that increase in time per violation should happen as is spelled out Enforcement of restrictions in the closed case. I do hope that the banned editors dont stray into those areas, but a block would imho place greater stress on keeping away from the topics than widening the bans. AlbinoFerret 18:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo
, the case also revolved heavily around a specific herbicide hence the addition of "agricultural chemicals". Given that I can't see how SageRad's TB wouldn't include another herbicide whose two components are agricultural herbicides. That said, you're not wrong about the wording of the TB being less than ideal. I said as much on the PD talk page. Capeo (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply adding "commercially produced" before "agricultural chemicals" would get closer to what I assume was the point of the topic bans. Water is a chemical. I don't believe the intent of the TB would to exclude water. The chemicals involved in photosynthesis? Or animal metabolism? Arguments could made for either. Silly arguments but I'd think avoiding silly arguments is the whole point. Capeo (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

, "GMOs, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them" all broadly construed covers everything. Capeo (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

, no, Trypto needs not do any such thing. It's about clarifying an existing TB. Nothing is being re-litigated here. You've already pursued the proper avenues of appeal. Let them run their course and in the meantime just abide by the TB. Your statement, strictly speaking, breaks your TB yet again as it doesn't really apply to asking for clarification or is it an appeal. Capeo (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Arbs, any other admins looking on, can someone get across to DrChrissy that they are indeed currently under a topic ban. Aside from already being at AE for blatantly breaking it well after it was abundantly clarified they're now going after an editor here for simply attempting to do what this board is meant to do. Capeo (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, even after the all the evidence and how long this case went on for, it seems folks are still missing the heart of the matter and that's the industry as much as the products. The core of the disputes where claims of pro-industry shilling and that's why it got so heated. It's just going to spread to Agent Orange, PCBs, anything related to Monsanto and other major agchem producers. Might as well cut them off at the pass. Capeo (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Contrary to the opinions expressed by some editors here, it is entirely reasonable that, if ArbCom is going to contrive specialized topic bans, those topic bans be clear and unambiguous. I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry, and I do not know what they intended to mean by the phrase "agricultural chemical". Is it a chemical that is used by farmers, or a chemical that impacts plant growth? It presumably is not meant to be a chemical derived from plants, but that, too, is a plausible interpretation. Is water an agricultural chemical, or is the intended meaning limited to commercial products?

Members of ArbCom will recall fondly the questions raised by the meaning of "gender-related controversy" in the Gamergate decision. Those active in AE2 are, of course, intensely aware that the language of the topic ban in Gender Gap Task Force has been sufficiently problematic that several arbitrators now wish to withdraw that decision.

Rather than reaching for the broadest construction, a better approach might specify chemical products of the agricultural divisions of Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont.

Vague topic bans simply invite opposing editors to game the system to procure the inevitable and desired indefinite blocks; they increase disruption. Perhaps that is ArbCom’s goal here, but otherwise, it is entirely reasonable to expect that topic bans be clear. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wuerzele
Arriving here "late", ironically, as I was the first to edit Talk:Agent Orange after the 11 December arbcom decision. I dont know the arb com process and nobody alerted me of this page, not even fellow editor who edited Agent Orange after me.

I attempted to tie up unfinished consensual business from >1 month ago, finalizing which of the 3 photojournalism refs suggested by CFCF to add, in order to replace one that  had removed as 'poor source' and which SageRad had reinserted twice. I had stepped in on 14 November 2015, ie one month before the arb com decision to mediate between the parties which is contained in this section. Irony 3: It never occurred to me that the ARbCom decision would be about all existing agricultural chemicals. Proof: go back to the very first page, it was me that WIDENED the topic from GMO (where I was not even active) to GMO related chemicals, in particular glyphosate and 2,4D which are indispensable for GMO crops, because engineered to resist it.
 * I posted my suggestion on the talkpage 01:10, 16 December 2015(→‎Removal of Daily Mail article: CNN or/and AlJazeera source
 * King reverted my talk page post immediately 02:24, 16 December 2015 Remove post by topic-banned editor without reading the talksection, as became evident later on.
 * Sage renamed the section and wrote 'ok', 03:14, 16 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: Sounds good. Let's do it.)
 * King also reverted Sage after just 1 hour 04:33, 16 December Remove post by topic-banned editor.) arriving at 2RR
 * Sage restored his comment 11:30, 16 December 2015 Sorry buddy but this is not in the scope of the GMO case. Don't delete other people's comments. That's not ok.)
 * Sage restored my Talk comment. 11:39, 16 December 2015 ((→‎Including photojournalism in article: Oh look. KoA also deleted another user's comments besides mine. Who put KoA in charge of the world?)
 * Sage inserted refs 11:56, 16 December 2015 (→‎Further reading: Add photojournalism section to "Further reading" section as per talk page.)here.
 * ScrapIronIV reverted Sage with antivandalism tool Twinkle [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Orange&diff=next&oldid=695484579| 15:59, 16 December 2015 : RV topic banned editor. (TW))].
 * reinserted the CNN ref Revision as of 01:18, 18 December 2015 (photojournalism per talk page discussion).
 * King reverted NE Ent (=3RR) Revision as of 01:29, 18 December 2015 (Editors were topic banned prior to the recent discussion, so best for us avoid reinserting their edits at this time.) again making a false claim because the "recent discussion" was clearly before the arbcom decision.
 * King hatted Sage's and my Talk comments 02:01, 18 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: comment) and posts a reprimand at NE ent to "refrain from inserting content by the topic-banned editors that occurred after their topic ban. If you check the article history, the edits have now been removed twice from the article specifying this". Aside from the sentence being ungrammatical (inserting that occurred?) it is again factually wrong as the content was decided upon BEFORE the Arbcom decision
 * NE Ent posted a comment 02:39, 18 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: Consensus is for adding). Irony no2:  NE Ent had checked not only the "article history", but also read the talk page and realized that a group of 4 editors decided to add the ref (even if 2 of them voiced this in an area that KOA considers GMO topic banned, it was 2+1=3 for adding the ref!)unlike KOA. And that edit stands as of now. (KOA never apologized for this)

The committee MUST "clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information" (per filing instructions of this section)

GMO core pages
due to arbcom's sloppy handling of the GMO case, there are numerous open questions. i made a 660 word comment on the arbcomdecision talk page on 11/14/15, a page that over a month became filled by walls of text (as this one is poised to be, because the same editors are doing the same here, no word limit exists just teh advice to "be succinct"), noisy like to an echo chamber essentially without interactions with arbcom (3 or 4 arbitrators posted) to reply or resolve issues.

the first, most pressing issue should be to exactly outline the scope.

I suggest that the following WP articles absolutely be covered as WP GMO articles
 * 1) Bt cotton
 * 2) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
 * 3) Enlist Weed Control System‎‎
 * 4) Genetically modified bird
 * 5) Genetically modified crops
 * 6) Genetically modified fish
 * 7) Genetically modified food
 * 8) Genetically modified food controversies
 * 9) Genetically modified insect
 * 10) Genetically modified maize
 * 11) Genetically modified organism
 * 12) Genetically modified soybean
 * 13) Genetically modified tomato
 * 14) Gilles-Éric Séralini
 * 15) Glyphosate
 * 16) Golden rice
 * 17) March Against Monsanto
 * 18) Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
 * 19) Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
 * 20) Séralini affair‎‎
 * 21) Syngenta
 * 22) Vani Hari
 * 23) Kevin Folta

--Wuerzele (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

pages not in the majority about GMO-crops and /or agricultural chemicals
the following pages touch on an aspect of the pages above, but are in the majority not about the arbcom case, so out of the scope.


 * 1) Agent Orange- a herbicide, but no connection whatsoever to GMO's -mostly a)of historical interest b) an env contaminant with epigenetic significance c) a Vietnam War biological weapon. I thank 's comment explaining his position on Agent Orange; I think he sees this point like i do.
 * 2) pesticides other than 2,4D and glyphosate]], namely herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and other biocides, which per EPA includes antimicrobials. Organophosphates have nothing to do with the GMO case, neither the neonicotinoids.
 * 3) agrochemicals -aside from glyphosate and 2,4D and Enlist Duo above I can not think of any others that are specific/ indispensable for GMO. It makes no sense to ban fertilizers like Ammonia, or ground spread like lime etc
 * 4) Federation of German Scientists: recently Alexbrn warned  on his talkpage User_talk:Prokaryotes not to further edit this site which he felt had GMO-related content only because the group awards an annual  Whistleblower Prize, which went to Seralini this year. Yet Alexbrn reverted significantly here by removing a source and replacing it with an opinion piece with tendentious content, violating NPOV ( teh other source should have remained for balance)-- in large part the site has NOTHING to do with GMO.
 * 5) Monsanto- it produces GMO's yes, but in the majority ?
 * 6) Monsanto legal cases: most are not about GMO's, but about PCB's,
 * 7) Genetic engineering: this describes the general technique to make a GMO, used in microbes, Mammals, Fish, Invertebrates, none of which have to do with the arbcomcase, only genetically modified plants, GMO crops and  GMO food.
 * 8) Organic farming - not using GMO crops is one aspect but certainly NOT teh majority of the topic
 * 9) Polychlorinated biphenyl‎- no GMO-agr chemical content
 * 10) precautionary principle

pages unclear

 * 1) Monarch (butterfly) yes, evidence of harm by GMO crops is one aspect, but in the majority of teh page? Why shouldnt I be allowed to add a photo or any other detail that has nothing to do with GMO crops? --Wuerzele (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions

 * accused me on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWuerzele&type=revision&diff=695762978&oldid=695230225 my talk page] of violating topic ban by posting the above here on this page. He doesn't say why, yet admonishes me to read instructions asks for me to revert and threatens arb com enforcement: "Your statement at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is a clear and unambiguous violation of your topic ban. I urge you to remove it.  If you are unsure of the breadth of the ban, I urge you to read the sections at the bottom of  Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. You have also violated the topic ban on at least two other occasions since it was imposed. If you leave the statement in place, I will make a request that the topic ban be enforced..."  I want to know : is he right, arbcom members,, ? is he not? and why ? should he not strike his comment ?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , on 21 Dec you wrote "You are breaking your restriction if you are doing more than engaging in good faith clarification" this is a conditional sentence but no answer to the question I asked. I have been engaging in good faith clarification on this page, so I know that I have not broken any restrictions. have I or have I not? Looie496 accused me, by not being clear do you support his accusation? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , i read your post which mentions a 'traveling circus'. what do you mean by that? you did not reply to this question.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , my question what do you mean by 'traveling circus' is unanswered. you also wrote "if you cant act like adults". evidence?  what are you referring to? Did you address me with this? if so  where I have acted "not as an adult" It sounds like sarcasm to me. please be clear here. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for your comment but i was misunderstood: does my posting here on this page to clarify the scope violate a topic ban as, or does it not ?--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the above question remains unanswered.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * why did you address only  in this clarification request? It certainly affected me too, as I edited Agent Orange before him and Sage reacted to my post as demonstrated in the section of diffs above.(talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you just posted a message named "reply" but you didnt reply to this question (and kindly ping me when you address me).--Wuerzele (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is your clarification request about more than Agent Orange? It looks unclear to me. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you just replied that your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * since your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general please reply why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

, I cant see you answered my questions.
 * 1) thanks for engaging. first can you tell me if my posting here to get clarification on the scope violates the topic ban as implied on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWuerzele&type=revision&diff=695762978&oldid=695230225 my talk page] or not ?
 * 2) Seraphimblade, second, please look at my list of pages above: do you think PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are part of the arbcom decision? you see what I mean? someone has to decide which articles need to be tagged, so we must be concrete.
 * 3) Seraphimblade, lastly, do you think it is ok, that only Sagerad was informed that there is a scope discussion here? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the GMO case proceeding? thank you for your time.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

,, , , , , and whoever else is an active arbitrator (?), that has not yet opined here, would you please answer the above 3 questions? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeating the above 3 questions since pointed out he is not clear which 3 questions I am referring to:
 * 1) Does my posting here to get clarification on the scope violate the topic ban as implied on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWuerzele&type=revision&diff=695762978&oldid=695230225 my talk page] or not ? (I am sorry but  the diff that mies says is not helping clarity is needed and encouraged by teh guidelines for this page.
 * 2) do you think PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are part of the arbcom decision? someone has to decide which articles need to be tagged for WP: DS, so we must be concrete.
 * 3) do you all think it is procedurally wise and Wp wise ok, that only Sagerad was informed that there is a scope of GMO topic discussion here, that clearly goes beyond Agent orange, the originally (malformed) request ? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the GMO case proceeding?--Wuerzele (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th
I have not read any other comments, so this is totally off the cuff. I would not like to see SageRad's edits on Agent Orange be the reason for further sanctions, but an argument can be made that the article is within the scope of her topic ban because: 1. its active ingredient is an herbicide, and 2. it was manufactured by Monsanto.

This kind of ambiguity is going to come up time and again, and the arbs should have been a little more careful in drafting the PD's.  On the other hand, I don't know why SageRad would push it by editing the article- he should leave everything even tangentially related to the topic area for a while. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just add Monsanto to the topic bans and that should cover it. We don't need to tiptoe around this.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
Are we already at the point of needing clarification? Sigh. Do we know whether SageRad or any of the other editors who were topic banned really want to edit about these chemicals? Does ArbCom have the scientific expertise to really make these distinctions? Perhaps you should just point out "broadly construed", advise that testing the boundaries is imprudent, and decline to parse the chemistry any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * about possible revisions to the wording. It needs to include the phrase "agricultural biotechnology" that is in the DS (see yet another discussion at the Noticeboard TP), and in my opinion, that negates any need to mention companies, because the companies are obviously in the agri biotech field and "broadly construed" applies to them just as much as it applies to persons (and let's not go listing person categories too!). I think there is a problem with Capeo's idea of "commercially produced agricultural chemicals" because that gets into fertilizers and preservatives, ad infinitum.


 * But "pesticides and related chemicals" is an improvement indeed (although I'm sure someone is going to whine about whether or not water is "related"). So, I suggest: (with "organisms" changed to "plants" in DrChrissy's case). How about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to forget that this is the existing language, and it was intended to allow you to edit about animals. If we make it "organisms", as for the other affected editors, you will be prohibited from editing about GM animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy, for what will be the last time, I am reminding you that I am not proposing anything new about your topic ban. It is the existing wording. You have to wait a year before asking ArbCom to consider lifting the topic ban, so there is no point in asking me why the topic ban was imposed. You are digging yourself into a hole, and you need to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I realize that you did not ask me, I'm pretty sure that Looie was saying, correctly, that although you are free to ask about your topic ban, you should not be making proposals about how content is to be treated for editors generally, as in your lists of pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The more that I think about this, the more I think that the wording of the case decision and the topic bans should be left as it is, for now. The important thing is simply to make it very, very clear to the topic-banned editors that "broadly construed" means what it says, and that it is a very bad idea to try to test it or to comment about it from a distance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that each of you is considering a wording change involving "commercially produced agricultural chemicals". Please let me remind you of my comment a short way above, that has the green font in it. "Commercially produced agricultural chemicals" would include fertilizers, food preservatives, and on and on. The more specific phrase "pesticides and related chemicals" works better – and better still, I think, would be to leave the wording alone and just remind editors that "broadly construed" means what it says. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with your concerns about how the wording ends up being overly broad, and one can see just above that I have attempted to offer what I think is more useful wording. However, I was told in no uncertain words that the broad wording is a feature, not a bug, and ArbCom is making it absolutely clear that their intention is to make the topic bans and DS very broad. So, unless anyone on ArbCom now wants to say otherwise, yes, if the page subject is in a recipe for layer cake, it is forbidden by the topic ban. And apparently, it is even subject to 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that you instructed me in no uncertain terms that the proposed broader language is a feature, not a bug, but I think that it is a stretch to consider Agent Orange to be an agricultural chemical, unless the purpose of the agriculture is to have barren fields. (Yes, I know it's an herbicide after a fashion, but it's a defoliant used as a military weapon.) And, per the issues that WhatamIdoing has raised, I still think that it's a bug, not a feature, to extend DS and 1RR to a topic description that will leave administrators at AE trying to figure out whether food preservatives should or should not be considered a covered topic. Do we really want a naive editor hauled to AE over making 2 reverts at what they perceive as a food page? In contrast, I can see some rationale for making broader bans for the small number of editors who already have topic bans, but it really seems misguided to me to make it so broad for all editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent (GMO)
Agent orange is in Category:Auxinic herbicides which is a sub-cat of Category:Herbicides which is a sub of Category:Agricultural_chemicals, so it's reasonable to say the topic ban would apply Given the AC/DS and 1RR restrictions also apply to agricultural chemicals, and there are, for example, 100 pages in Category:Pesticides (another subcat), while the existing scope is sufficient to minimize disruption related to GMO article editing, it does appear to be unnecessarily broad. NE Ent 02:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The natural language "and" is actually ambiguous and derives its meaning from context; while Karen Carpenter was no doubt feeling down on the union ($$ \cup $$) of Rainy Days and Mondays, the narrator searching for Love Potion No. 9 is only going to be successful finding Madam Rue's pad at the intersection ($$  \cap $$) of "34th and Vine." While I understand frustration with editors arguing about the edges of topic bans, the greater issue here is the scope of the 1RR and AC/DS: while useful as a tool for managing disputes such restrictions do impeded the normal editing process. NE Ent 03:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Guerillero, it's called being old. NE Ent 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
First, I think what Tryptofish said in their section should be the main consideration here and pass on potentially narrowing wording too much.

If Arbs do feel an amendment is needed for clarity, I'm going to put on my entomologist/pesticide background hat on for a second. I'd suggest replacing agricultural chemicals with pesticides and related chemicals. The term pesticide covers these specific types (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, etc.) listed in the table. A pesticide includes the active ingredient (e.g., glyphosate) and other major components in the mixture such as surfactants or shelf life extenders (PCBs are one past example). The "non-active" ingredients are why I included related chemicals to reduce definition gaming. Some pesticides contain multiple active ingredients, such as Agent Orange, but mixtures are still a pesticide nonetheless.

Most pesticides are multi-use where some are used for agriculture, urban/home use, backyard, etc. I believe the drafters included the term agricultural chemicals as a broad term for pesticides, or maybe they weren't aware they are used in broader areas than just agriculture that are not always easily separated by use in a topic. If so, using the term pesticides shouldn't change the intended meaning at all. It would also prevent the bans from extending to unneeded topics like fertilizer. I can think of only a few controversial agricultural chemicals that wouldn't be covered by this change, but they aren't the locus of this dispute. I don't believe clarification is needed on companies as "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic. . ." That would mean that since DuPont is a major producer of pesticides, topic banned editors should be staying away from the page altogether with the broadly construed qualifier.

If other editors or Arbs can think of instances where my proposed wording could allow editing in a problem area, I'm happy to talk wordsmithing and definitions. This should be more concise than just agricultural chemical though and cut down on the potential for overly broad application of the bans. However, I would suggest not "fixing" it until we've actually found something that's broke first. Arbs could also just simply clarify here without amendment that agricultural chemicals can include pesticides of any sort, and leave the agricultural chemical bit as a discretionary call for admins (e.g., water being far enough away from the locus of dispute). Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, FYI, on your question of demarcation, I had a suggestion above to cut the term agricultural chemicals and use the phrase pesticides and related chemicals. I don't expect that to change the current articles that DS and bans actually apply to, but it's more concise and shouldn't be quite so open to potential gaming. Guerillero suggested that in the arb discussion below, but it looks like it either got lost in the discussion or just didn't get traction with arbs. I'm not going to push for my change further unless the wording becomes a problem in the future, but it's there if anyone wants more background on what an "agricultural chemical" should be defined as in this instance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Topic bans Arbs (courtesy ping for since this has been stale for awhile) have mentioned not expanding the new language to the topic bans (namely relating to associated companies) and letting that language be until editors move into areas not covered by the current language and cause issues there. In the case of SageRad, they are continuing edits on topics such as DuPont, a major agricultural chemical company. The response to the warning about them being on the edge of their topic ban is telling in that the flared temper is continuing, and some discussion on another editor's talk page gives some background on what others not involved in GMO articles at least are thinking.


 * I'm not going to pursue this at enforcement right now personally, but this is an example of an area/editor that would be affected by changing the topic ban wording that's worth consideration. It may not be sufficient to change votes (and that's fine), but I figured it's something recent you should be made aware of in the context of the decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * please see my response to AlbinoFerret, above. The abbreviated version is that there is no way of doing this exactly.  DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DrChrissy
I am making this statement according to WP:BANEX to clarify the wording-change proposed by User:Tryptofish. Tryptofish has suggested "...with "organisms" changed to "plants" in DrChrissy's case". I would like to remind the community that WP:Banning policy states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." Tryptofish must produce evidence that I have been disruptive on pages relating to genetically modified plants. DrChrissy (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

By suggesting the wording change, you are effectively making a statement that you believe I have been disruptive in editing the area of genetically modified plants. An editor should be prepared to substantiate such allegations by providing evidence. Where is this evidence? Please feel free to repeat any pertinent evidence presented during the case. DrChrissy (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed ArbCom to request an amendment on the basis that there is not a single shred of evidence presented either in the case or elsewhere that I have been disruptive to editing the area of genetically modified plants. I have been found guilty and had a topic ban imposed on me with a complete absence of evidence. Your proposed word changing further maligns my name by again accusing me of disruptive editing of genetically modified plants. So, I challenge you to present the evidence of where I have been disruptive. DrChrissy (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am seeking clarification of the DS, 1RR and my topic ban currently worded as "agricultural chemicals". It has been suggested that "pesticides and related chemicals" could be used instead. Unfortunately, I feel these are both too broad.  This is especially because some editors are arguing forceably that the simple mention of the term which is the subject of the sanction thereby makes that page part of the sanction.  This will make sensible editing almost impossible.  In my own case, I mainly edit articles on animals, their behaviour and welfare.  The article Colony collapse disorder in bees has a section on pesticides.  Does this mean the article is subject to DS and 1R to all editors and I am topic banned from it?  The article Dolphin mentions pesticides.  Does this mean the article is subject to DS and 1R for all editors and I am topic banned from it? The article Sheep mentions pesticides...and so on.  Fortunately, I believe there is a simple and suitable remedy for this, although it may not be favourable for some.  Rather than a topic ban, have a page ban.  It seemed to me that the major focus of disruption leading to "agricultural chemicals" was on the Glyphosate page.  Why not have the ban limited to just the Glyphosate page and it's Talk page.  (There may be others in this area that have been disruptive, but these should be able to locate.)  By having a page ban for some editors, the page will be protected (the point of sanctions rather than punishment) and breaches will be much more easily identifiable and action easier to implement. Other unrelated pages will not have the DS and 1RR imposed.  If drama arises on other pages in the future, deal with this in the future. DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the section Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans) it is stated each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants..." This is incorrect. DrChrissy (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments that TBs should include those pages which contain sections on GMO's are unclear. Are we talking about an article such as Laboratory mouse which has a section titled "Mutant and transgenic strains"?  Or, are we talking about articles such as Mouse which has one sentence on knockout mice?  It is entirely possible that I would make edits to Laboratory mouse without even realising there was a section on transgenics.  I would of course not edit such a section if I saw it, but I should be allowed to edit the remainder of the article whilst adhering to my TB.  Whilst I am here, is there a genetically modified elephant in the room?  We still have not clarified what "GMO" and "broadly construed" mean when considered together.  It could be argued that artificial selection and domestication are genetic modification...now how big a topic is that for DS? DrChrissy (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mrjulesd
Just to say: the likely reason for the Agent Orange article coming under scrutiny of SageRad and others is because of its close links to Monsanto. Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the two main manufacturers. So this less than salubrious history may be used as a guilt by association in connection with their GMO products and associated pesticides.

I think there is a case for disallowing of editing of articles closely related to Monsanto, although there could be endless wiki-lawyering over which articles this applies to. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 00:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
On the one hand I wouldn't want to see anyone prevented from taking part in Vietnam era articles. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see editors gaming the system to further their advocacy by going after these articles. Herbicidal warfare, agent orange, the other Rainbow Herbicides and ect would seem to fall under the topic ban. I'd also ask that you consider making it clear that if anyone attempts to game these sanctions that it can lead to a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * for the sake of clarity, when you say that an individual should ask for clarification on the scope of their topic ban if they are genuinely unsure, you do mean go somewhere such as AE and not here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Semitransgenic
chemicals directly connected with agricultural biotechnology and GM tech are the concern. A more accurate statement would read:
 * all pages relating to agricultural biotechnology and directly associated chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and other GM technologies broadly construed. Semitransgenic  talk. 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Guerillero, honestly, the intention is not to shrink the scope of the ban, but to find more exacting language such that we avoid overreach. The arbitration was about GM technologies, very specific agricultural chemicals are included in this, broadening the reach of the arbitration PD such that it restricts the free editing of articles that are not directly associated with GM technologies is not an outcome that serves Wikipedia's aims. Semitransgenic talk. 14:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Why not nominate one expert editor in the field who till now has been uninvolved in this case, who will monitor the editing of the topic ban editors and communicate with them if there is a problem w.r.t. the topic ban? That way you can avoid overly broad topic ban restrictions while still making sure there are no problems w.r.t. the problematic editing in the GMO topic area. If in the opinion of the appointed monitor the communication was not effective then AE intervention will be the next step. Count Iblis (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing
It's rare that I need clarification of an ArbCom resolution, but this one throws me off. I didn't realize that Wuerzele was involved in the GMO case, and yesterday I asked him to help me with Benzaldehyde, better known to the non-chemists as the active ingredient in almond extract. A few of us have been talking about our sourcing guidelines as applied to toxicology information for many months, and I thought it would make a good case study for a common, GRAS-certified, food-safe molecule. (We need a few divergent examples to build a guideline that hits the sweet spot of being both stringent and realistic: common vs rare, old vs new, food vs poison, etc.)

Problem: This chemical, in both its synthetic and natural forms, is used as a bee repellent, particularly by beekeepers. So does that make the whole article fall under the topic ban? Or maybe only the section that says it is used by some beekeepers during honey collection? Or maybe none of it? I'm pretty sure that none of you meant for "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" to include any of the typical ingredients for layer cake – and please note every single object for sale in your grocery store was "commercially produced", so this is still a "commercially produced chemical" – but I find that I'm completely uncertain how to proceed at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @User:Jytdog: My problem is that I can't figure out what's supposed to be covered by these topic bans!  Is organic flour an "industrially produced food"?  Is pure organic cane sugar a "commercially produced agricultural chemical"?  (It's a [single] "chemical", it's "commercially produced", and "agriculture" is definitely involved!)
 * If they said "stuff covered in the agrochemical article", then I could say, with reasonable certainty, that none of the ingredients in a cake are included in the topic ban. But right now, I'm feeling like this is admin lottery:  the first nine will say that food isn't an agricultural chemical, but the tenth will say that it is (or, more cynically, it's covered by the ban if he disagrees with the particular edit), and AE is structured to let the most aggressive admin win.
 * The only thing that's clear from their comments is that several ArbCom members don't quite understand that everything – literally every single thing that you can touch – is "chemicals". Your food is chemicals; your clothes are chemicals; computer is chemicals; everything is chemicals.  So unless they intend to topic ban these people from every single subject that (a) directly or indirectly relates to any physical substance whatsoever (anything that contains one or more atoms) and (b) has any connection whatsoever, no matter how trivial that connection, to food, then it would be appropriate for them to explain what is actually meant to be covered.  I want solid information, rather than a change to the resolution.  Even an unofficial list of several examples of things that are/aren't meant to be covered would be helpful to me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
Just want to note that in my view the new statement of the scope is almost perfect. I would ask arbcom to tweak it to clarify that it is about industrial food production and the resulting food.  That is what the anti-GMO movement, which has a very strong online presence (and hence constantly shows up in WP) is worked up about - so the scope should cover any GMOs related to food, the associated chemicals, and the companies that make them (primarily Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer (via Bayer Cropscience), and DuPont Pioneer). The broadening to include all agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides etc), even when not partnered with a GMO, are appropriate to include as well as the anti-GMO folk are concerned about their presence in food (and many are pro-organic as well... I have debated whether to ask arbcom to include organic food, organic farming etc in the ban, but at this point I am not).

I want to note that in my view the scope should not include Biopharmaceuticals or industrial enzymes (but it should include recombinant enzymes used in food production like chymosin).

The heart of the GMO controversy is about food and food production. I never once (!) heard an anti-GMO advocate talk about the evils of insulin (which is manufactured in genetically modified E coli cells that are GMOs).Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I hear you. The arbs will do what they will do.  When I wrote above, "industrial food production and the resulting food", i really meant "conventional industrial food production and the resulting food".   There is a whole nexus there of intensive chemical use in food production and processing, GMOs, corporate consolidation, IP law, monoculture, and fossil-fuel dependent equipment use, various parts of which upset some people viscerally.  (although organic food and production are getting more popular are production has been somewhat industrialized,  they are still a tiny proportion by weight and by money of the ag and food markets - the line between "conventional" and "alternative" is still very clear today - source for data on the relative market sizes)


 * About the demarcation - as I wrote above in my view people tend to emotionally focus most on "contamination" of conventionally produced food with "chemicals" and genetic modification. The relevant chemicals in this case are agrochemicals - I think that is a pretty clearly defined field, namely chemicals used in agricultural production.  I think you would have to twist pretty hard to consider flour or other ingredients in a cake to be "agriculture chemicals".  (I have not been that involved in articles about chemicals used in food processing ...  but have a look at Flour which I never looked at before today - do you see the chemophobia that has colored that section?  This is the kind of thing that happens in WP, that came to a head in this arbcom case about agricultural production and the resulting food.  (along with a lot of grudges, which does confuse things I know))


 * About organic food and food production per se -- from time to time in the organic suite of articles (which i no longer watch as I consider it part of my ban, broadly construed) advocates would show up pretty regularly and either directly write nasty things about conventionally produced food/agriculture or more indirectly, write about how much "better" organic food/agriculture is (see for example The Non-GMO Project) - that is why (in my view) it is part of this whole mess and why I have considered asking arbcom to formally include it. In my view organic sugar (your example) would only be relevant if folks want to rip on conventional sugar or say how organic sugar is "better."


 * I don't know if any of that is helpful to you or anyone else. Demarcation is hard.  Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agent Orange was a blend of two chemicals, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The Agent Orange article got more lively in the last year or so b/c Dow has developed GM crops that are resistant to 2,4-D (see here) and the anti-GMO crowd has been running around screaming about agent orange being used in the US on food crops (like this external link).  In my view Agent Orange is well within the scope of the original topic ban that applies to me. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Question to the arbs on the scope of the current motion which names "GMOs" - above I wrote that biopharmaceuticals are produced using GMOs (see for example the ZMapp article which I worked on quite a bit during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa).  That kind of stuff is altogether out of the scope of the agricultural dispute and the lines between ag and biopharmaceutical are very clear to me.  But perhaps to others the lines are not so clear.  Does Arbcom intend that I not work on stuff like that?   If so it would be a shame but I will abide by whatever you all say.   But please clarify.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion has kind of dried up. To explain the "clear line" thing that I see a bit more....  Biopharmaceuticals are produced using GMOs that are cells.  Those GMO cells are created in labs and then transferred to production facilities with big steel chambers where the cells are grown in batches.  The cells make proteins that are purified and then sold as drugs under prescriptions.   All that is very controlled, etc.   Contrast that to a genetically modified seed that is sold to farmers who plant the GM seeds out there in their fields, harvest the crop (which is GM), sell it processors, who turn it into flour, oil etc, which then enters the food supply.  Or a genetically modified papaya tree - the fruit is GM and people eat the fruit (no processing) or the new GM salmon, where again people eat the GM thing itself.   All of that happens "out here" in the world where people live and work and eat.   It is the latter - the use of GMOs in agriculture / food production - that upsets people and is controversial.  To complicate things a bit (there is always grey, right?) academics and the biotech industry explored producing drugs in GM field crops - planted out in fields - away back in the 80s and 90s but those efforts were abandoned as being too scary for the public and for everybody.  Pharming, as it is called, is still being done, but it is all either in greenhouses or in plant cells grown in vats, in order to keep things in a controlled environment.  I hope that clarifies the use of GMOs in ag vs biotherapeutics.  It is really a line between stuff that happens out in the public sphere vs stuff that happens in controlled environments.  Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With regard to 's comment above responding to what I have written. I'll re-iterate that there has been no controversy in Wikipedia (and hardly any outside wikipedia) with regard to the use of GMOs in biopharmaceuticals.  It is not part of the scope of the case.  Of course it may well be that others may widen their sphere of editing in pursuit of me and will begin disrupting those otherwise peaceful articles; this is what raised the pitch of disputes in the ag GMO articles and led to the arbcom case, and it continued in that case.  Anyway, I don't have any more to say on this matter.   Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and in fact i withdraw my request to clarify. leave it broad. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I am no longer an arbitrator (my term ended on 31 December, and only cases carry over), so I can't give you definitive answers, but as you have asked me to opine my thoughts are
 * 1) A good-faith request for clarification of the scope of a topic ban, made at an appropriate venue, is not a breach of that topic ban (see WP:BANEX). I see no reason not to assume good faith of this request and ARCA is the correct place to seek clarification of an arbcom-imposed topic ban.
 * 2) The pages concerned are that those that are broadly related to the topics listed in your ban. An article like Glyphosate is clearly related and so off-limits to you. Articles like Lime and Ammonia are mostly not related so you can edit that, but not any parts of the article that deal with its use as an agricultural chemical. As for what to tag, a good rule of thumb is that if more than about 2/3rds of the article is covered by the topic ban, it should probably be tagged, unless there is a consensus of editors who are not topic banned that it should not be. Similarly, if there is a consensus of editors who are not topic banned that an article not covered above should be tagged, then it should be tagged. It is not the job of Arbcom to micromange things like this.
 * 3) If anybody thinks that an editor should be notified of an ongoing discussion but has not been, then they should notify that editor themselves unless (a) one or both parties is under a restriction that the notification would breach; (b) the editor in question has asked not to be notified about such matters; or (c) the editor in question has asked the person notifying not to interact with them. Unless notifications were not made by the person raising or broadening the discussion in a deliberate attempt to conceal then I really don't think it is anything to get hung up about - just notify whomever wasn't or ask someone else to if you cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
Just an FYI as a few arbs have stated opposition to altering the topic bans in proposal 2 based on 'no evidence of issues elsewhere' I have opened an AE request here which may be of relevance. Specifically SageRad's POV regarding GMO companies (Monsanto) and pretty much stating on a vocal pro-science BLP that it is a 'biased' etc. (This is SageRad specific and unrelated to the other two editors)

Statement by Opabinia regalis
''[ Commenting here as a regular editor, since I participated in this case before I was sentenced elected... ]''

I'd like to add another support for 's suggested wording, or similar: all pages related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or pesticides and related chemicals, broadly construed. I might even go narrower and say "GMOs as used in agricultural biotechnology" - Jytdog does have a point that biopharmaceuticals are uncontroversially manufactured using GMOs, and have not been part of this dispute; indeed, every article related to modern molecular biology is probably based on sources involving GMOs (though no one uses that term, it technically fits). Ag bio is really the core of the dispute that gave rise to this case.

The current suggested wording, "commercially produced agricultural chemicals", has a plausible reading that is extremely broad. One of the issues that has come up in this topic area is editing by people whose knowledge base in the field is weak or patchy or restricted to particular subtopics; asking the presumably non-expert uninvolved admins enforcing these topic bans to make finely parsed judgments about scope is just asking for inconsistency. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2016 (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.

Genetically modified organisms (1): Clerk notes

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



Genetically modified organisms (1): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The topic ban is for all pages that fall in the following categories genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. This is a natural language "and" since we are't writing symbolic logic statements or SQL statements; the topic ban is not for the intersection of the two topics like some are trying to claim. Further, the traveling circus seems to have moved from Roundup to another Monsanto chemical that is controversial. I do not care how much like (or dislike) Monsanto, Du Pont, or any other multinational corporation; you are on an encyclopedia not a place to right great wrongs that you see in the world. If you can not act like adults around the fringes of your topic ban it will be extended to something very broad or a site ban. This is not the first time that groups of editors have caused issues in a number of closely related topic areas, the American Politics area comes to mind, and the only way that we can deal with this is broad sanctions.  Colleagues, would all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, Monsanto, or pesticides and related chemicals, broadly construed be a better alternative for all of you to nip this at the bud and to prevent a litany of future cases with the same parties? --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update based on recommendations above --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do like that wording. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wonder where you get your pop-culture references from. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to shrink the scope of the ban. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should avoid any section of any page relating to your topic ban. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are breaking your restriction if you are doing more than engaging in good faith clarification -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * those expanded areas are a feature, not a bug, of the proposed (and former) wording. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with adding "commercially produced" to the ban wording (though I suspect anyone trying to claim that "water" or "nitrogen" is covered as an agricultural chemical would be laughed out of AE), but yes, the intent is to keep people out of the bickering over the commercial chemicals. Other than that, if we need to broaden it, we will. Being topic banned means to take those subjects off your watchlist, avoid and do not discuss them at all, and leave the area entirely. It does not mean to stand on the sidelines and shout in, nor to keep tiptoeing right along the line. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Were I topic banned on something, I would avoid the entire general area, rather than try to find ways to get as close to it as possible without triggering the ban.  DGG ( talk )  To elucidate, asking the question is a reasonable exception to the ban, editing almost any of the pages would be covered.  I would strongly advise not testing it.  DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues - if you are topic banned, stay away from the topic area and do not attempt to test the boundaries. If you are genuinely uncertain whether a page falls within the ban, go edit productively and collaboratively somewhere completely unrelated for a while. After at least a couple of weeks of this (ideally months rather than weeks), if you still want to edit that article ask yourself again whether it is covered by your topic ban - if it is, don't. If you a still really unsure then you can ask for clarification. If you are asking for clarification immediately after the ban is imposed you haven't understood the point of the ban. As for clarification, I'm happy with the suggestion by Guerillero and/or the suggestion by Capeo. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * requests for clarification should be made here, but they should only be requested in good faith and should not demonstrate a desire to skirt as close as possible to the edge of the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As my colleagues have said, don't test the boundaries, just show self-control and spend time editing other project areas, demonstrating that you can edit productively and non-contentiously. "GMOs, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them" seems good. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade. NativeForeigner Talk 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug's wording, and Seraphimblade's logic. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , is the "broadly construed" left out by design? I prefer narrow formulations and broad constructions. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, it was a copy/paste error, it was obviously meant to mirror the original while modifying the scope of the sanctions. Fixed now. Doug Weller  talk 17:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "broadly construed" covers it. Doug Weller  talk 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , you asked a half a dozen questions, I think. If you want my opinion, I think your post with all those diffs and commentary, and your proposed lists of what should and should not be covered by WP:ARBGMO, does not serve to clarify what we're talking about here. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans)


Proposed:


 * Jytdog's topic ban, SageRad's topic ban, and Wuerzele's topic ban which currently states that each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months from the date the case closed."


 * Support
 * 1) We should standardize across the board -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the whole reason for this ARCA thread because SageRad and Wuerzele moved to Agent Orange which is in a gray area, I think a very dark gray but still gray, of our topic bans? (Discussion in question) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * there's no evidence of improper editing from them there. Nor are the issues involved really similar.  DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) In hindsight, I struggle to see how a topic ban on AgChem and GM-anything, can not include the associated companies (i.e. Monsanto, to pick the low hanging fruit for an example). Anyone who uses any sort of social media knows how divisive this topic is, and the epicenter is almost always the "corporations". The matter of Agent Orange is absolutely a gray area, however it is not an agricultural chemical in my opinion, quite the opposite.  The link between Agent Orange and Monsanto as the manufacturer is easy to see. If one could edit Agent Orange without talking about Monsanto, as the company that created it, that would be nice. Initially I would not have considered the addition of the photojournalism external links to be a violation of the topic ban extension posted above, I would consider this to be (note since the topic ban has not yet been extended, there is no sanctionable violation at this time). Notwithstanding my previous statement, I dislike the skirting of topic bans by getting as close to the topic as one can without actually crossing the edge. I personally would appreciate it if when someone is topic banned, they just moved on to another corner of Wikipedia. There is a lot to write about. So in summary, yes extend the ban as Guerillero describes, other products produced by the companies as described falls under the broadly interpreted clause (consequently Agent Orange, and any other such products).  in response to your questions, please see the comment by Thryduulf. I was in the process of writing up answers, but they ended up near identical to his response, so I feel it is best not to duplicate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) These editors appear to be complying with the existing restrictions and not getting involved in conflict on adjacent topics.  Consequently, I see no reason to further restrict them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) per Kiril.  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Until there's an obvious problem I see no need to revise our earlier decision.  Doug Weller  talk 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As much as I enjoy consistency, if there is no disruption, I don't see the need to expand the restriction. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - Moving to support with extended rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Really, per DGG and Kirill. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Kirill.  Presumably any admin can apply DS to expand the topic ban in this way if needed for these editors.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) While I like consistency in the sanctions, Gamaliel is quite right that the topic bans can be expanded using DS to explicitly include these areas is appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) As per my comments on the above motion. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Recuse
 * 1) I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)