Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 89

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1) (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Zero0000 at 01:16, 2 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

Statement by Zero0000
I'm writing concerning the General Prohibition "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Unfortunately many articles are seeing a lot of edits from IPs and others failing to meet this requirement (many of which are probably unaware of it) followed by reverts by others. Semi-protection would help a lot. My question is: since semi-protection will have no effect on editors who are entitled to edit at all, can semi-protection be applied by involved administrators?

Of course automated enforcement of the prohibition would be the best solution.

Statement by Mz7
I don't think the committee should make any blanket endorsement of involved administrator action. I can envision disputes over which articles fall under the general prohibition, and things can turn ugly if there is an WP:INVOLVED case. Obviously, the reasonability rule still applies—if an involved admin protects a page that any reasonable administrator would also protect, then there shouldn't be any issues (see third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED). But this is a very case-by-case thing, and if there is even a slight possibility of contentiousness (and in this topic area, this might always be the case...), always WP:RFPP. Mz7 (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create some form of hidden maintenance category that includes all the pages under the restriction, and craft a bot or an edit filter that disallows or automatically reverts and warns users fall under the restrictions? If ARCA is not the right venue for discussing this, we should probably have a community discussion. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:CASCADE, cascading semi-protection is currently not available to administrators, as it would effectively allow non-administrators to semi-protect pages. Even if it were possible, by my understanding of cascade, you would have to transclude every page you want to semi-protect onto one page, which would be rather cumbersome. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (PIA3)
It was fairly clear that there would be trouble making this fly. The difference between a 500/30 protection on one article, and the same on a whole topic is one of kind not quantity.

While it is technically feasible to find a solution, it is pretty undesirable to effectively topic-ban 7 billion people - especially given the breadth with which these topic bans are interpreted. It is equivalent to banning all under 60s from parkland, becasue some youth drop litter. (More topical analogies might also spring to mind.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Kingsindian
I meant to open an WP:ARCA request for this, but was too lazy and forgot.


 * There is no way to consistently apply the General Prohibitions remedy to the entire topic area, and nobody has even tried so far. It is even unclear as to what list of pages one is supposed to apply this to.


 * Semi-protection will not take care of the 30/500 requirement, and is trivial to defeat by a moderately determined sockpuppet.


 * IP and non 30/500 edits are often benign and useful. See this diff updating the HDI status for State of Palestine. Many others can be given.

I suggest the following, which is explicitly allowed by the remedy. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. Let the emphasis of the enforcement be on reverts rather than semi-protection, edit filters or blocks. Use semi-protection sparingly and temporarily, in direct response to disruption. 's proposal about involved admins applying semi-protection (ideally temporarily) seems good to me. The emphasis on blocks makes the most sense, is most consistent and least harmful. It is trivial to undo any bad edits by IPs, inexperienced editors etc. In my experience, just mentioning the magic word WP:ARBPIA3 is enough to "win" any content dispute (the recent flap involving Huldra is an exception rather than the rule; she didn't say the magic word). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed, but not surprised that my common sense and consistent proposal isn't attracting any interest. It has been months since the remedy was passed. The sky hasn't fallen by relying on reverts so far. Nobody has a clue about how to implement the remedy in a consistent way using something more drastic like lots of semiprotection or edit filters. For instance, a ton of articles come under ARBPIA which don't have the template on their talk pages, so template based edit filters wouldn't work. Perhaps the committee should stop chasing chimeras. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mdann52
If we are going to do this, it may make sense to create a page (eg WP:Palestine-Israel articles 3), place that under cascading semi-protection, then allow editors to add articles to it in this topic area as needed. I'd note we do also have Special:AbuseFilter/698, although this will not work effectively on larger scale applications - there just aren't the resources available for it to run! Mdann52 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ah, my bad - I'm aware you can set it up in the site config, but I see why you wouldn't want to. Thanks for correcting me on the other point too. Personally, I don't believe now there is anyway we can centrally enforce this reliably in that case. Mdann52 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While an edit filter is possible, it would require every page to be manually loaded in, and with limited resources to run the filter, it's unlikely to run well enough for this purpose. Mdann52 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Question from Harry Mitchell
Without comment on the substantive issue, could an edit filter not check for a specific category or a template on the talk page? Or perhaps the existence of a specific editnotice, since those can only be created by administrators and a handful of others? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal
Indeed, this is basically a repeat of what I've written below... we already have a filter that disallows unqualified users to edit a explicit set of articles, which an edit filter manager can add to easily. However there has been long discussion of a template/filter-based solution. You would add to any page and an edit filter would apply the 30/500 editing restriction to that page. An additional filter ensures only admins can add/remove it. See User:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500. Users would be able to request an article be put under 30/500 at WP:RFPP. So in effect we have a new form of protection until we can get WMF to create what we need. The filters need to make this work are ready to implemented, but I haven't done so yet as I also felt broader input was needed &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am confident the two filters needed to make a template-based solution won't have a noticeable effect on performance. We have numerous other filters that are less restrictive and with much more complex regular expressions. With Special:AbuseFilter/698 we are already halfway there. This sounds expensive, but performance is greatly improved by restricting the filter to the article/talk space, to users with < 500 edits, and then checking for the presence of the pp-30-500 template. We could do one better and require admins add it to the very top of the article, so the regex won't need to scan the whole page &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:00, 4 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 (1): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I thought we had asked the WMF about automated enforcement mechanisms?  DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two questions here:
 * Can involved administrators semi-protect pages in this topic area?
 * I do not think this topic area should be treated any differently than any other with regards to WP:INVOLVED, so no (except as per Mz7). Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can the restrictions be enforced automatically?
 * This is not a matter for ArbCom as far as I am concerned. If it is possible (I don't know) then as long as all relevant policies and guidelines are followed then it may be used subject to community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it gets the thumbs up from BAG, one could use an admin bot to semi-protect all of the pages in the topic area. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning the clarification suggested by Thryduulf in this section, I agree that involved admins should not get involved in any aspect of enforcement, including this. I would like to see a way of enforcing numerical limits that did not rely on individual actions;any way that works is OK with me.  DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with an administrator semi-protecting a page that falls within these boundaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Recommend semiprotecting all articles as the ruling effectively does this anyway. Yes some articles will be 'gamed' by accounts but that can be policed much more easily of all articles semiprotected. Admin actions should be done by uninvolved admins though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Liberal use of semiprotection on pages that unregistered editors are not permitted to edit because of an ArbCom ruling seems logical. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection can be superseded by the 500/30 solution as discussed below. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned below, an automated, edit filter-based mechanism of enforcement is the best option here. Given that semi-protection does not actually enforce the specific restriction in question, I don't see it as an appropriate first resort. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * mentions a dynamic, template-based edit filter implementation in his statement below. If I understand what's being proposed correctly, there would be no need to pre-define a list of articles, and consequently no performance issue with running the filter, even for a large article set. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If an edit filter will work, I support that as a solution. Semi-protection isn't sufficient. Doug Weller  talk 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Kirill has mentioned. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , User:Mdann52 points out the flaw here, which had struck me also but I assumed I didn't understand how it would work. If Mdann52 is correct, we need to think again. Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be that MusikAnimal has answered that adequately. If he is wrong, and it does not work efficiently enough, only then we will need to reconsider.  DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by When Other Legends Are Forgotten at 04:29, 31 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


 * 

Statement by When Other Legends Are Forgotten
Does an article need to be tagged with the  template on its associated Talk page for it to be considered subject to the case restrictions (30/500)? I am referring to articles which clearly relate to the conflict (e.g, they contain text such as "Palestinians exiled in 1948 are denied their right of return.", and as such, it would be hard to argue that they could not "be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict".

A further clarification is required with regards to IPs ability to edit talk pages of articles subject to the 30/500 restriction, as it seems that some administrators are of the opinion that they are allowed to edit such pages (see )

- I am not opposed to enforcing the restriction via a template, in fact, I would welcome such a measure. But that really does not address the issue I am asking clarification for, nor does your suggestion that only admins be allowed to add the template seem sensible to me - there is no such requirement to add the {{ARBPIA}] template  to such articles today - any editor can do so, at their discretion. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles subject to the restriction, and many of them are not tagged. Are we to wait until an admin sees fit to add the template to articles such as Jibril Agreement before IPs can be reasonably prevented (via reverts ) from editing them in contravention of the restriction?

Statement by MusikAnimal

 * I don't think the 30/500 restriction should be left to personal opinion. It may sometimes be that the subject itself is not directly associated to Arab-Israeli conflict, rather limited to a particular section, or even a few lines of text. At any rate I definitely don't think it's fair to unqualified users to give no indication that they shouldn't be editing.Currently there is an edit filter that disallows edits from users who do not meet the 30/500 qualification. When this was set up I was given an explicit set of articles to target, that has been added to since then. I believe the editing restriction should be exclusively enforced by these means. It seems silly to allow any given editor to enforce it manually based on their own interpretation (not to say When Other Legends Are Forgotten's opinion is wrong).There has been talk of introducing a new page protection system powered by a template (documentation to come) and two separate edit filters. Lengthy discussion can be found here and here. If we proceed with this route, it will be clear to editors the page is protected, as it will have a padlock icon. The decision to impose the editing restriction will be left to admins at their discretion, and users could request this protection at WP:RFPP (have to talk to Cyberpower678 about the bot, but one step at a time). Any admin can add the enforcing template to a page and the edit filter will then protect that page under the 30/500 restriction. An additional edit filter will ensure only admins can add and remove the padlock template. I believe this new system will alleviate confusion on what articles are under the editing restriction, as the process will be very formal. Having authored the template and offering to author the new filters, I am actually ready to move forward with this approach pending consensus to do so. Pinging and  (maybe this isn't the best place to discuss)Hopefully we can adopt the new system soon. Until then, I believe the single edit filter we have now is the best course. If there are any outstanding articles that fall under the editing restriction but are not currently enforced, please let edit filter managers know via the filter noticeboard.


 * (pings don't actually work here since there's no timestamp =P): I don't think getting admin attention will be that much of an issue, as you'll be able to request protection at WP:RFPP just as you do any type of protection (we can even add it to Twinkle). E.g. anyone can add pp-protected to an article, but it won't actually be protected until an admin comes along and does it. Similarly the same is true for the 30/500 restriction. I realize this is a bit different because with semi it's at admin discretion whether or not it should be protected, whereas if you created a new page that's unambiguously about the Arab-Israeli conflict, no one is going to argue it qualifies for the 500/30 arbitration remedy -- and by all means, revert as necessary in that case if the protection is not yet in place. You might as well request an admin to add the padlock template, otherwise it's purely up to the page watchers to enforce the restriction, and only those page watchers who know the restriction even exists. Admin intervention also ensures we don't get bogus claims that a page is eligible for 30/500 (again, not referring to you). E.g. one could add it to the talk page and start reverting away, until someone comes by and stops them.Another idea is to make sure all pages with the 30/500 template are also semi'd (as no anons meet 30/500). That way we can utilize some technical magic to make the ARBPIA template add a category if the corresponding subject page is not semi'd. This would give us a list of pages that probably also need to have the 500/30 enforcing template added to them. Hell, we could even have a bot find all pages with ARBPIA on the talk page and no template on the subject page. I don't want to get too carried away with technical matters, and further backlog my list of to-dos, but the template approach to enforcing the 500/30 restriction is at the top of that list -- and I really think it is the best solution, which means we will require admin intervention to qualify an article for 30/500 but in a way that's more formal and conducive to a stable editing environment &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  06:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If by "tag" you mean the new which automatically enforces the editing restriction, the addition of it will absolutely have to be left to admins (they can be involved, assuming there's no question it applies to that article). This is a powerful editing restriction, much moreso than semi, pending-changes, or even PC2. We can not let just anyone add it, we need admins to verify it is truly needed on that article or else it's usage is subject to abuse. Again, getting admin attention is as simple as making an RFPP request. These are processed quickly.Now, if an article is clearly subject to the arbitration remedy, anyone can of course enforce the 30/500 restriction manually, but they should at least add ARBPIA to the talk page so people are aware this is a thing, and also request 30-500 protection assuming they are aware it exists. There might also be articles where only a portion of it is subject to 30/500 restriction. In such a case we obviously wouldn't protect it with, and enforement would have to be left to page watchers.Again mind you there is an edit filter already doing this job, just doesn't go off of a template admins can add, which is the better solution as it won't require edit filter managers to update which articles are protected. This edit filter was put in place as a result of this ArbCom case, and it's usage was challenged and upheld here and here. The filter-enforced disallowing of edits is favourable over letting editors do the job manually, as it presents a friendly edit notice telling the user why they can't edit, as opposed to bitey page watchers reverting with the summary "you can't edit here". All in all, if we are to keep the 30/500 editing restriction, I see no reason why we shouldn't do in a way consistent with other page protections, especially given this one is the more powerful of protections.


 * Regarding talk pages: I'm with Zero, Kelapstick and Drmies in that there should be no automatic disallowing of users not meeting 30/500 from editing talk pages. This is the only venue they have to contribute. As such protection should be done no different than as we would with any other page – only protect once repeated disruption has been observed, as a preventive measure. We should start with semi, and if disruption continues, admins will be able to add to enforce the 30/500 editing restriction.I also agree with Xaosflux that edit notices (and the ARBPIA on the talk page) should be required. The issue is unqualified editors still see the Edit button, and may spend some time making sizable contributions before edit filters disallows the edit, or someone reverts them. It's only fair for them to be given prior notice &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  21:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This template/filter based solution is ready to go, I just wanted to make sure there was consensus to implement it. This is a whole new form of protection, in line with any other level of protection. With it's usage comes responsibility, and a strict protocol might be needed. I think it should only be used when a page is unambiguously qualifies for 30/500 protection, in that the subject itself falls under the restriction – not just a section of the article or a paragraph therein. I also don't think it should be used on talk pages, and that clearly is subject to debate. Note that I can implement it to only work on article pages. What do you think? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
I do not think that a tag should be required. Experience with the ARBPIA sanctions over several years shows that the few disputes over which articles are included are fairly easy for the admins at AE to decide. And once they have decided, the status of that article is settled from then on.

In case a tag is decided, it would be a very bad idea to require an uninvolved admin to add it. The outcome of such a rule in practice would that the sanctions would only ever be active in a small fraction of the articles in which they are required. I propose the opposite: any editor satisfying the 30/500 condition can add a tag; any uninvolved administrator can rule that the tag is not appropriate for that article. (But I still think that no tags at all would be better.) Zerotalk 07:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding talk pages, previous restrictions in the ARBPIA series were not applied to talk pages and I think it would be bad policy to start now. Talk pages should be open to all editors in good standing. Editors who cannot edit an article themselves should still be able to go onto the talk page and make suggestions for article improvement. If necessary, the wording of ARBPIA3 should be adjusted to make this clearer. Zerotalk 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

, yes, the literal reading of "any page" includes talk pages, project pages, even user pages (eg my talk page is clearly related to the i-p conflict; are IPs now forbidden from writing there?). However I looked in vain for any discussion or even mention of this issue on the ARBPIA3 pages and seriously wonder if the arbitrators who voted for the proposal noticed that it said "page" rather than "article". If an IP notices a typo, where can be it legally reported? Zerotalk 07:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
While it's clear that ARBCOM explicitly allow for the GP to be enforced in any way that is currently possible including manual reverts, When Other Legends Are Forgotten seems to be under the impression that the restrictions can be enforced by sockpuppets of topic banned/blocked users, such as himself, very probably a sock of NoCal100, during the often extended periods Wikipedia's slow and deeply flawed system of protection against sockpuppetry allows the sock to remain active. Perhaps ARBCOM could make it clear that sockpuppets of blocked users are never allowed to enforce the restrictions (or indeed do anything at all in ARBPIA) and When Other Legends Are Forgotten could accept and abide by that clear rule so that we don't have the absurd and counterproductive situation of a person who is not allowed to edit in ARBPIA (or anywhere) telling people that they are not allowed to edit in ARBPIA.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by xaosflux
Personally I abhor that a new "class" of editor has been created by decree of ArbCom. That being said, as it has been decided to ban all new editors from editing certain articles - I think it needs to be abundantly clear to the editors that they are under such a topic ban and why. I think at a minimum edit notices should be required on any page that is considered in scope of this ban. While the decision only says that this ban "may" be enforced, I would never enforce it for any good faith edit - however the sanction appears to support allowing anyone else to enforce it even for good faith editing. — xaosflux  Talk 16:13, 2 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 (2): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No, but articles that fall inside of the 30/500 GP should be tagged. We explicitly allow for the GP to be enforced in any way that is currently possible including manual reverts -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  06:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording is plenty clear that are prohibited from editing any page includes talk pages. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guerillero. Having said that, I think  is correct in that an automatic, edit filter-based system would be a far better enforcement mechanism than having individual editors perform manual reverts, and would not object to amending the case to require its use once it's operational. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support trying it out on the basis you've suggested (application based only on article subjects and only to articles). Let's test it out for a few months and see how well it works and whether we need to adjust those criteria. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All articles covered by the 30/500 rule should be tagged, however from a practical standpoint I know that not all of them are. Not being tagged does not inherently mean that the article does not fall under the restriction. As far as the wording of the GP, it restricts editing on any page, which based on my interpretation would include talk pages. Having said that, common sense should prevail. For example, if an IP makes a good faith edit request on the talk page, the request should be reviewed, rather than just blanket reverted, because it's permitted. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is ready to implement, we should implement it per Kirill's suggestion, for articles only (not talk pages). --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and yes. No, they don't need to be tagged; yes, I see no reason to deny IPs from editing the talk pages (in other words, I'm going with Kelapstick's common sense, rather than his earlier reference to the Letter Of The Law). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also no and yes, in that I wouldn't add the edit filter to talk pages. GF requests should be considered, that's common sense, but I'm not sure how much use of talk pages those that can't actually edit the articles should be allowed. Doug Weller  talk 21:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug, I think the risk of disruption on those talk page is so much lower that we can accept that. If the privilege gets abused we can block, and I suppose we can always revisit it. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure Drmies, we don't need to do anything right now about talk pages. We can handle any problems that might arise. Doug Weller  talk 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In brief, I agree with Kelapstick; articles subject to the restriction should be tagged, but common sense says talk pages should be unrestricted unless problems occur. On the template/filter system, I'm glad to see that people have been working on developing a workable technical solution for this, which is much superior to "manual" enforcement. I hesitate to have arbcom start mandating the use of specific, purpose-built technical means to restrict editing, but given the level of disruption in this topic area, would be willing to try Kirill's suggested amendment once the system is up and running. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Kirill said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporting Kirill's comments also. Doug Weller  talk 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages should be tagged (both with an editnotice and a notice on the talk page) and technical enforcement seems optimal (to the extent of Kirill's comments above). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree that pages should be tagged (And I think that when the more complicated filter is adopted, the padlock is not sufficient tagging--though people will not be able to edit, they need to know why); and I agree that this is not meant to  apply to talk pages. If we ever need to do that, we can, but so far it does not seem necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (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 (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 (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 uninvolved TransporterMan
If the Committee is taking the position, which appears that it may be, that BANREVERT is not applicable in this situation the Committee would be well-advised to be careful not to create or inadvertently or intentionally imply any obligation to restore the reverted material which could cause either the reverting editor, regular maintainers, or other editors to be subject to criticism or sanctions if they fail to do it. That's just another opening for the kind of drama which this restriction and exception to BANREVERT is intended to avoid. (If words such as "should be restored" are used, it should be made clear that "should" in that case means, "it would be a good thing for the encyclopedia if they were restored, but no one is required to do so.") Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:20, 14 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 (3): Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 (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)
 * Yes, in the case of a valid edit by an IP, the edit can (probably should) be reverted, and reinstated by a permitted editor, who then takes ownership of the addition. I was thinking that a null edit could be completed where the edit was accepted by a +500/30 editor, however that would just get too complicated. As Kirill states, in this case, not taking action cannot be seen as an acceptance, it is would be too difficult to track. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with a null edit being used as long as it explicitly defines the content the IP has added (such as a space added either side). However as Kelapstick says it could (and probably will get complicated) so reverting and re-adding (with a link to the +500/30 IP or account edit) would seem like the best idea. I agree that technical enforcement would be beneficial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (February 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Jytdog at 00:26, 20 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 Jytdog
My user page has had stuff on it about GMOs for a long time. Two sections: User:Jytdog and User:Jytdog.

Should I remove one or both of those sections about GMOs from my user page?

I am concerned on the one hand that removing either would be violating the ban since I am editing content about GMOs in Wikipedia; on the other hand I am concerned someone will say that the stuff even being there is a violation and that would be drama.

My judgement would be to remove the first and keep the second, but whatever you say I will do.

Sorry for the bother and also if this inappropriate - I just don't know what to do. Thanks.
 * thanks, I will not touch it, so as not to come close to violating the TBAN.  Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * hmmmm with the clarification. i want to be in the spirit of the TBAN so I will remove the 1st section.  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I find TFD's reactions to me at the Bernie Sanders article to be pretty blatant bad faith and totally surprising. His note below is in response to my message to him here where I wrote: "TFD, you have written several things, and are behaving in a way, that violates AGF.  Things like  this and this are completely out of line and are getting in the way of dealing with content in the Sanders article.  Please stop doing that and deal with the actual content proposals.  I don't even know what you mean about "discrediting Sanders"."


 * Please do look at those 2 diffs of his comments. Please note that TFD presents no diffs below where I mention the topic of my ban nor even that sector of the economy.  He will not bring any, because he cannot, because I have not.


 * The relevant section of the Sanders Talk page is here: Talk:Bernie_Sanders. I don't know if the article touches on the topic on my TBAN; nothing I have written in Talk nor in the content nor any sources i have used mention the topic of my TBAN.  This is  baseless as far as I can see.   Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * TFD and AlbinoFerret are pushing forward with this. Again, I didn't edit anything about GMOs on his page.
 * I could see a clear point here and would agree it was a violation, had I edited something about his food policies or commented on them. I didn't and haven't.  I could see a weak point if I had added some denigrating content about him.  Content about a position he has held strongly for 30 years (namely that the free trade agreements we have signed since NAFTA have hurt american workers) is not denigrating.  Not to me.  I don't know why TFD feels Sanders' trade policy discredits him and I still don't understand his point.  That is his deal.  Not mine.
 * The arguments being made about this, are so weak that they demean the ones making them, and this forum. I understood that Arbcom was a more controlled environment where this kind of weak poison was not allowed to fester.    Jytdog (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Several of my hounders have come out to play and I can bring plenty of diffs if desired to show that each of the commenters here (with the exception of TFD whose comments surprised me) have consistently opposed me on drama boards.  Comments about what Monsanto may or may not want are irrelevant to the edits I actually made on the Sanders article and what I wrote on Talk there, and are a continuation of the  hounding that has beset me for three years now.  No finding was made in the arbcom case that my edits violated NPOV nor that I have any conflict of interest (see Findings of fact) and these claims are a continuation of the behaviors that led in part to the Arbcom case.  Had I participated in the case I would have shown this hounding behavior clearly and gotten findings of fact and sanctions regarding it.   That I didn't, is my loss, and the community's.
 * I am not a paid editor; I have no COI with regard to the topic from which I am banned.  I have no relationship with Monsanto and never have had one.
 * I anticipated that part of my post-ARBCOM life would include my hounders trying to create yet more drama based on weak arguments like these, in order to try to further restrict the sphere of my editing in Wikipedia, but it is disheartening to see it play out.
 * In any case, Gandy (who comments below) implemented the edits I wanted to see in the Sanders article about his position on trade (dif) and that is what I was interested in.  I will not edit the Sanders articles going forward.  Not because it is within my TBAN (although his stance on GMOs would be)  but because my hounders apparently cannot bear it and will continue creating this kind of drama if I would, which is good for nobody.  So I won't provoke them.
 * That said, I would like for this request to be decided, and I would like strong warnings given to those who have brought these weak arguments. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC) (adding emphasis. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC))


 * about gandy's remark that i am lying, please see this version proposed by me on the Talk page which was completed at 18:22 where I explicitly said i was dropping the wikilink to free trade in the interest of getting the broader content about his position into the article. Gandy completed her revision of the article almost an hour later at 19:10 (dif  again).  I commented on her revision first here asking for more emphasis on American workers, and then reconsidered a bit later amd here on Talk I said it was fine. So yet more misrepresentation of me.  (not to mention her bizarre claim that "Sanders is against fair trade" which nobody including me has ever said - in her haste to denigrate me she misrepresented me, wrote nonsense, and deleted my comments. Here is her dif again)
 * But this is yet more offtopic hounding drama. I have not violated my topic ban and no one has brought a dif showing i did.  Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * please actually look at the dif where you made your comment - you will see that you indeed deleted some of what I wrote. the dif is here.  I know it was an accident.  I am not going to get into the rest of it further; i said my piece above and backed it with diffs, and if you actually look at them you will see that you are misrepresenting me. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I hear that and that is what I said I would do above. That does not give this complaint merit.
 * Your gem at WT:COI which you do not frequent is a case in point. (dif with my response)  That comment is as sloppy as the one you made below.  I get it that you are still unhappy with things at e-cigs per your lovely exchange here but that is no excuse to go around piling on with lame criticisms.   Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Albino your comments here and at WT:COI were lame and nothing but carrying on a grudge. You have been doing great with your closing work but you still pile on whenever you can against mainstream health editors, like me.  All that stemming from your timeout from e-cigs, which you took in the face of an impending community-imposed ban.  Just knock it off already please, as I have asked you before.  Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and about this. ditto. You play the disinterested party but all you are doing here is wikilawyering based on a very very weak initial argument, that the arbs/admins who have commented have already rejected.  I won't engage further as this is all more offtopic drama from the main point of the bad request and the arguments badly supporting it, which have no merit.  This is all just hounding.  Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * a last remark back on the heart of TFD's original concern, namely that Sanders is "a leading proponent of GMO labelling and opponent of Monsanto" and I must have known about that. In the ~ three years or so that I worked on the GMO articles, Sanders' name never came up that I can recall. This is something that is actually falsifiable:
 * nothing in the Wikiblame search for "Sanders" in the GMO Food controversies article;
 * nothing on that article's Talk page per this Wikiblame search
 * nothing in this Wikiblame search on the GM food article
 * nothing in a Wikiblame search of that article's talk page.
 * Nothing.
 * The Vermont law did come up, but only at that high level (like, the state of Vermont passed a labelling law and here is what the law says); I reckon if I went back and read sources about that law Sanders name might be there... but I don't know.
 * Also, the issue doesn't even reach importance enough to be mentioned in the Bernie Sanders article which summarizes the issues that have been themes of his career - at least not during the brief time I worked on the article. (and yes now that Gandy points it out, I see that it is mentioned in away down in section 9 of Political positions of Bernie Sanders; I worked on section 2 of that article, only.
 * All that is verifiable on-Wiki.
 * The following statements are not falsifiable - all you have to go on, is me saying them. If someone asked me to name who the leading opponents of GMO are, Sanders' name would not be one of them - I would name people like Jeremy Rifkin, Vendana Shiva, John Mercola, Seralini... those are names that have come up plenty in the work here in Wikipedia and that I would name. Not Sanders.  I had no idea he had any stance on the issue until TFD raised this and I never thought of him as "a leading proponent of GMO labelling and opponent of Monsanto".  TFD allegations just came out of the blue, for me.
 * Now that TFD has raised this, I see that Sanders does have a stance on this (again, not a stance that is central to his career such that it is mentioned in the main article about him, but yes he has a stance).
 * In any case as I said above I am not going to edit content about him further to avoid provoking my hounders and creating more drama. And again, I would like the people pushing for this to be warned to not bring poor cases like this going forward. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have explained in depth and provided diffs. The fact that you could not see that you deleted comments the first time and actually denied it and still have not acknowledged it, and then did it a second time even more dramatically, and said on your Talk page said that you are unable to follow diffs anymore... all these things are not my issues.


 * But I will try to explain the other issues without diffs.


 * 1) Please actually read the second paragraph of your comments below. Oh hell I was just paste it here.


 * (bolding added)


 * Three times there, you use the term "fair trade". I made them bold for you in the quoted text.  You do not appear to know what that term means.  "Fair trade"  is the kind of trade policy that Sanders favors (..kind of, it generally means something different than what would be relevant to US trade with say China, but it is close enough for now), compared to "free trade" which has been American trade policy for a few decades now and which Sanders opposes.  What you wrote there is la-la land;  it is not what I or anybody said, and it reflects either carelessness or a lack of competence in the topic.  Yet even when I called your attention to it, you just wrote more nasty things and didn't deal with what you actually wrote, nor with what I actually wrote.


 * 2)' Look what you wrote in the quoted content above about my proposal. If we cut you slack and substitute "fair trade" with "free trade" you are claiming that my proposal used the free standing term, "free trade".  Now here is the proposal from the dif above (since you are apparently unable to follow difs):




 * The free standing term is not there. You misrepresented what I did.


 * 3) below you wrote  - this was a gobsmacker.  Again you don't seem to know what you are talking about nor have read any of the relevant sources.   See this editorial by him headlined: "So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them".   It is clear as day that Sanders opposes what everyone calls free trade.  If your point is that he only uses the term with quotes ("free trade")  - well that is is just rhetoric like calling the estate tax a "death tax" and runs dead against WP:COMMONTERM.   I have been afraid that this is the source of TFD's opposition to use of the abstract term in the Sanders article - if so, that is really horrific WP editing.  But I never went there while I was working on the article, and instead crafted the language above to work around whatever the bizarre opposition was.


 * This is as clear as I can make it. I am not going to respond further to this.  Your question to clarify and offer to take responsibility feels authentic which I appreciate and is why I have responded.  Nonetheless your participation here with the others - and focusing on this crap about "free trade" -  has just been piling on to what was a dead-duck claim that I violated my TBAN, which has gotten no traction.  You added to the circus.  The ocean of bad faith here stinks to high heaven.  Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces
I do not wish to comment on Jytdog's request but have another question for clarification. Does the topic ban apply to articles about Bernie Sanders?

Sanders is a leading proponent of GMO labelling and opponent of Monsanto which, as a GMO producer, is one of the articles mentioned in the GMO case. Sanders is the only politician mentioned in March Against Monsanto, another article mentioned in the case. The new trade agreement which Sanders opposes, TPP, prohibits GMO labelling.

Jytdog has recently begun editing this article, for example here and. In the latter edit he added, "He has opposed free trade agreements...." He does not mention that Sanders says it is not a free trade agreement and provides a link to the free trade article. He has not edited articles for any other presidential candidates.

This seems to me to be an example of continuing to edit a subject as closely related to GMO as possible, without overtly crossing the line.

TFD (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice that the enwiki database shows Jytdog made 93 edits to "March Against Monsanto," so I assume he is aware of its contents.

While it has been deleted, Jytdog posted, "My comments have been purely focused on Sanders' stances on trade and competitiveness generally and not on any single sector of the economy. (fwiw as he is doing so well I became curious about his positions on the economy and when I read our article on him, I found it to say little to nothing about anything other than economic inequality." The discussion thread started by Jytdog at the Sanders article begins, "I have been wondering what Sanders has to do say about promoting the competitiveness of the American economy and i have found nothing anywhere (not in Wiki nor without)." It is an odd posting from an experienced editor.  Normally one would do a little research first and made or recommend the addition of material. The first editor to reply saw it as soapboxing.

By "discrediting Sanders" I was referring to my earlier reply to Jytdog, "we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood." In the first source you added (PBS), TPP was not referred to as a free trade agreement. Nor was it in the second (Punditfact).  And in the source already in the article, written by Sanders, he says, "This is not "free trade.""  And I pointed out in the talk page, "I note btw that Sanders says these are not free trade agreements, so saying he has voted against all free trade agreements is injecting your personal interpretation."

TFD (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

, I agree with AlbinoFerret about the ban "including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics." Sanders introduced the amendment to allow state requirement of GMO labeling. An article in the pro-GMO Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) says, "an example of a politician who still needs to overcome the knee-jerk reflex to be against food biotechnology is Sen. Bernie Sanders. He is chosen here as an example, because his presidential campaign makes him the most visible politician who is strongly against GMOs, and because he takes strong positions in favor of science on all issues apart from agricultural biotechnology." The GLP is financed by the Searle Freedom Trust, that supports a number of U.S. conservative thinktanks and organizations that oppose climate change science, state funded health care, etc.  The site also says Bernie Sanders (and Hillary Clinton, although here opposition was more recent) oppose the TPP and then says GMO opponents are mistaken in their view that the treaty would prevent GMO labeling.  TFD (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

, it is not that Sanders' trade policy discredits him, but saying he opposes free trade when he has not said that does. It is synthesis: Sanders says he opposes the TPP etc., another source says they are free trade agreements, therefore Sanders opposes free trade agreements. And the restriction on editing articles "about persons involved in [GMO]" would seem to include "the most visible politician who is strongly against GMOs." The reasoning is that discrediting anti-GMO advocates discredits anti-GMO advocacy.

These agreements are btw related to GMO, since they allow the export of U.S. GMO grains, and may protect them against GMO labelling, which the GMO industry opposes. The U.S. Grains Council for example says that tariffs on U.S. corn exports will be eliminated. 9 0% of U.S. corn in GMO.

TFD (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

, while I appreciate that Sanders is most notable as a politician, he is also notable for his opposition to GMO or, as the GLP says, he is the most visible politician who is strongly against GMOs. That meets the criterion of being involved in these topics. He is mentioned in March Against Monsanto and Farmer Assurance Provision (aka "Monsanto Protection Act"). A Google news search of "Bernie Sanders"+"GMO" gets 26,000 results. Among the first of the articles, "Bernie Sanders promises to protect organic farming and denounces Monsanto", "Sanders, Murkowski vow to block appointment of FDA commissioner over GMO salmon, drug prices", "Can Bernie Sanders act like a progressive on GMOs, overcome tribal allegiances, embrace science?" "Hillary vs. Bernie on Frankenfood", "Bernie Sanders claims CBS canceled interview on rBGH after Monsanto threatened lawsuit", "Bernie Sanders Calls Out Monsanto for Killing His GMO Labeling Amendment."

Statement by AlbinoFerret
--kelapstick, but isnt the Locus of the dispute tied to the broadly construed part of the ban? Section 4.2.1 Locus of the dispute says "The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics...." AlbinoFerret 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as the hounding goes, I watch this page, not because of one editor, but because I have contributed to a few arbocm cases. Thats likely the reason others have made comments here as well. What brought me to this page this last time was the Mystery Wolff section below and I noticed the GMO section above it. All this talk of hounding is just casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Like there is some kind of anti-Jytdog secret cabal just waiting for the chance. Something that many editors who have or had a section on this page seems to add at one point or another when multiple editors see a problem. AlbinoFerret 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

,, , and part of the findings of the GMO case is  section 4.3.6  Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case. With this edit Jytdog has chosen to disregard that warning. and has focused on Me and not content or issues WP:FOC The comments of "lame" and "sloppy" and criticizing my post to another editor (S Marshall) are very troubling considering the warning he received. That this also happens in a section on topic with that warning raises the concern. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * pinging separately as the first ping was bad and not all the rest again.  AlbinoFerret  18:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of recognising the problem, he compounds it. AlbinoFerret  19:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47
From what I understood, Jytdog's ban should cover articles on companies like Monsanto, not only GMOs. A glance at the Sanders pages for the word GMO is not sufficient in this case.

Jytdog should not be editing pages of strong advocates for or against Monsanto and GE technology. For this reason, Bernie Sanders' articles should be off limits to Jytdog based on his topic ban.

It is well known that Sanders is a huge thorn* in their side. Consider:


 * Questions about agribusiness and genetically-modified food are not unusual at Sanders events, but on Saturday night the Vermont senator claimed his criticism of the industry and Monsanto’s objection caused CBS to cancel an interview:


 * "Monsanto is a very, very powerful corporation. They are one of the leaders in food technology and basically working hard to transform our food system. Let me tell you a funny story, or not so funny. In my state, a great dairy state, we have a lot of dairy cows. There was an effort to put what was called BGH, bovine growth hormone, which is a stimulant that makes cows produce cows more milk but is unhealthy. I was against that.


 * "I’ll never forget this. I was invited by CBS, not a small company, to appear on television to talk about why I was opposed to bovine growth hormone. CBS then called me up and said, ‘Well, Monsanto is threatening to sue us, so we can’t go on with it.’ They are very powerful."*

Consider too: Bernie on GMOs and the TPP
 * The TPP Protects Companies like Monsanto....a corporation thus becomes an "Investor State" with rights that supersede governments' (and people's) rights, including the right to label GMOs.

Jytdog should not be editing content related to trade agreements that have a massive, direct impact on Monsanto, the biotech industry and the spread of GM foods.

Request for clarity
 * says: "if an article is not basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban."


 * (Section 4.2.1) Locus of the dispute: "The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics...."

Please Arbs, clarify for us what you meant by "biographical pages about persons involved in these topics". Could you provide examples of people who would fall into this category?

Could one's prominence in media perhaps play a role in this determination? In other words, Sanders is concerned with many issues (not primarily GMOs), but it cannot be said that his position on Monsanto and GMOs is of no consequence, especially given his power as Senator and potential power as POTUS. I see a line of reasoning forming that to qualify under this topic ban, a bio would need to be solely concerned with the subject's position on GM technology, etc. Is this correct?

Sanders is, according to current polls, a few steps from holding what is commonly described as the most powerful position in the world, and because he is the most prominent and outspoken critic of Monsanto in the United States, as well as an advocate for requiring GM foods labeling, and for small, organic farmers, I can't imagine a bio of someone more fit for Section 4.2.1.

This is what he said in early January:
 * Sanders believes that the biotech companies are "transforming our agricultural system in a bad way." He says that he stands for the right of the people to know what is in our food (through mandatory GMO labeling that he helped pass in Vermont, an effort that the GMO giants are trying to block through the DARK Act) and supports family-owned and organic agriculture.


 * And, "We need legislation and efforts designed not to protect factory farming, corporate farming but to protect family-based agriculture" *

So, you've got Jytdog visiting the Sanders page to make POINTy edits and arguments about Monsanto's biggest U.S. critic, and about a trade deal that would prevent GMO labeling. This is not, in your collective view, a transgression of his topic ban?


 * Arbs, please give us examples of bios addressed in section 4.2.1 More than one example would be preferable, so that we can get an idea of the type of person you were thinking of, and please make sure one of the examples is an American (I am not pushing for Sanders' to be included, but simply cannot imagine who you all are referring to if the bar is so high that he does not qualify). Thanks in advance.


 * Interestingly, when Susan Sarandon introduced Bernie last night in Iowa, her short speech included mention of Monsanto.

Statement by David Tornheim
First I agree that Bernie Sanders is at least somewhat related to GMO's because of his unique views compared on GMO's relative to other major candidates, to about the same level as GMO's are related to Agent Orange. Jytdog has show prejudice against anyone he labelled "anti-GMO". On the Bernie Sanders page, he is now into a dispute with an editor who I believe left the GMO pages largely because of Jytdog's behavior, where she says, "this has been a very unpleasant experience" diff. Although Gandydancer said she did not think the T-ban should apply here, IMHO seeing responses like this is a further reason the t-ban should apply to his behavior on this article.

I request that ArbCom to consider this editor's history at ArbCom and on Wikipedia in making its ruling and answering this editor's request, such as his overly aggressive behavior at COI that was brought to ArbCom's attention and lead to admonishment by one of the ArbCom members: here (that comment refers to this Statement by Risker and this mass deletion of mall articles over a supposed COI.)  I similarly pointed out double-standards in this editor's behavior with regards to COI here at the GMO Arbitration. And now we have a new COI problem for this editor, who thought it appropriate to edit the COI guideline when questions were raised about his COI here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) (revised 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Gandydancer
Some editors have presented some very interesting information above and now I can see why Monsanto would be very eager to discredit Sanders. BTW, I note below it is said, "There is no mention of GMOs in either his article, or his presidential campaign article." Actually there is a section on GMO labeling in his positions article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

When Jytdog says that I edited the article per his wishes he is not being very honest. He was told again and again that the use of the term fair trade was not appropriate and that the problem was in no way connected to including the names of the trade agreements but to the use of the term fair trade. And yet he just ignored any comments related to the use of the term free trade even to including it in the final suggestion he made before threatening to bring it to a dispute resolution process. Jytdog is not dumb. He knows very well that there is a huge difference in saying that Sanders is against certain trade agreements and Sanders is against fair trade. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting just plain silly. I said "[Jytdog] knows very well that there is a huge difference in saying that Sanders is against certain trade agreements and Sanders is against fair trade." He subtracts what he calls a bizarre claim that I made "Sanders is against fair trade" from this and calls it nonsense that nobody ever said, which is of course true, except that nobody ever said it, including me. Let's complicate some more--he says that I deleted and misrepresented him--though I did neither. This is not complicated, it is very simple: The article is about Sanders life and his political accomplishments and opinions. We are abbreviating Sanders's views on trade agreements to just one or a few sentences. Sanders has never said that he is opposed to free trade and there is no RS to make that statement. If we had more space to work with it could be explained that Sanders does not consider the trade deals in question to be "free" and he always refers to them as "so called free" or similar. So its been best, in order to keep things brief, to just say, "Sanders has opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, and PPT." Not complicated at all. This was brought up repeatedly on the talk page but Jytdog just went doggedly along not hearing it, refusing to discuss it, and now here calling it nonsense. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog I have looked at the difs you provided several times and I can't figure out what you mean. Perhaps you could just tell me what I deleted rather than use a dif.Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I really do want to clear up the statement where you said, "So yet more misrepresentation of me. (not to mention her bizarre claim that "Sanders is against fair trade" which nobody including me has ever said - in her haste to denigrate me she misrepresented me, wrote nonsense, and deleted my comments."  I will gladly accept responsibility but I don't know what I did unless you will tell me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I used the term "fair trade" three times when I meant "free trade". It is true that the term "fair trade" had not been used on the article talk page by me, or you, or anybody. I spoke at length on free trade on the article talk page and I think that most people would tend to agree that I do seem to be aware of what it means. You may accept that I did follow your difs and try to understand our differences while never noting my mistake, or you can think I'm incompetent, trying to denigrate, etc. At any rate, I apologize for my mistake. Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Bernie Sanders has spouted anti-GMO bollocks, so that requires care on Jytdog's part. Frankly if I were him I would leave well alone. There are loads of other articles to edit and enough people who are after Jytdog's blood and will spend their lives dragging every marginal call to this board that it's probably better to stay clear in the interests of a quiet life. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
[Univolved as far as I recall.] I haven't dug into the exact nature of the editor's participation and am not comfortable projecting any ideas about whether Jytdog is or should be aware of a Sanders–GMO connection (I have faith that ArbCom is competent to apply a DUCK/SPADE analysis, COMMONSENSE, etc.). I think there's a general risk here, with multiple levels:
 * For a public figure, notable for anything other than their connection to the topic-ban subject, it's not a sure bet that any editor involved in the general topic is necessarily aware of the bio subject's connection to that topic. A legislator may have voted or debated on hundreds of issues in the same legislative session.
 * For such a figure, the connection to the topic will generally be tenuous, unless they were heavily involved. It shouldn't be the result of a topic ban to deal with disruption in a general topic, that it effectively entrap the user if a bio incidentally turns out to have a connection to the verboten topic. Nor should it be the goal of a topic ban to prevent the editor from constructively working on any articles that are only tenuously connected to the TB topic, as long as they stay away from material in the bio or whatever that relates to the TB topic, and don't try to PoV skew the article (e.g. "I can't make them look bad on this, so I'll make them look bad on that").
 * A major if not primary aspect of ARBCOM and AE these days is enforcement of various (including discretionary) sanctions for WP:Casting aspersions, including assumptions of bad faith without serious evidence. The presumption an editor with a TB in a topic is surely violating the TB by editing a bio with some vague connection to the TB topic would appear to be the exact kind of aspersion-casting that is forbidden.
 * Too vague an approach here could also provide untoward WP:GAMING opportunities for someone who wants to get the party subject to the TB into even more trouble.

I don't raise any of this pro or con the specifics in this case. Frankly, I remain skeptical about the participation on that bio page. But it seems like something to keep an eye on, not something to whip out the noose for.

Regardless of the determination in this case, my point is: Please consider very carefully about this. While ArbCom isn't precedent-bound literally, it's clear that it has leaned more and more toward continuity and consistency between cases in recent years (and I'm pretty sure almost everyone thinks this is a good thing). So, an overbroad approach to this question in this case (even if the result were deserved) could lead to overbroad approaches in later ones, including sanctions that aren't really merited, or just a general chilling effect. Since we use a lot of legal metaphors here, like chilling effect and overbreadth, I suggest that a wiki equivalent of criminal intent needs to be a factor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I've been watching this, and I decided to leave this relatively late comment now. I think that the Arbs are getting it right in their replies, so those replies should settle the immediate issues at hand. But I do think that SMcCandlish makes some very good points, that deserve to be reemphasized. I'm seeing a pretty heavy use of aspersions at numerous editors lately, of just the kind of asserting an agenda of editing on behalf of GMO companies, and the editors doing it are getting increasingly clever about wording it in ways that superficially mask the real agenda of casting aspersions. There's one case of it at ANI right now, and it's pretty clear that administrators do not want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. There is a real possibility of ArbCom finding yourselves with something like GMO-2, so I think that you should have that heads-up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
I originally wasn't going to comment here as I was confident arbs would come to the same conclusion they currently did so far in that it's fine as long as a a topic-banned editor isn't editing an article that's about the topic ban subject or an area of tangential articles. That being said, I do want to echo Tryptofish and say that arbs should keep an eye on who's "out for blood" in recent enforcement cases or clarifications. This is probably the biggest stretch of broadly construed so far by those trying to claim this violated the topic ban. One concern is the hounding of multiple editors by AlbinoFerret as Jytdog described above. I haven't decided if it's best to present that evidence at enforcement or if something like that is better handled at GMO-2 as Trypto mentioned, but just a heads up that there's still a lot of things festering that we just didn't have the time, space, or energy to deal with at the first case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
This crap has gone on long enough. Admins have got to start liberally handing out blocks, bans, or whatever it takes to clean up the GMO cesspit. I have some professional knowledge I'd like to add on the topic (related to the potential for unintended outcrossing by windborne pollen) but don't dare edit the topic because of the utterly toxic atmosphere on anything related to GMOs. Things are only getting worse and the time for half-measures has long passed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
Excellent troll Jytdog, and I say that as someone who has amused himself early and often trolling self-righteous WP admins and internet "science" activists. Now, I'm off to buy some stock in Monsanto. Cla68 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DrChrissy
I have another clarification request here. Jytdog and I are both under an interaction ban. Jytdog recently closed a discussion in which I was engaged I am not going to pretend this was a flagrant abuse of the IB, but it seems to me that it is an interaction - possibly of the remotest kind. But, after all, the closure means Jytdog is effectively preventing me from making further posts to that thread. Given that discouraging Jytdog from closing discussions in which I am involved is hardly likely to affect his editing in any significant way, I suggest it might be best if this is avoided in the future. Oh, as a very minor side issue, the discussion also contained some GMO content. It could be construed that Jytdog, by closing the discussion and leaving a comment, is commenting on GMO-related posts. All I am asking is whether Jytdog should in the future avoid closing discussions in which I have been involved - I am not asking for any action to be taken. DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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



Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As far as I'm concerned:
 * Leaving it there as is isn't a TBAN violation - as it was there before your topic ban was imposed.
 * I guess removing it is technically a TBAN violation, but seriously, who cares - given the spirit of the TBAN is to get people to walk away, removing it is really following the 'spirit' of the ban just not the letter (and I strongly doubt anyone would have a problem with you removing things from your user page).
 * Editing/changing it is a TBAN violation since it's not following the letter or the 'spirit' of the TBAN, though blocking for that would probably be a little extreme depending on circumstances.
 * Regarding the other part of your questions, it's up to you what you remove and what you keep, but your suggestion re removing first section and keeping second section seems reasonable to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I added the bit in brackets in the 2nd dot point to make it clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What Callanecc said with regards to your userpage., if none of the content that Jytdog is related to the topic ban, than there is no violation. Regardless of Sanders stance on GMOs. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this the Bernie Sanders question is stretching the limits of broadly construed. There is no mention of GMOs in either his article, or his presidential campaign article. He's not notable as either a pro or anti-GMO activist, he's notable as a politician. So unless the material being edited is directly related to GMOs, the topic ban does not apply. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Callanecc. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As do I. As for Bernie Sanders, we've always said that if an article is not basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban. Doug Weller  talk 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TBAN pretty much explains it or what doug and callanecc said --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. What Callanecc and Doug W. said. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they've explained it well.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (February 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Mystery Wolff at 11:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs 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

Statement by Mystery Wolff
1. Regarding the Arbcom outcome. It states: Enforcement of restrictions: 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Clarification is sought on how this works. Specifically in a case where other dispute resolutions options are not used, and an editor brings AE Requests.   SHALL the outcome of the first event be no greater than 30 days?   If the answer is Yes please state.  If the answer is NO, please clarify what the language means.

2. Is the outcome of the Arbcom that all issues with Dispute Resolution needs with first be visited to the for AE requests? That the AE is the only Dispute Resolution option for all pages covered by the Arbcom? If not, what are the expectations of how Dispute Resolution should be handled for pages subject to Discretionary Sanctions?

3. For Appeals of AE decisions premised upon Arbcom (or otherwise) Should Admins who were involved with the original decision be participating in the Appeals process as "judges"   i.e.   Is the documented Appeals process to be carried out only by Admins who did not participate in the first AE?

4. Who determines if an Administrator is "involved" with editors in the AE. Is there any process. When should the determination of such be made?

5. Is the Closing Admin, expected or actually required to make a statement after the Appeal to the AE is made. If they refuse to comment or answer questions, can that then be used to show that the AE was determined improperly, and thus if the Closing Admin refuses to respond, SHALL the case then be resolved in the favor of the requesting editor.

Thank you for your Clarifications in advance. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6. What part of discretionary sanctions allow or suggest: "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas." What are the various tiers of editorship?  I was previously of the understanding that there was only locking of articles to where you needed to be verified.   How is the learning curve graded, and how are editors graduated through the different levels?


 * Following up on the Answer to 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations_of_administrators, and the Template generates a section specifically for the Closing Admin......I do not understand how it would be optional for Closing Admin to give an explanation at AE. "Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions"   How is a "MUST" an optional option? How can an appeal occur if the closing Admin refuses to discuss? Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply to This request for clarification is being done generically.  It is not being done as a request for modification to the ARB, and I was not involved in the ARB where I am asking the question to.  You have not addressed the additional Two questions I have asked, and raise new question by your response.


 * The question 6, is referring to a policy where editors much have an undefined differentiator than simply following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors I want to know about how the tiers are managed and what is necessary.  Because enforcing admins use the phrase I placed, I want to know about it.  Its something that all editors on Wikipedia should know about, or that policy of levels of editorship on articles with Discretionary sanctions should be removed.  Please talk to that.


 * on 5, I asked about the rules that are well documented that Enforcing Admins are accountable, and must explain their actions.  Its simple, if they choose to refuse to answer questions about their enforcement actions, they are not accountable at all.   My reading of the guidelines says its not optional, that it is required.


 * Your new assertion is wrong, and its a wrong reading of the rules. Without the enforcing Admin commenting on the Appeal, its is nearly certain to fail, rather than you misunderstanding that it is beneficial to the appealing editor....because it nearly guarantees the status quo.  For an appeal to succeed, a reviewing admin must see a difference, find a difference, to change the Status quo.  As you know, often the case win Admin reviews is a process of follow the leader.  The process problem is there is no way that the appeal editor has any idea of why the decision was made, and often is not presented with enough information that a review has been done with any level of completeness.   You also know that the pejorative of wikilawyering is also abused by admins as a way to stifle the very plea of the appeals itself.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators somehow is not being seen as a requirement.


 * Why is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations_of_administrators not a requirement? Rather, its written as a requirement, but it treated as optional.


 * If the clarification is a stratified set of tiers of editorship, that's fine, but it need to be part of a process and documented. Otherwise you are left with more and more frequent sanctioning of editors, without those editors being told which edits are the basis.   I would appreciate clarification to process in general.  These answers are for the whole of the project and not simply a single case.  Please focus on process Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your response below, and I did google it. I believe that I am asking for important clarifications to a process that is out of sorts.  Its an important process because it one used to close down and restrict editorship to an open project, so checks and balances are important especially with consideration to a process of an Appeal.   If editors are not given a fair process, and by fair process I mean that the process if defined AND followed, it will result in an outcome that is a disservice to the entirety of the Wikipedia community.   Its well known that the pejorative "wikilawyering" is often used to BITE at editors, and as an excuse to circumvent process, but in an Appeals process, it must be that editors are given a fair hearing.   The Closing admin "MUST" explain their actions, and a designated Admin should be responsible for the Appeal as it proceeds.  Otherwise a transient random Admin may requested to close it out, out of favor, boredom, or otherwise, without giving the editor a fair hearing. I don't think any Admin can disagree with anything above.


 * In actu, what I am raising here contradicts that assertion of . A. There is a requirement of Admin, and its not optional, its defined as MUST, explain their administrative actions.   The template for Appeal, creates a section for the closing Admin to explain their decision.   IT IS fundamental to the existing appeals process.  If a closing Admin refuses to explain their actions, informally as listed out by the Topic Ban template, Directly to their TALK page, the editor has only one option to bring it to an Appeal.  The appeal can only be by a shift of the Status Quo.   If no Admins bother to look at the appeal, or address anything in the actual appeal, the status quo remains.  If the enforcing Admin refuses to to explain their actions, the result will always be the status quo, and the appeal process is mooted, or gamed.


 * I would also appreciate you responding to the various tiers of editorship on Wikipedia, and how an editor is to move through them.  Directions are put out that editors should only edit XYZ articles, and other articles are only appropriate for 123 editors.   All of this is undocumented, but it is being used by the AE board itself.


 * Again I appreciated these needed clarifications to the processes. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop shifting my request for clarification to something it is not. This is not "appeal that appeal to the arbitration committee", or an appeal. Above, I am asking for clarification to process. As the items have not been remarked to, I can not disagree with something that is not there. Please stop personifying and respond to the process questions above or if TLDR for you, allow others to do so. Stop making it about me. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , there are two items above which have not been addressed, (5 clarification, and 6). However, I apologize for my error...of drafting them incrementally here.
 * They are generalized to process and not individual case specific....and I will re-craft them again, and ask them, independent of this. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
In response to Mystery Wolff's followup question, when an appeal is made then uninvolved administrators look at all the information available and decide based on that whether the sanction was appropriate or not. If the blocking administrator does not or cannot (for whatever reason) contribute to the discussion then the other administrators will just not have that information available. They will still be able to examine the logs, the original thread, and all links posted with the appeal and with the original discussion that led to the sanction. If anything, the closing admin not participating is more likely to favour the appealing user as they will not be able to present their case or explain why they chose the action they did that another admin may not have done.

Neither arbcom nor AE is a court and nobody wins or loses based on minor procedural errors - not that there were any in your case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained above what happens if the admin making the initial action does not contribute. That you choose not to believe this does not make it untrue, nor does it make your preferred interpretation correct.
 * You made your appeal, it and the comments left by other users (including the admin who originally placed the resitrction) were reviewed by uninvolved administrators. Your appeal was declined. You have now chosen to appeal that appeal to the arbitration committee, who have also declined it. You appear to be confusing people disagreeing with you for people not hearing you. Please read I didn't hear that, and move on. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to beat a dead horse. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What process questions remain outstanding? As far as I can tell, everything has been answered already:
 * Administrators who impose sanctions are encouraged and recommended to take part in any appeal of that sanction, but they are not obliged to - read WP:ADMIN again.
 * That a section of the appeal exists for comments from the admin who imposed it does not create an obligation for them to take part in the appeal.
 * The appeal is judged by uninvolved administrators whether the original admin takes part or not.
 * The appeal is judged based on the evidence presented in the original discussion, the evidence presented in the appeal, and the comments of all users who choose to comment.
 * Appeals made without the input of the imposing administrator can be and have been successful.
 * Fundamentally you need to read and understand WP:NOTBURO. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

5. Is the Closing Admin, expected or actually required to make a statement after the Appeal to the AE is made. If they refuse to comment or answer questions, can that then be used to show that the AE was determined improperly, and thus if the Closing Admin refuses to respond, SHALL the case then be resolved in the favor of the requesting editor.
 * The closing admin is recommended to make a statement, but is not required to. If they do not comment or answer questions, then all that happens is that their judgement is interpreted based on what was written (by them and others) in the thread that they closed. It does not affect whether the closure was correct or otherwise, and has no bearing on whether the appeal is successful or not. It is very uncommon for a sanction to be overturned on procedural grounds.

What part of discretionary sanctions allow or suggest: "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas." What are the various tiers of editorship? I was previously of the understanding that there was only locking of articles to where you needed to be verified. How is the learning curve graded, and how are editors graduated through the different levels?
 * "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas." is advice not a sanction. That Wikipedia has a learning curve is a factual statement independent of anything else, and given that the learning curve exists and new editors arrive all the time, there are by definition editors at all points on the curve. The experience of those of us who have been around a long time shows that the learning curve is much easier to scale in a non-contentious area - things happen at a slower pace, meaning the experienced editors there have the time and patience to teach and guide those who are learning rather than firefight to maintain article quality. Experience also shows that editors whose sole focus when starting is to narrow, controversial topic rarely go on to become long term productive editors, while those people who do have long, productive editing careers almost always started with a broad focus and learned the culture of Wikipedia on articles that are not controversial.
 * There are only four classes of access level for editing, unconfirmed, confirmed, 500/30, and administrator:
 * All users start out as unconfirmed, and anyone edits without using an account can only hold this level. Unconfirmed users can not edit any page that is protected, semi-protected or under a 500/30 restriction.
 * Users can be confirmed by any administrator, or become autoconfirmed when their account is at least four days old and they have made at least 10 edits. There is no difference in practical terms between confirmed and autoconfirmed. These users can edit pages that are semi-protected but not fully protected or under a 500/30 restriction.
 * 500/30 is a restriction applied to a very small number of topics that is similar to semi-protection but requires users to have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits.
 * Administrators are the only group of editors who can protect or unprotect pages, edit fully protected pages and block and unblock users. To become an administrator you need to pass a Request for adminship.
 * Actual experience as an editor is judged informally to no set criteria, based on how long someone has been editing, the standards of their editing and conduct, and their demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia policies and practices.
 * Discretionary sanctions do allow uninvolved administrators to issue topic bans, that is to disallow an editor from editing a given topic or topics where their contributions are judged to be a net-negative to the project for some reason. This ban will either be for a finite length of time (typically 3-12 months) or indefinitely. Topic bans may be appealed, but that appeal will not be granted unless uninvolved administrators are happy that the editor concerned will not cause disruption. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to present evidence of several months productive contribution to an unrelated area of the project without being the cause of or exacerbating drama or controversy.
 * Those editors who do not move on from a topic they have been topic banned from, and/or cause disruption in another topic area, are the least likely to be successful when appealing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion by Beyond My Ken
If I may, perhaps the Committee, or some number of Arbs, could instruct one of the clerks to wrap this up neatly with a bow and put it in the archives? Unless, that is, Salvio wants to bask in the healing warmth of the accolades a while longer. BMK (talk) 19:21, 3 February 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.

Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Clerk notes

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



Editor conduct in e-cigs articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Clarification is sought on how this works. Specifically in a case where other dispute resolutions options are not used, and an editor brings AE Requests. SHALL the outcome of the first event be no greater than 30 days? If the answer is Yes please state. If the answer is NO, please clarify what the language means.
 * No, the section you link to only deals with the enforcement of sanctions imposed by ArbCom (for instance, editor A gets indefinitely topic banned by ArbCom, he violates his restriction and is reported to AE, assuming it's his first violation the admins there can only block him for up to one month). Those provisions do not apply to admins imposing discretionary sanctions.
 * Is the outcome of the Arbcom that all issues with Dispute Resolution needs with first be visited to the for AE requests? That the AE is the only Dispute Resolution option for all pages covered by the Arbcom? If not, what are the expectations of how Dispute Resolution should be handled for pages subject to Discretionary Sanctions?
 * Basically, any editor is free to choose whatever dispute resolution method he thinks will be best suited to solve a dispute, provided he is acting in good faith.
 * For Appeals of AE decisions premised upon Arbcom (or otherwise) Should Admins who were involved with the original decision be participating in the Appeals process as "judges" i.e. Is the documented Appeals process to be carried out only by Admins who did not participate in the first AE?
 * Only the admin who imposed the sanction being appealed is considered involved, those who have expressed an opinion but did not directly impose the sanction are not considered involved.
 * Who determines if an Administrator is "involved" with editors in the AE. Is there any process. When should the determination of such be made?
 * In the first instance, you should ask the admin in question to refrain from acting on account of his involvement; if he doesn't comply, you can ask the other administrators commenting in the AE thread; if they disagree, it is up to those who hear the appeal and, finally, to ArbCom.
 * Is the Closing Admin, expected or actually required to make a statement after the Appeal to the AE is made. If they refuse to comment or answer questions, can that then be used to show that the AE was determined improperly, and thus if the Closing Admin refuses to respond, SHALL the case then be resolved in the favor of the requesting editor.
 * No. Admins are free to, and ought to comment during appeals, in keeping with the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, but the fact they choose not to is not grounds for the case to be resolved in favour of the appealing editor. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Salvio. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Salvio said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Salvio for a clear concise reply. Which of course I agree with. Doug Weller  talk 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How many different ways can we find to say "Salvio is right"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a academic would say, "See Giuliano (2016a) for a full explanation of the problem." --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we need more people to agree with Salvio?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (February 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 05:08, 19 February 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 Hijiri88
In the last eight days Catflap08 has posted two comments related to Wikipedia's coverage of an adherent of Nichiren Buddhism, and attacked another user's contributions to the area as "white washing". Catflap08 and I are both topic-banned from "Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed". The edits he was referring to took place over a month after the TBAN was put in place.

He also explicitly requested that others contact him by email about the topic. This is very suspicious, given his history of violating our mutual IBAN via proxy. If violating the TBAN via proxy was the intent here, it would be a tremendous violation of the spirit of the TBAN, and either of us having a forum that allows us to gather meatpuppets should not be allowed.

Catflap08 says the reason he posted on a noticeboard is because he is "officially banned from articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism" (my emphasis). This seems to imply that his interpretation of the ban is narrower than the wording on WP:TBAN, which says "making edits related to a certain topic area" (my emphasis). The wording of both our bans as placed on WP:RESTRICT when the original case closed is "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed" (my emphasis). Catflap08 has apparently interpreted the latter quotation as meaning that edits to "pages" that are "not related to" Nichiren Buddhism (including all noticeboards and user talk pages) are not covered by the ban, even if one of us explicitly comments on the topic of "Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents".

Was this the original intent?

If so, the wording should be altered to clarify ("indefinitely banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed; this ban covers articles and their talk pages, but pages in the Wikipedia or User namespaces are exempt").

If not, the wording should still be modified to clarify ("indefinitely banned from making any edits relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed"), and Catflap08 should be either blocked or told off for (repeatedly) violating the ban.

(Because there's a risk someone will bring this up: I neither know nor care what the nature of the edits was. Catflap08 is not allowed comment on the edits on-wiki, and neither am I. I have no strong feelings about Mr. Makiguchi one way or the other. I am not, nor was I ever, trying to "white-wash" anything.)


 * Done and done. Any idea how I withdraw this request? I don't really mind the Arbs taking a look at revising the wording of the TBANs as well, but I guess it's academic and wastes time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Didn't see your comment below. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Catflap08
I am quite unsure if I should laugh or cry …maybe both. I asked this [] which was moved to EAR and I was told in an email by what seems an admin to either seek the talk page (which due to the ban I refrain from doing) or turn to the Tea House. So asking questions about an edit is a violation of the TBAN???? This gets better every time. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC) @ Spartaz Just to be on the safe side. I am not into socks … I do wear them though. But do by all means go ahead with the investigation as I myself suspect a sock too. At the same time you may indicate where to turn to when one comes across problematic edits within areas one is banned from. If asking such a question is already a breach of a ban this in some ways censorship.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
This is an obvious TBAN violation and can be dealt with at WP:AE. You do not need clarification for this point and can withdraw this request. IMO Its a clear vio and block worthy. With regard to the edits Catflap08 was referencing, the user making them is obviously someone who has previously edited wikipedia using another identity/account. I have asked for disclosure but since their first edit was to a an area subject to recent arbitration I'm also wondering abusive sock. Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this has now transferred to AE. Perhaps a clerk could archive this as it clearly does not yet need any ruling or input from the committee to resolve? Spartaz Humbug! 13:21, 19 February 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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (February 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Prokaryotes at 05:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Topic banned
 * 2) Enforcement log


 * 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''


 * MastCell
 * EdJohnston


 * Information about amendment request
 * Topic banned
 * Undo tb


 * Enforcement log (diff added by Callanecc)
 * Remove the entry concerning editor prokaryotes

Statement by Prokaryotes
Related to this decision. I've asked admin MastCell, here on his talk page to reconsider the topic ban, and here at AN. However, admin MastCell did not reconsider the topic ban and AN was not conclusive. Main issue with the topic ban is that after self reverting 1RR, MastCell noted no further action required, another admin suggested 2 to 7 days ban (before self revert). Additional admin MastCell did not provide difs for his enforcement, the admin explained the topic ban as follows: "QUOTE by admin MastCell:..pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks, and so on"

The enforcement request was initially filed by editor Tryptofish. A couple of weeks earlier, MastCell made it clear to Tryptofish that he supports him, thus he is not really neutral when getting involved with topic bans related to Tryptofish's request. I ask Arbcom to reconsider MastCell's decision, to undo my topic ban, because he failed to provide evidence for wrongdoing, because according to his own statement, no actions were required after i self reverted the reported 1RR violation, and because based on his own account, he is a supporter of Tryptofish. prokaryotes (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rose2LP, good points, also notice Spartaz posted to my talk page, hours after he closed the AN discussion, after i posted here, ignoring my explanations at AN, and called my actions there "disgusting", then even claimed that editors participating over there are "my flashmob". Seriously, if someone is poisoning the well then it is based in such unreflected comments, totally absent from expecting good faith, ignoring input from the other sides, and continuing a pattern of baseless arguments. Hopefully we can use this request here to focus on the issue at hand. prokaryotes (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@JzG, it is unclear why JzG brings up info about an alt account, when he was well aware of it, as well as at least some Arbcom members, and brought to at ANI by JzG, and is unrelated to the current discussion. JzG wrote below, "a currently undisclosed alternate account (actually disclosed briefly on-wiki and then removed by them a few minutes later)" - when in fact it has been discussed at Arb, ANI and elsewhere, with involvement of JzG. In response Rose has removed her previous comment, but there was no reason to do so.


 * Then JzG goes into great length, linking below to a page about Lunatic charlatans, then he goes on mentioning "proponents of fringe beliefs", and then he suggests that editor Jyzdog was banned unfairly, just because he promoted a wholly mainstream view.... Also here JzG explains how he frames the current GMO debate as fringe. I mention this, to make this very clear, there are no fringe views present in the entire GMO debate of the last 6 month of involved/regular editors (unless you want to count the minority editor opinion as such). In fact the meat of the debate is basically about a single word, "consensus" (in regards to food safety). A minor group of editors, like Tryptofish or Kingofaces opt against a "majority" of other editors to include the word consensus (see current discussion). JzG mainly involves himself from time to time and frames "the other side" as fringe (as he does below). These editors are unwilling to compromise, to discuss encyclopedic, neutral and in good faith, and because of this, are the main reason why this discussion drags on for so long. They are also the most frequent editors on these article talk pages, and for most of the article space. I ask JzG, and all other involved editors to stop suggesting that editors they disagree with present a fringe view, unless they cite clear evidence for such. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough here JzG explains why he has no problem with people who support fringe views outside of Wikipedia, as long they don't at WP (removed). prokaryotes (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell, he mentions, "appeal at WP:AN, where there was essentially unanimous support for the topic ban from uninvolved editors and admins", this is simply not true, besides me there are five or six other editors who question the topic ban, Johnuniq, Spartaz, JzG, MastCell, Tryptofish and Kingofaces supporting. I explained at AN why i opened the discussion, because Spartaz participated in the discussion, and because at least at ANI closure is done by editors/admins who did not take part (at least that is my impression). prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC) @Callanecc you wrote " the exercise of administrative discretion (by MastCell) by completely reasonable", can you link to a dif which makes his action completely reasonable? At least you should ask him to provide such difs, some real evidence - then judge in your position as a clerk arbitrator. prokaryotes (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC) prokaryotes (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Arbitrator, The main issue is, that discretion has been applied, without evidence (difs), thus arbitrators should ask the enforcer to provide these difs for the claims quoted above. prokaryotes (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, re MC's involvement, here he goes into detail about his job and how he uses GMO related stuff (notice the paper he refers to has been republished), here he chats with Tryptofish, and how he thinks GMOs are safer than conventional foods. Here MastCell endorses Tryptofish for adminship, gives his support, here he made 36 edits to a BLP article of a GMO opponent, adding critical opinion. I don't see an issue with his GMO edits, i see an issue with his close relationship with Tryptofish, who filed the AE, and he made it clear in his comments that he supports T's views. Maybe this is something for ARCA, when missing difs aren't. prokaryotes (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: MastCell took sides in the GMO debate, is an outspoken proponent of GMOs, therefore he is not neutral when enforcing GMO ds. prokaryotes (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OMG. prokaryotes (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

 * There's a line between being accountable and being subject to vexatious litigation. In my view, we have crossed that line. The WP:AE request in question sat open for nearly two weeks without administrative input, which is a disservice to both the requester and the requestee. I closed it using my discretion to topic-ban an editor who has repeatedly failed to uphold basic behavioral expectations, in keeping with the purpose of discretionary sanctions. I explained the basis for the topic ban at the time it was placed. I further responded to Prokaryotes' request for more details on my talkpage. I further responded to Prokaryotes' appeal at WP:AN, where there was essentially unanimous support for the topic ban from uninvolved editors and admins. He then immediately came here. He's simply running through every available venue without pause or reflection. I feel I've discharged my responsibility to be accountable, and this is now simply unhealthy and vexatious litigation.


 * After an uninvolved admin closed Prokaryotes' topic-ban appeal on AN as unsuccessful, Prokaryotes himself immediately reverted the administrative closure of his appeal so that he could continue to argue it . I can't remember ever seeing that before, and it speaks to the depth of the problem here.


 * I have little to say in response to various accusations below, as they're poorly supported and consist in part of insinuations and speculation about my real-life identity, to which I decline to respond in any way. It's interesting that very few people actually defend Prokaryotes' behavior. Instead, the arguments against the topic ban are either a) "somebody else is even worse than him!" or b) "MastCell is a bad admin!".


 * I don't believe that I'm "involved", by any of the 10 or 12 varying definitions of the term promulgated by ArbCom over the years, in the GMO topic area. I'm impressed (if that's the right word) at the level of opposition research at play; it takes significant time and effort to go back over at least my last 2 or 3 years of contributions looking for something incriminating, but the results seem pretty meager (as Floquenbeam points out below). This is what any admin taking action at WP:AE can expect; we allow it to happen, and it's why requests sit open for weeks.


 * I will say only that I think my record as an editor and an admin, on health-related or -unrelated topics, speaks for itself. I also think these events underline the fact that the GMO area is replete with poor editorial behavior. Since the majority of the cleanup work has been punted to WP:AE, it would be helpful to support the increasingly tiny number of admins willing to stick out their necks. MastCell Talk 19:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim
I support this appeal. The punishment did not fit the crime. I am not even convinced that the 1RR violation was a true 1RR violation--if so it was a technicality. The two changes were to the same sentence and  with only one intervening edit by me  to a different sentence. Hence if the two edits were made at the same time, there would have been no issue. Additionally, the material reverted was edit-warred in here, here and then later here (that was self-reverted here). acknowledged his/her mistake and worked with Prokaryotes to get the matter resolved, and the matter should have been dropped. But prokaryotes' accusers never admitted their wrong-doing and insisted on a topic ban. The topic ban was a gross miscarriage of justice when the accusers were equally guilty and never owned up to it and were not even warned. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

above says, regarding the "appeal at WP:AN, where there was essentially unanimous support for the topic ban from uninvolved editors and admins." That is clearly not true. There, identified ", Spartaz,, Johnuniq, and " as "appear[ing] unquestionably uninvolved..." . A simple review of the comments of the five identified shows that only and  clearly supported Mastcell's action and the remaining three took no position:, ,.

According to statements below, the accused has the right to these appeals, and I urged that the accused take such action. To call it vexatious is completely inappropriate and prejudicial.

For all these reason the TB should be overturned and the ruling overturned or remanded ideally to ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with 's assertion that the point is now moot, because the accused has voluntarily accepted a 6 month ban. It is not moot because the indefinite TB would extend, if the editor were to come back in 6 months or request reinstatement prior to that. Given that the accused voluntary acceptance of a 6 month Wikipedia ban from ALL articles, I think a just result would be that the TB run concurrently with the 6 month ban, and expire after 6 months.

It makes me sad that the accused's unjust treatment has driven him or her to "wiki-suicide". We really need to look at how badly we are treating our editors, how unpleasant it makes the editing environment to allow ad hominem attacks from some editors but not their victims, allowing editors to blatantly lie about content and suffer no consequences , and how such unjust treatment and double-standards are driving people away, creating biased POV content and causing us to lose readership from those who recognize the bias in our articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
What's ArbCom's opinion on involvement in these processes by a currently undisclosed alternate account (actually disclosed briefly on-wiki and then removed by them a few minutes later) of an editor with outstanding sanctions and a history with one of the parties? And is this considered a valid use of an alternate account? Guy (Help!) 12:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * : disclosure, removal, active restriction on the main account logged at, interactions per this search, how much detail of this history do you need or is that sufficient to take a view on this particular use of an alternate account? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aside: It would not be surprising if a majority of those sanctioned in a specific area were editing against the "house POV" since they are the ones who are here on a mission. In respect of alternatives to medicine, the "house POV" amounts to the scientific consensus view as documented in reliable medical sources and other reality-based references. It's well known that fans of various fringe and quack beliefs intensely dislike Wikipedia's adherence to a strictly mainstream view and are very determined to see that changed. Jimbo's view is that our policies on this are exactly right - you may differ on that, but it is clear that it is Wikipedia's policy to follow the mainstream view.
 * I would not expect Wikipedia to be sanctioning as many defenders of the mainstream view as it is proponents of fringe beliefs - it would be weird if we were. However, proponents of mainstream views are sanctioned, for example Jytdog was topic banned from GMOs despite promoting a wholly mainstream POV.


 * I have no idea what Prokaryotes is on about above. I think the ban of Jytdog was entirely appropriate, and I never said otherwise - I merely noted that it is an example of a proponent of the mainstream view being sanctioned, which refutes the implication that only those opposing the mainstream are ever sanctioned. Just that, no more. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
One of the elephants in the room here is that MastCell only gets involved in Arb Enforcement in relation to health-related science topics and, in that capacity, he only topic bans or sanctions editors who appear to be taking the side against the house POV on that particular topic. It has been alleged that,. If true, is this ok, or like Future Perfect at Sunrise and JzG, is he doing "WP's good work?" Cla68 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's going to take me a day or so. Cla68 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Floquenbeam
A few nits:
 * When Prokaryotes says "MastCell did not reconsider the topic ban", they mean "MastCell did not undo the topic ban". Maybe it's me, but Prokaryotes' wording seems to imply MastCell did not consider or reply to the request for review.
 * When Prokaryotes says "AN was not conclusive", they mean "AN discussion did not result in an overturning of the ban". There was zero or near-zero support of uninvolved editors (depending on how you describe the involvedness of one editor) to overturn the ban. WP:AC/DS says it requires "the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors at AN".
 * When RoseL2P says "MastCell has been editing GMO related articles as early as 2013", they mean "The only diff someone has been able to dig up of MastCell editing a GMO-related article was 2.5 years ago". (moot point, Rose2LP removed their statement)
 * When RoseL2P says "Repeatedly closing down a fresh discussion that was not more than a week old", they mean "making a determination that there was no uninvolved support after 3-4 days, and then re-closing when Prokaryotes reopened it themselves". (moot point, Rose2LP removed their statement)

A plaintive wail:
 * If AE decisions can be appealed at AN, and then if that is unsuccessful, to ARCA, then please cut out the middleman, and only make them appealable at ARCA. Especially if it requires a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors"; you couldn't get a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors that the sun rises in the east at AN. It is more difficult for involved editors to derail an ARCA request.

And (due to an edit conflict) an offended growl:
 * Cla68's "It has been alleged that" smear is unfounded, speculative, and deserving of rapid clerking and possible sanction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (moot point, statement has been removed by a clerk)

More:
 * Unfounded speculation and soapboxing is no more valid if done by JzG than if it is done by Cla68. The history or background of this unfounded allegation has zero to do with keeping/overturning the topic ban.  AE was a circus.  AN was a circus.  Personally, I'd encourage  and other clerks/arbs to not let this be turned into a circus, by anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
In the GMO case, my much-reviled Workshop proposals included a recommended site ban for Prokaryotes. I wasn't wrong. ArbCom, you are now seeing the results of your failure to fix the problem the first time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

To the Arbs who have now seen first-hand what it has felt like during this discussion here: please consider how that has felt while editing content, with the same kinds of argument style on article talk pages. You've gotten some very clear feedback from administrators who have found themselves in the middle of this, and you should keep all of that in mind if and when (really: when) GMO conduct issues come before you again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion about "moot", I think that it would be helpful to make clear exactly what that means, so as not to have any confusion about it in the future. ArbCom declining the request means that the topic ban remains in effect, because ArbCom declined to overrule it. That's all. It does not mean that Prokaryotes gets a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, simply by taking a six-month self-requested block. I hope that, if he should eventually return to editing, Prokaryotes will not be unclear about the fact that the topic ban remains very much in effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
I simply fail to see what the point of arbitration is when the aftermath of a case leaves an unmanagable situation for admins at AE to try to wade through.

Apparently, I am a bad person for closing a discussion and then reclosing it when a deeply involved party decided that they didn't need to accept the determination of an uninvolved admin that the consensus was to uphold their tban. Then my honesty and integrity are called into question as a simple ploy to downplay the validity of my close and the tban. I get ADMINACC. My record for the 9 years I have been an admin shows that but seriously? There has to be a limit. There has to be a point where the surfeit of pings and messages I should be expected to deal with suggest that the committee was too lenient when they closed a case.

Its no wonder that AE is functionally broken and no admin in their right mind wants to get involved. A process that waits weeks for feedback and comment is unfair on everyone and I'd like to think the committee might get that and spend some time trying to set up a system that actually works.

While you are fixing AE, can I also ask this iteration of the committee to avoid storing up future trouble by being a bit more aggressive in banning people who clearly cannot get along or who have too litigious an approach to fare well here? Can you also make sure you frame your sanctions in a way that is less ambiguous? For example, if you mean a tban say tban and not page ban. Its hard enough at AE without needing telepathy to understand what the committee intended.
 * if you look at the current AE concerning SageRad, he has a page ban that has already be clarified as a tban. I might easily have sanctioned him if SV hadn't stepped in. Its the same for the other bans on that case. If this isn't what the committee intended please fix it. Otherwise its a redletter for the editor and more confusing than my little brain can cope with. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe its me then? Spartaz Humbug! 08:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Roxy the dog
As the initiator of this request has now asked for, and received, a site ban (6 months) [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Block here] all this is now moot, I think. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my thoughts on this, following David Tornheim's comments above, and GorillaWarfare below. Note that PK has not retired, and that a six month 'self-imposed' site ban appears to be a cynical way of avoiding examination of the OP's behaviour, which imho, bears examination. I believe that if ARBCOM were to look at the issue, there would be little reason not to re-enforce the sanction MastCell imposed, sending a clear message, and not just to PK, but to other editors involved in the area of GMOs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to note and thank those who have considered this point, it is appreciated. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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


 * Cleaned request headers and templates slightly. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No comment on the merits yet but a note for, as this was a discretionary sanction it should have been recorded in the discretionary sanctions log (as noted in the section you recorded it in). I've moved it for you. 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence in the form of diffs supporting your statements.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Recuse, as I participated in the GMO case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, when appeals are presented to ARCA the Committee will only consider modifying the sanction when there is a breach of policy or procedure or the sanction is overly harsh. Given that the option to appeal to AE/AN has been exercised and it has been closed endorsing the topic ban, and that the exercise of administrative discretion (by MastCell) by completely reasonable I see no grounds to hear this appeal, therefore I decline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * prokaryotes: I'm an arbitrator :) I made the decision based on the evidence which has been presented here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re to Floq: I hope my thought process (regarding when an appeal at ARCA would be accepted) makes it a little clearer why AE/AN appeals before ARCA are allowed. I'd contend that there is a much higher bar for modifications at ARCA (breach of policy or unreasonable discretion) than AE or AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re page and topic ban ambiguity, which are you referring to? As we can likely clarify those now. AS I said above appeals to ARCA are a final check and balance and the bar for accepting an appeal are quite high. So, especially for areas such as GMOs, I have no issue with more 'aggressive' enforcement at AE, i.e. lower bar to impose one, topic bans (and for those topic bans to be all GMO articles rather than a selection of them). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying Spartaz, but I'm think I'm missing something as the sanction says topic ban which Guerillero quoted in the admin section. Would it help if we wikilinked the sanctions to WP:TBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline Re-examinging the original case and the AE, the AE seems reasonable, and I see no adequate basis for an appeal.   DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline, for now. I echo what DGG said: the AE seems reasonable, and the messy AN discussion doesn't take away from that. Spartaz closed it with the conclusion that there was no consensus to overturn, which I think is a proper reading of the discussion, and that puts an end to it. Now, the claim was made that Mastcell was involved because of an edit or two they made at some point, and this quickly escalated into more serious accusations made here, but evidence that proves Mastcell was INVOLVED and thus, by implication, was trying to get rid of an editor with a viewpoint he didn't like, well, that's completely missing. MAY I ADD, he added (that's me), y'all REALLY want to be careful here lest admonishments and blocks start flying: no outing, no accusations that cannot be supported, no supporting evidence that even smells like outing. If you have something to say that should be kept private, at least for the time being, keep it private. Email a friendly admin, and/or a reasonable Arb, and let DGG have a look at it. The clerks are in an uproar, the Arbs are scurrying this way and that, and the WMF is quickly retreating into the company sauna in the Big Sur, because this can possibly get out of hand and no one wants to be around when that happens. Let it not get out of hand, please: and you know, dear reader, who I'm talking to. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes, I understand what you're trying to do but I'm not with you. I looked at some diffs, read some comments, followed some links, but I'm not going to comment in detail here except to say that I see no reason to disallow Mastcell in retrospect from deciding on your case. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. This seems to be moot, as prokaryotes has retired. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. As the topic ban is indefinite, if prokaryotes returns to editing and wishes to have it lifted, they will need to appeal again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline Primarily procedurally, as per GorillaWarfare's second comment. If prokaryotes returns, the topic ban's removal can be re-requested. I don't however see the value in debating it here, when its removal (or not) will have no impact in the next six months. More related to the question at hand (and so I can remember when I have to look at this in future), I don't see MastCell as being in a position where he should be prevented from performing administrative actions in this, or related, cases. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline Prokayotes has retired and can appeal again when and if they come back to edit. I also don't see a problem with MastCell acting in such cases. Doug Weller  talk 17:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline and close this now I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline as moot. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (February 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Debresser at 20:44, 24 February 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 Debresser
Is the topicban for on ARBPIA articles that was decided upon at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106 still in force?

Then can any of you please explain to me why he created an article like Palestinian wine, which gave rise to much ARBPIA-related controversy? Debresser (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24
I see that there was an appeal of a topic-ban-related block in 2012. Though the initial topic ban was for one year, it was later changed to indefinite. I checked the user's talk page archives and I don't see any notice of a subsequent appeal of the topic ban, successful or otherwise, though I guess Chesdovi could have removed it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Chesdovi's most recent edit to Palestinian wine is here. The article itself doesn't seem to contain any allusions to the Israel-Arab conflict, though it does mention kosher wine and Jewish wineries. If there's something in here that violates the topic ban, you could file a complaint at AE and provide diffs to the ARBPIA-related controversy in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 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: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Yes. The topic ban was extended to indefinite, and they do not seem to have tried to appeal it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. In which case this can be closed I suspect, unless Chesdovi wants to make a case for lifting the ban. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Doug Weller  talk 13:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yup -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (March 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Hijiri88
My TBAN is from the area of "Japanese culture". I have taken this to mean that I am banned from editing or discussing all topics related to "Japan" anywhere on English Wikipedia, but there is a slight grey area, in that I live in Japan and virtually all the sources I have access to are Japanese ones. I assumed that the ban was on the "topic" of Japanese culture, and usage of particular sources and casually mentioning of my editing circumstances while editing in topics completely unrelated to Japan would be acceptable. But it was recently implied that the phrase "pages related to" in the TBANs resulting from this case is not meant to be interpreted narrowly, though.

So I have a few questions:
 * Since TBANs also cover brief mentions of the topic on talk pages, does this mean I am not allowed mention that I live in Japan?
 * Does it include citing of Japanese-language sources (and non-Japanese sources written by Japanese people or published in Japan) in articles on non-Japanese topics?
 * If citing of Japanese-language sources for factual claims is acceptable, am I still forbidden from attributing claims to Scholar X inline, if Scholar X is a Japanese citizen?
 * If naming Scholar X inline is acceptable, is it still unacceptable to refer to him/her inline as "Japanese scholar X"?
 * Even if the answer to all of the above is "no", am I not allowed to discuss my sources, the language they were written in, their country of origin or who wrote them on the talk page (or on RSN) if they are challenged?

A little while ago another user explicitly mentioned the Japanese nature of one of my sources, and I wasn't sure what I was allowed say in my response. Should I email users who say these things and explain my situation, and politely ask that they not mention Japan when they are discussing non-Japanese topics with me on a talk page?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me. :-) For what it's worth the drafting Arb previously defined the wording here as designed to cover other areas (outside my dispute with the other user named in the case) where "disruption had occurred" (such as the disruption on Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture). I don't know how this affects my questions, so I didn't mention it initially, but then you reminded me that in the two months since the case closed ArbCom elections took place and not everyone remembers all the details. Sorry about that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, but should I wait for more Arbitrators' opinions before freely engaging in the activities mentioned above? Also, "saying that [I] live in Japan" is the least grey of the above situations (I wrote them in ascending order). Can I verify that it's okay to say on a talk page or on RSN "I think a Japanese encyclopedia article is an acceptable source for this statement about a classical Chinese poetry anthology since it is written by Professor Japaneseperson who teaches classical Chinese literature at JapaneseUniversity and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on Chinese poetry in Japan, where classical Chinese poetry is almost as widely studied and appreciated as in China itself, and far more than in most western countries"? Or would it be better to steer clear of that last point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:29, 29 February 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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This case was before my time, and I didn't follow it while it was open, so no comment till I give it a look. Posting here just to note we've seen your request, because this section looks kind of empty :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the original case, I don't see that the topic ban can reasonably be considered to extend to things as trivial as saying that you live in Japan. The examples you give seem acceptable to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with that example, as long as the topic you're using the source for is not related to Japanese culture, but I'd like to hear 's thoughts, since she is the local expert in this dispute :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Topic bans are supposed to be broad, but not quite this broad. My initial take is that all of the examples you proffered are acceptable.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your topic ban restricts you from editing "all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" (see WP:TBAN). Your TBAN is not so broad that it restricts you from any of the examples you give. You are not restricted from mentioning Japan entirely, simply from editing articles and entering discussions on that topic area. The comment of mine that you mention was an explanation of why I suggested "Japanese culture" rather than something narrower in scope—I did not mean to imply that you may not edit topics that do not fall within the topic ban scope we settled on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamaliel and Gorilla Warfare. Doug Weller  talk 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with all above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics (March 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) six month topic ban from Bernie Sanders


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * six month topic ban from Bernie Sanders
 * removal of topic ban

Statement by Sir Joseph
I was given a one week topic ban from the Bernie Sanders article.I then filed an appeal.during the appeal one admin decided that because I mentioned that I found it troubling and perhaps anti-Semitic that out of 535 members of Congress we focus on the Jew he thinks I should be topic banned for longer. Bishonen claimed in the ban statement that it's not for filling an appeal but it's for a battlefield mentality and to protect the page. Have you seen the page? I'm not the one who is bullying others. And it's still a battleground. I'm not the one using wikilawyering. Go to eb.con and see their article. Their claim that in the future I will be disruptive is not true either. I have been nothing. Look at my history. I've not edited the page until I've reached consensus. I've taken the one week ban but the six month ban is just a bunch of administrators acting inappropriate. I never accused others of being anti-Semitic. I said it is a perception of anti-Semitism when you single out the Jew. Coffee is also making up facts with regards to the timeline. He changed the ban after Spartaz blocked me because coffee had banned me incorrectly. All you have to do is look at the timestamps. So now an admin is lying to cover his tracks, besides covering his bad block. Regardless, discussion about the ban is allowed, it says so right on the ban. So which is it? Are we not allowed to question or are we? I've yet to have one good reason why I am being singled out and banned for six months.
 * after coffee modified his faulty ban, I did not edit the talk page. So I still don't see the issue. Spartaz saw that edit and blocked me based on the initial ban and undid the block when it was pointed out to him that the ban was clarified that bans usually mean talk pages as well. As for my comment on my talk page, that's not a personal attack at all, and the receiver has said and gotten away with far worse.


 * A ban is supposed to be preventative not punitive. The statements that I am edit warring on the page is just not true. If you look at the page, you will not see my warring. I have made comments. There are tons of comments on the page. Look at the main page and I believe I have made only a few edits to that page. On the talk page I have made quite a few edits and none of them are edit warring edits. Other than the one edit that got me the one week suspension, I don't think I edited in violation of any policy. I didn't Wikilawyer, I didn't pull facts out of my butt or make up wikipolicy or change the Wiki article from the way it was for the past 9 years, or the Encyclopedia Britannica mention of his religion, etc. What changed two months ago? I posted my opinions and commented. I really don't know why I should be banned from continuing to do so. If you want, I will try harder to not be contentious but it is a two way street. And it does take two to tango. As you saw in many posts, here, on my talk page and on the article's talk page, and as Gamaliel pointed out: "It is inappropriate and offensive for us to judge how Jewish he has to be before he gets to be Jewish."
 * Coffee has once again shown himself to be a really, really bad admin. He really needs to be admonished. If he needs to remove content from my page, he should be contacting another admin to do it, he should not be doing it himself. He is too heavily invested in this.
 * Doug_Weller, might I remind you of the MFD I brought about a userbox supporting terror groups and that was allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Nableezy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nableezy, yet a fairly benign statement is an attack? Is that the way it is? I brought that MFD and I got attacked at the MFD and elsewhere. And then when I say I feel sometimes "uncomfortable", I then get warned that I'm going to get banned. Don't you think that's a bit of a double standard? To continue, that MFD was closed by DRMIES and the userbox in question linked to a Hezbollah Userbox. Is linking to a Hezbollah Userbox not WP:POLEMIC?
 * Regardless of all these issues, I think a six month ban is unnecessary. I have not edit warred on the article or on the talk page and I will not edit war on the article or on the talk page so I don't see the necessity of the ban. Furthermore, as it is written, Bishonen wrote it that I can't say anywhere on Wikipedia that "Bernie Sanders is Jewish." Is that fair? Is that really necessary?
 * Can someone please point out to me my troublesome edits on the BS page? I was told I was banned by Bishonen for my battleground mentality. Well, on the talk page I was participating in the talk page. That is what we're supposed to do. And after I was banned for a week, I didn't edit the page. So again, I ask, why the TBAN for six months? Where is the disruption? And I would also appreciate a comment about the behavior regarding Coffee's numerous blocks that to me seemed extremely gratuitous and even if not, should have been done by someone else.

Statement by administrator Coffee
For full clarity, I was the imposing administrator of the original 1 week Arbitration Enforcement topic ban on Sir Joseph (but per WP:UNINVOLVED, in relevance to this extended ban I am uninvovled). That ban was upheld at WP:AE by multiple other administrators, and then closed by with the note that a 6 month ban could be put in place if seen fit. As I noted at WP:AE, after the continuous refusal by Sir Joseph to WP:DROPTHESTICK and his continuous battle ground mentality in dealing with this matter (including the egregious behavior of accusing other editors of being antisemitic, which is what pushed me to ban Sir Joseph from all pages relating to topic, not just the article space - as noted at Sir Joseph's talk page), I felt that my 1 week ban was indeed not enough - as had been noted by several other admins. I felt originally that my action would be enough to deter Sir Joseph from continuing his behavior in relation to that highly visible page, but after watching his reaction that idea went out the window. I now fully support the actions of here, in the extension of my original ban, as I think it is the only reasonable way to prevent furthered disruption to the Bernie Sanders article moving forward. That's all I'll comment on this matter at this time, you can see the rest of my earlier comments at the AE appeal, etc. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment above by Sir Joseph that I "changed the ban after Spartaz blocked me because coffee had banned me incorrectly", and am "lying to cover [my] tracks" is so deliberately a false accusation, I almost choked. At 16:58, 29 February 2016‎, I initially placed the topic ban on Sir Joseph; at 19:39, 29 February 2016‎ I clarified the ban due to noted confusion by others (I also explained the need for this clarification); then over 3 hours later at 22:45, 29 February 2016 Spartaz mistakenly put the block in place (an understandable action considering the original confusion, and the lack of clarity on when the ban was changed). The claim that I'm "making up facts regarding the timeline" is so obviously a lie to anyone looking at the actual facts of this case it's ludicrous. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now had to impose a 24 hour block on Sir Joseph for this personal attack directed at the admin who placed the Arbitration Enforcement action, this attack coming after a series of previous unacceptable and borderline blockable comments being made by Sir Joseph in relation to calling other users antisemitic (and per his previous blocks for making personal attacks against other editors before). This is really getting out of hand. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Legal threat notification - Just so ArbCom is aware, I've now had to block Sir Joseph for making a legal threat. (block notification) &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He has, after discussing the matter, removed the threat to go to the ADL. Therefore, I have reduced his block to the previous 24 hour NPA block. Let's hope things get better from here. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Spartaz: I have a lot to say about your own failure to properly review the situation before rushing to hit the block button, but I`ll hold back from doing so as it would be off topic since your actions aren't what's being reviewed here. Likewise, unlike what you seem to think here, my actions are not in review here... Bishonen is the banning administrator, and therefore it is her action that is being reviewed by this request. My purpose of commenting here is simply to provide further context for ArbCom, and to endorse Bishonen's action. Any actions I made in regards to the legal threat are separate from AE actions, and we're done in accordance with policy (e.g. Doug Weller below also qualified the action by Joseph as a legal threat). As to my actions with the previous AE sanction, that was already reviewed at WP:AE and endorsed by several administrators. So, other than the fact that I could have indeed made it clearer in my clarification of the first ban (which did not include the talk space as I hoped Sir Joseph would be able to abide by policy in discussing possible changes, which we later found out he could not... giving reason to change the ban... which was noted at the AE discussion if you had spent the time to read it) passing administrator to not rush to block the user in haste, there is no actual issues with policy adherence here. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Please find the OP's PA on the TB-ing admin here – Unless this is a slip of the tongue, being angered over being TBd, quickly removed, I suppose this should come with a sanction, one-week block or something of that order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * below a suggestion in the first arbitrator comment is "I suggest you rewrite your statement to focus on why you think your topic bans were inappropriate and not on why everyone else is terrible." At your talk page I see you are engaged in trying to find ways to beef up your case that "everyone else is terrible", contrary to that arbitrator suggestion. Why don't you give up on that aspect, and start preparing the suggested rewrite on your user talk page? I'm sure that would have a bigger chance at mollifying arbitrator stances as expressed below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that Sir Joseph's Topic Ban would be reset as a six months period starting from 12:10, 8 March 2016 for this unnecessary mentioning of B. Sanders --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
Note: I attempted to discuss this on Sir Joseph's talk page because he is blocked and cannot reply here. I moved my comment here after Sir Joseph removed it from his talk page (which of course he is free to do).

I would like to expand on what I said at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations of antisemitism towards me, my only interest in the Bernie Sanders page is to bring it into compliance with the consensus atTemplate talk:Infobox and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from infobox RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.

As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which shows that his primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism. His recent edits include Western Wall, Zionism, Jerusalem, Katamon, Purim, List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2016, Mohamed Hadid, and of course Bernie Sanders, and his first ten edits back in 2005 included Tisha B'Av, Niddah, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Rabbi, and Four species. There is nothing wrong with having a primary interest (my primary interest is electronics and software engineering) but there is something wrong with someone who's primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism calling me antisemitic when it is an easily-verified fact that I have little or no interest in the subject.

I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation." made during his AE topic ban appeal. That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander page are facing when dealing with Sir Joseph. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph has been told this by at least a dozen editors -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew -- itself a violation of the topic ban.

In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. Material removed by request of uninvolved admin. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: some of the entries in the discretionary sanctions log are under the previous username Yossiea~enwiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Refactored 01:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And now Sir Joseph has "As per Guy Macon policy, I declare myself to be Jewish" at the top of his talk page. I think that it is pretty clear that he intends to make this a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Material referenced was removed by an uninvolved admin. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
is quote correct that my block of Sir Joseph was a result of my personal failure to realise that the original sanction had been amended. This wasn't clear in the notice so I assumed that what it said at the time of the block was covered why the notice on Sir Joseph's page. It would have been less confusing if Coffee had struck out the original notice and inserted a new one. I voted to extend and confirm the topic ban at AE and the outcome reflects the consensus of admin opinion expressed. On that basis this clarification has no basis. The outcome is not manifestly perverse but there was some poor judgement at times - i.e. why an article block and not talk page? That's just stupid as 95% of AE reported problems have a talk page element.

And that takes me to my real concern. I personally strongly disagree with any admin whose actions are being reviewed at ARCA taking an opportunity to block the appealing editor. This strikes me as very poor judgement - especially when followed by an indef for a legal threat that I personally cannot see. My response to seeing that was real-life head shaking and jaw dropping. There has been some very poor judgement in this case by Coffee and its perfectly understandable that Sir Joseph finds the outcome so hard to accept when the process and decision-making has a hint of half-arsedness about it. I don't think the committee can, in fairness, dismiss this appeal without considering whether Coffee's poor judgement has undermined the credibility of the AE process and whether they have good enough judgement to be working in this area. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
ArbCom should use the current ARCA request, or some other pretext, to put the kibosh on any and all "Is ______ Jewish?" controversies, in info boxes and elsewhere, for a year.

The underlying content issue is complicated. It’s also ancient: passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy are dedicated to it. Whole books have been written on the parable of the four children, which addresses just one aspect of it. In modern times, it was the subject of the Jacob Gordon’s great Konig Lir, it was (alas) extensively litigated by the Nazis, and it's a controversial touchpoint in contemporary Israeli politics, where determining “Who Is A Jew?” determines immigration policy.

No good can come of this topic. In the current political environment, the topic can and will attract kooks and zealots, along with misled teenagers of all ages with a Bright Idea.

The data value of the "religion" field in the info box is marginal to all save the fascist fringe of the American right. No one’s research will be greatly impeded by removing it for the coming months, or by freezing it. I would also suggest that the freeze be proactively extended to questions of who is or is not Chicano, Puertorriqueño, etc.

Simply remove the infobox line for the time being, or freeze them and topic ban the entire project from further discussion for the rest of the year. At the cost of muddying the encyclopedia on these rather narrow matters for a few months, we gain freedom from constant vexatious dispute. More important, we may avoid having one of these vexatious disputes blow up into international headlines, to the projects lasting (and perhaps irretrievable) discredit. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
I would add that it appears is a bit too involved if he is blocking based on a statement of informing the ADL. That is not a threat, let alone a legal threat. Coffee needs to withdraw a bit. --DHeyward (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
A sound suggestion which, sadly, the rules are going to preclude here. Something needs to be done about this dispute, though, or it's going to end up with arbcom doing something about it in pretty short order. The level of battleground and idht evident in the various RfCs around it is pretty depressing. For a dispute that boils down to the question, "When someone says, 'I am Jewish,' does he mean he has a Jewish mother, he identifies with Jewish culture or he holds to some version of Jewish belief as a religion? And is this worth mentioning in an infobox?" the number of characters spilled into pixels is truly staggering. GoldenRing (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (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: Clerk notes

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



American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It is commendable that you have not edit warred against consensus, but accusing people of lying and throwing our "perceptions" of anti-Semitism is even more disruptive behavior. I suggest you rewrite your statement to focus on why you think your topic bans were inappropriate and not on why everyone else is terrible.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it isn't too late for that. At the moment I can see no reason to relax the ban. Doug Weller  talk 17:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add that I have no reason at all to think that either the ban or the block has anything to do with the editor's being Jewish. I tried to save this post before his threat to go to the ADL, but the save failed (happened on another page, kept getting preview when pressing save) Doug Weller  talk 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Sir Joseph - If Coffee hadn't removed the unacceptable material I would have. You should be glad, it's just more evidence that the ban was correct. Doug Weller  talk 19:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline Doug Weller  talk 15:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reasonable justification to relax the topic ban at this time. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for us to intervene here at the moment. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the frustration involved here, but I can see no reason to change the topic ban at this point. Given the nature of the dispute, I find 's "Jews, Jews, and more Jews" comment to come off poorly and would encourage a refactoring. I also am not convinced that threatening to contact the ADL is equivalent to a legal threat, but it looks like that matter is settled in any event. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do see that as a threat intended to intimidate, though not a legal threat. I'm glad it was withdrawn.   DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. Ill advised, but hardly a legal threat.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Decline --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I find no merit in the appeal, uphold sanction. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Uphold the sanction. I also would encourage Sir Joseph to follow Gamaliel's advice above, should he decide to appeal sanctions in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing for us to do here, I think. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline I don't see a reason to modify the topic ban which looks to me a reasonable ** of administrative discretion. However I'll mention to that blocking another party in an appeal, while not breaching policy or guideline, is not a great display of administrative judgement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)