Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 91

Clarification request: Interaction ban (May 2016)

 * Original discussion

If I have an ArbCom imposed interaction ban with another editor and I believe this editor has violated an Arbcom imposed Topic Ban, am I allowed to report this? DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read WP:BANEX. BMK (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to insert myself into this, but I would worry that a misreading of BANEX might lead one to think that reporting the other editor falls within dispute resolution. It doesn't, unless that other editor violated the IBAN. DrChrissy, I suspect that the Arbs are just not bothering with your question, but the answer is a very obvious "no". You should not even be aware of what that other editor is doing, much less be in a position to opine on whether or not they violated a restriction of their own. If there is a violation, other users will likely report it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your caution is understandable, but BANEX seems very clear on what is allowed and what is not, so if a person were to read it and decide -- contrary to the obvious meaning of it, which you have explicated -- that reporting the other editor was an acceptable thing to do, that, in itself, would be an indication of either a serious reading comprehension problem, or a willful mis-reading tantamount to WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM.Be that as it may, your advice to DrChrissy is sound: staying as far away as one can from the editing of the other party to one's IBan is the best strategy to avoid any possible interaction. BMK (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Basically agreeing with the other answers -- if the topic ban violation causes a problem for you by bringing the editor into an area you edit extensively (and therefore makes it hard for you to obey the interaction ban) then you can report it. But not otherwise. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Thanks all for your comments. Just so you do not think I am trying to game the system, it might help to understand why I posted this question.  I recently received permission at ArbCom to openly discuss a TBan, even though this was not the topic being considered by ArbCom.  This exemption does not appear to be covered by WP:BANEX.  I was unclear whether ArbCom had a similar ability to allow discussion of an IBan.  Clearly they do not, and I accept your interpretations.  By the way Tryptofish, I can easily explain why I am aware of what the other editor is doing - we sometimes edit the same pages, which is perfectly allowed per WP:IBAN. DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, and that's fine with me. Then again, I'm not an Arb. @ArbCom: you can send payment for services rendered to BMK, Looie, and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (May 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Tryptofish at 23:30, 25 March 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 Tryptofish
An unresolved locus of dispute remaining after the case concerns how Wikipedia should describe the views of scientists about the safety or lack of safety of eating foods derived from GMOs. Many pages within the case scope include a sentence or two, usually in the lead but sometimes in other sections, that are similar in wording. For example, the lead of Genetically modified crops says: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording, but disagree about how to revise it. This is probably the most intractable question that remains.

Previously, ArbCom successfully dealt with an entrenched dispute at Jerusalem by establishing by motion (motion 1, motion 2) a community RfC (link) with a binding consensus. Here, I request that ArbCom enact by motion a similar binding community RfC to resolve this dispute about GMOs.

As with the previous case, ArbCom should appoint a panel of three uninvolved, experienced editors to determine the consensus at the end of the RfC, and ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.

In the previous case, ArbCom also named a "moderator". Here, there should be at least one uninvolved, experienced administrator appointed as a "moderator" or "supervisor". There will be some differences from the last case here. The editors who are most involved in the dispute have already created four proposals that seem to represent the main options that the community should evaluate in the RfC; these four proposals can be seen at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Of course, anyone can present additional proposals during the course of the RfC. Thus, there is no need for a moderated discussion prior to the RfC this time. Instead, the moderator/supervisor will need to oversee the construction of the RfC page and determine when the RfC is ready to be opened. Also, it is vitally important that this RfC not succumb to the disorganization and tl;dr of previous RfCs about GMOs (link). Therefore, the moderator/supervisor must be assertive and effective throughout the RfC in preventing badgering and in refactoring excessive threaded discussion that amounts to filibustering, in addition to enforcing the existing DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I want to sincerely thank David Tornheim for the way he has worked with me on developing proposals for the RfC. That said, his objections just below indicate exactly why ArbCom cannot pretend that the GMO case solved our problems and the community can now deal with it ourselves. I was very clear from the start that the RfC would be based on the one about Jerusalem: (preceded by ). That's about as clear as can be about ArbCom supervision, and it was a direct reply to David. And David's citing of sources here is a textbook example of what will go off the rails in a traditional unsupervised RfC (which no doubt would suit some POV-pushers just fine). I agree that the science can change in fewer than three years. That's why the consensus could still be changed – but only with prior approval by ArbCom, just like Jerusalem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't novel, and I would not have suggested it if it were. ArbCom did it before, with a 3-year binding consensus, as my links above about the Jerusalem dispute show. This would not create new policy in any way, and ArbCom would not decide anything about page content. You would be leaving that to the community. Please look at my link to the last time the community tried a conventional RfC: link. It spun out into badgering and filibustering, and resulted in no consensus. It would be a mistake to do the same thing again and expect a different result. Please look at the administrator's closing statement at the most recent AE to arise from the GMO case: . He is telling you that, despite a spate of AE cases, "[t]his seems something for arbcom to sort out. There is a sense that GMO is still not settling...". Your colleagues left a lot on the table after GMO-1. Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you are getting at, and you are right to insist that we resort to this approach only under extraordinary circumstances. Let me, first, invite you to follow the link I just gave to the most recent AE, and open up the collapsed discussion, particularly to read what editors said about a possible blanket topic ban aka "nuclear option". And look at what the various administrators said in the "result" subsection there. It will give you a good feeling for how the community regards this situation, post-GMO decision, as one of the most intractable problems in years. Second, look at my link just above to the previous community RfC. To the extent that you can stomach reading through it, you will find that there was no consensus – but that was because the discussion was overtaken by badgering and filibustering. Third, please skim through the post-decision discussions at NORN and Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3. Even after subtracting the two editors who were shortly later topic banned at AE, you will still see others claim that the previous "no consensus" was a "consensus against" content they don't like – whether or not there is a "clear consensus" depends upon which editor you ask. You should believe what the administrators at the last AE are telling you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Spartaz hits the nail on the head in suggesting the RfC "as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided." (But ArbCom doing nothing now would be the worst possible outcome.) And since Gamaliel asked me for suggested (unpleasant) reading, it occurs to me to point out how some AE administrators have also commented on "enablers" as part of the problem, and one can see how the dispute was "enabled" shortly after the case at this ANI thread, opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read the most recent comments, I have no objection to MedCom providing structure for the proposed RfC. However, I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding, and the community including AE will be unable to adjudicate the disputes that will then ensue. Also, it is false to say that I am asking ArbCom to determine content. ArbCom would merely be ordering that a community consensus about content be protected against extraordinary disruption. I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (For some reason, the ping didn't reach me, but I'm watchlisting.) Thanks for your very helpful ideas. First, please let me clarify that ArbCom has already done this with the Jerusalem RfC I linked to above, so this would not be a precedent. I would be very happy with you doing what I described as "supervisor" (within MedCom or not) and subject to DS (up to the Arbs). You can see at Talk:Genetically modified crops that editors have already created four proposals for an RfC, so any mediation should take up from there, rather than restart at the beginning. Traditionally, MedCom has treated mediation as a sort of safe space for conduct and has explicitly prohibited citing conduct during mediation as evidence before ArbCom. I think that won't work here. If AE is willing to be firm about enforcing the need for a genuine new consensus before change, even in the face of editors trying to game that, then that could be a workable alternative to a three-year binding period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you be agreeable to having three experienced, uninvolved members of the community determine the consensus at the end of whatever process we use? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's about admin enforcement rather than a limitation of RfC, and I would welcome both you and The Wordsmith helping with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who have been making very helpful suggestions, and there are plenty of options here that I would be happy to work with. Here is what I perceive as key after the most recent comments.
 * 1) We agree that some sort of community RfC is preferable to having a GMO-2 case, but that doing nothing at all would be a mistake.
 * 2) No one is asking ArbCom to decide about content. Whatever the format of the RfC, it will be the community that decides content.
 * 3) No one is asking ArbCom to create a new precedent. ArbCom already ordered an RfC about Jerusalem. The sky did not fall.
 * 4) I think it's important to have a process for determining the consensus after the RfC, in a manner that the community will trust. I think it's best to name a panel of 3 experienced, uninvolved editors, before the RfC begins, who will be responsible for deciding the consensus.
 * 5) I appreciate the willingness of some admins to take responsibility for protecting the consensus under the authority of the existing DS. But I want to make sure that you are not over-estimating your abilities to handle what will come your way. Please consider: Several months after the RfC is over with, a source appears that looks, on the face of it, to change the consensus that was achieved. But it is not a reliable source. (There is a ton of that kind of stuff out there.) A POV-pusher posts about the source on an article talk page, and a few like-minded users show up quickly and agree that the page should be revised. An uninvolved admin looks at that discussion and figures, OK, it looks like there is a new consensus, and the page is changed. Then a few hours later, an experienced editor comes along and realizes that the source is not reliable, and reverts. Then there is a drama, at AE because this is governed by the DS, over who was violating consensus. And that will put AE admins in the position of having to decide whether the source was reliable or not. That won't work. I see two possible ways to prevent that. One is my original proposal for ArbCom to make the consensus binding for a period of time, and only allow change via a request for amendment. The other is to require the community to have a regular RfC, open for at least 30 days, before it can be concluded that consensus has changed. But that needs to be explicit from the start. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the most recent comment (by SMcCandlish), I am having concerns about the growing number of editors who would prefer to have no role for ArbCom here. This isn't a "constitutional separation of power" issue. It's an issue of ending long-ongoing disruption. It became an ArbCom matter when ArbCom accepted GMO-1. I've linked to the most recent RfC, and demonstrated that the community was not able to handle it. We can solve the issue of a "rapidly changing subject" (and it isn't really changing that rapidly, because the science is pretty much settled) by doing what I just said above in #5. It's false to say that users will flock to ArbCom to demand binding RfCs, because that hasn't been happening in all the time since the Jerusalem RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I promise that I read what you said to me here, and I want to repeat something I said earlier: that I sincerely thank you for the helpful way that you have worked with me in developing proposals for the content. On the other hand, the way you just described the history here is inaccurate, and illustrates why we continue to have a problem.
 * Thank you for what you said. (Did you mean that I failed to answer any of Gamaliel's questions??) However, there are some details where I want to draw your attention to some errors of fact in what you said. You seem to say that the Jerusalem dispute was resolved without ArbCom getting involved. Not true: please see my links to motions, above. ArbCom ordered that the consensus of the RfC would be binding for three years. ArbCom also appointed three people to determine the consensus of the RfC, and a fourth person to mediate the RfC process. You are also now the second Arb to endorse turning this dispute over to MedCom. However, you also said that if there are problems in the RfC, there will be topic bans a-plenty. I agree with you about the topic bans, but: please see Requests for mediation/Guide. Conduct during mediation apparently cannot be used in ArbCom proceedings to issue topic bans, so you and ArbCom cannot have it both ways. And we don't really need a typical mediation. There are already 5 proposals for the content at Talk:Genetically modified crops. We need an RfC to let the community to choose among the proposals, and we need it to not be a mess like the last one. It sounds like you really mean a community RfC where the existing DS will be strictly enforced.
 * You've indicated that you might want to start with an ArbCom-free RfC, then see if there are problems, and if there are problems, then use AE and/or GMO-2. I can work with that, but it's my honest opinion that it will not work and we will probably end up with GMO-2 followed by a second, more carefully controlled RfC. Seems kludgy to me. I'd rather wrap things up sooner, not later, and that's what ArbCom is supposed to make happen. But if ArbCom decides to take the scenic route, then you will be placing a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the admins who have offered to step up under DS. So my next comments are to them, but you and the other Arbs need to read closely too.
 * Thank you both for offering, and it's starting to sound like we will all take you up on it. You've both offered to enforce DS, and The Wordsmith has offered to guide the RfC process. Questions: would you be willing to recruit and name three experienced, uninvolved editors to determine the consensus following the RfC, or would you prefer that ArbCom would do that? Assuming that the RfC arrives at a consensus, are you confident that you can make sure that it does not subsequently get overthrown against consensus? It is starting to sound unlikely that the consensus will be made binding for a period of time. So, as I explained above, we need to have an enforceable agreement that the consensus can only be revised later by way of a (regular) community RfC, open for 30 days, and not just by a brief talk page discussion. Do you feel empowered to require something like that, or would you prefer that ArbCom would require it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. It seems to me that the 3 users who would decide the consensus at the end of the RfC should not be involved in any way during the RfC, and that would mean that you could either be one of the 3 closers, or be involved via DS during the RfC itself, but not both. Given the need for one or more admins to supervise the RfC while it is in process, please let me suggest that you help in moderating the creation of the RfC page and be a sort of supervisor during the RfC by enforcing DS, because that is most consistent with what you said before. And other uninvolved admins could also help enforce DS during the RfC. But I would suggest that it would disqualify you from being one of the 3 consensus-deciders.


 * I very much like your idea of declaring via DS that the consensus can subsequently be revised only via a regular RfC, but not by less than an RfC, and that this could be announced by talk page notices as part of DS. I think that works, and does not require anything further from ArbCom.


 * @ArbCom: Please note however that The Wordsmith says that he does not feel empowered to name the 3 users who will evaluate the consensus at the end of the RfC. Perhaps ArbCom could do that, without any other ArbCom involvement in the RfC process. Alternatively, I suppose 3 volunteers could be recruited via WP:AN prior to the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where you said that you are "not fussy about" ArbCom mandating some sort of binding decision, do you mean that you are potentially receptive to doing that, or do you mean that you consider it too fussy for ArbCom to get involved in doing that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing what Petrarchan has now added, I guess I should say that I disagree with her characterization of me as someone who ignores consensus and edit wars. But I agree with her that editors should move away from seeing the dispute as being between two camps, which only makes me wonder why she then says of me, Kingofaces, and Aircorn, that "it makes sense for their side to try and frame the story". But I very much agree with her that it has become unpleasant to edit in this topic area – it's certainly unpleasant for me. Which is all the more reason to acknowledge that GMO-1 did not solve the problems. Anyway, please see: Talk:Genetically modified crops. One of the five proposals for the upcoming RfC was prepared by Petrarchan herself, and it's not exactly like other editors are doing anything to prevent her proposal from being considered on an equal basis with the other four. In fact, proposal 2 was submitted by the editor Petrarchan quotes as being unhappy about the editing environment, and that proposal is getting a fair hearing too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point, I want to let everyone know that it looks like the community is going to be able to implement an RfC under the existing DS, without any further action needed from ArbCom. I think that this is in accordance with what the Arbs have been saying, and it is also my personal opinion that I have good reason to be optimistic that this will be a solution that satisfies my concerns. I want to thank for taking the lead in it, and also  for helping. For anyone interested, please see User talk:The Wordsmith and User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. Please let me suggest to ArbCom and the clerks that you leave this request here a few days, so that editors can see what I posted here, and then you can close it. Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim
I did participate in the discussion about Tryptofish's plans for RfC. I was under the impression this would be an RfC similar to the other two that preceded it. I do not remember any indication that there was a plan to take it to ArbCom. I wish Tryptofish had first suggested this plan at the talk page rather than going straight here without telling us first this was his/her plan, or giving us the opportunity to discuss the proposed instructions above.

I am strongly opposed to making the content of the RfC fixed for three years. GMO's are fairly recent and regulation of them is still developing and constantly changing, varying widely by country. Only recently 16 countries informed the E.U. of their desire to opt-out of accepting the E.U.'s GMO approvals. Despite the large number of studies very little is known about long term effects on health. ,. . A major review article cited 150 times according to Google Scholar by toxicologist Jose Domingo (2011) stated "more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public." Our duty is to report the state of the art, and it could easily change. If this were about something as stable and accepted as Netwon's laws of motion or Maxwell's Equations, or the alphabet, fixing the content for greater than 1 year would unlikely present any foreseeable problems. The fact that GMO's are so new and evolving is why there are disagreements. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Tryptofish
 * I find this comment by troubling, because of these two comments:
 * (1) "I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding"
 * (2) "I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2."
 * Comment (1) is disingenuous. After this 2nd RfC, the closer found no consensus for the old language and a new consensus was established here (8/26/2015) after this lengthy discussion.  The decision was to change the language from "broad scientific consensus" to "general scientific agreement".  In late January 2016, Tryptofish and other editors did not respect the 8/26/2015 established consensus language that had been stable for five months.  (See diff)  I explained the situation in more detail here.  In fact, he had another editor topic banned for defending the 8/26/2015 established consensus.
 * The same editors who tried to change the 8/26/2015 consensus language are pushing hard to get the pro-industry language saying "scientific consensus" back in (while preventing any language nearby that explains that countries ban or require labeling of GMO's or giving voice in the main text to experts in toxicology who express skepticism, e.g. ). They are hoping to force this non-NPOV language in for 3 years and use the admins as a police force to prevent anyone from being able to question it.
 * Comment (2) seems like a kind of Wiki-extortion.   --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mediation: Mediation might be an option. I would like to see 's example that meditation broke down. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
This has been the major sticking point with editors from all sides of the debate for a few years now and in my opinion having some form of binding resolution about the scientific opinion on GMOs would calm this contentious area down considerably. AIR corn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

List of articles where the "scientific consensus" or "scientific agreement" statement is made: There may be more, but at least it gives an idea of the current scope. I guess if this goes ahead it would be binding on appropriate new articles (for example Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms). AIR corn (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section)
 * Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section)
 * Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section)
 * Genetically modified organism (controversy section)
 * Genetically modified maize (controversy section)
 * March Against Monsanto (background section)
 * The Non-GMO Project (mission section)
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (lead)


 * @David. We need some time limit otherwise things will just degenerate straight after the RFC finishes. Maybe there should be some caveat for reassessment if major new information presents itself, but as any new study would have to go through the normal scientific processes (which can take a long time) before it leads to a change in consensus three years seems reasonable. A version of the current statement has been in the article for longer than three years anyway. Also the use of ARBcom was discussed previously (see Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_2) AIR corn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * While in theory we should be able to hold a normal rfc and resolve this issue the problem is that we have two strongly entrenched "sides" that are both sure they are right. Any discussion on this issue tends to devolve into editors from each side debating the same points with the same conviction at each other. The recent NOR noticeboard discussion is a prime example of this, but it tends to move from noticeboard to noticeboard and article to article. Even here discussion is turning to rehashing old points that have been hashed to death. This tends to drive the neutrals away and I fear the same thing will happen if we run our own RFC. This will put all the hard work done by Tryptofish and others getting this proposal polished to waste. If an Arbcom run rfc keeps a lid on proceedings and encourages outside input then it is a very good thing. I do believe that resolving the scientific consensus issue will make editing GMOs a lot easier and surely it is better than the blanket ban that was getting decent support at AE. It still remains an option (along with a second case) if this fails. Tryptofish has already done most of the legwork in getting the proposals up and running, we can even probably all agree on the advertising, wording and design of the rfc, but we do need some oversight to stop it being derailed with long threaded discussions and most importantly the closing and enforcement of it. AIR corn (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
Tryptofish has done a great job trying to organize this RfC and has been upfront from the start that we'd ask for ArbCom's help in implementing it from the start.. No one involved can act surprised about this.

This really is the backbone of the GMO dispute where numerous editors have tried to fight tooth and nail to claim there isn't a scientific consensus on GMO safety. Often we get cherry-picked fringe sources trying to dispute the consensus just like in climate change denial. These WP:ADVOCACY actions trying to further a fringe point of view to this degree technically should be sanctioned as ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that advocacy related to fringe theories needs to be dealt with to calm subject areas (which also contradicts the claim that is only a content dispute and admins/ArbCom can't do anything in that realm).

In reality though, it's extremely tough for uninvolved admins to gauge advocacy, so we get "proxy" topic bans when those editors really stick their heads out there and edit war, engage in personal attacks, etc. as we can see at WP:AE since the GMO case closed. A lot of advocacy editors keep under the radar though as long-term advocacy doesn't get handled well at AE. Further solidifying the scientific consensus language should be a longer-term solution than trying to tackle editor advocacy directly, but we do need both to settle the topic area like other parallel cases such as climate change.

Tryptofish pointed out the problem with the last RfC where some would WP:BLUDGEON the RfC process with walls of text trying to cast doubt on the consensus while expert editors trying to respond to that only further compounds the lengthiness. Word limits might cause more problems though, so the only thing I can suggest for an appointed admin watching the RfC besides obvious uncivil behavior is to keep an eye out for general bludgeon and advocacy behavior. Whoever administers the RfC and admins/ArbCom in future actions should be reminded that advocacy against a scientific consensus has specifically been spelled as a sanctionable offense through ArbCom and discretionary sanctions in well known cases ranging from alt-med to climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing some of the most recent comments by uninvolved editors, I think quite a few that want ArbCom to play no role here seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the request. This is not a request for ArbCom to rule on content. It is a request for it to sanction some type of moderation for the upcoming RfC to deal with behavior issues that have plagued previous RfCs. ArbCom can however step in when content and behavior intermingle in fringe topics, but that's not quite the request here. Having the decision be binding for X amount of time isn't as important as simply preventing the RfC from being disrupted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47
The science on whether GMO's are safe or not remains fluid and unsettled. What is causing contention here is that you have some very committed editors unwilling to represent the science fairly, and who engage in spindoctoring. The suggestion that Wikipedia, with the help of ArbCom, create a claim about GMO safety that isn't found in RS, and then lock in it for any period of time, regardless of emerging science, is ludicrous. This is a PR statement, not an encyclopedic writing, that is the sole focus of more than a few editors.

The last RfC found that Jytdog's "scientific consensus" claim was unfounded. We were asked to look through upwards of 18 sources, a number which kept increasing as the RfC went along, but none of them alone, nor in combination (ignoring WP:SYNTH), was sufficient support. There has not been any great advance in GMO safety information that would justify a new RfC.

The truth is we don't know about the long term safety, and short term studies have indeed found problems. Wikipedia editors who are loudest suggest that every study that has found any harm was flawed, and aren't very neutral regarding the scientists. But Domingo 2011, the most definitive review of GMO food safety studies to date, says that roughly half of the literature shows "serious cause for concern". This review meets WP:MEDRS and has not in any way been discredited, though that claim has falsely been made by Jps.

King has tried to write off Domingo with a display of scientific illiteracy or outright ill intent that should have him banned from the topic altogether.details / ensuing thread

If you assigned neutral editors to write this "statement", that could work. It would reflect RS, and would sound something like "There is debate about GMO food safety" and then views from various organizations, governmental bodies, and scientists would be listed. The reader will be allowed access to information. Whereas now, Trypto's suggestion for including Domingo was to mention the paper with only two words: "and see". Neutral editors wouldn't have a problem elucidating both sides, and with the cover of ArbCom, wouldn't be abused, bullied, attacked or banned for trying to do so. These are my initial comments, I'll probably have a few more.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * New rule If you mention "climate change deniers" when the topic is GMO science, you are admitting you don't really have an argument.

As I've stated, the problem in the GMO suite does not involve two opposing camps, although you've been sold that story, and the outcome of the Arb case might seem to support the theory, with only Jytdog banned versus four or so of his challengers. Jytdog and King were challenged by normal, everyday WP editors (not a band of anti Monsanto fanatics) for literally misrepresenting the WHO by including them as a source for their SC. Nearly every editor who spoke out against this is no longer at WP due to the ramifications. I believe the GMO suite is an ugly scene on purpose, and editors have been made to feel intimidated about challenging Jytdog et al, due to the runaround and ineffective noticeboards that follow, along with the wrong people being blocked and banned. Any tactic to ensure their chosen wording and content remains live is fair game from what I have observed.

Jytdog could not properly answer complaints about misquoting the WHO, so right in the middle of the conversation about it, he launched, as a distraction the now infamous RfC, which led to the ArbCom case.

The 'side' of the GMO scuffle that is constantly bringing you new noticeboard threads, loads of diffs, accusations and top notch wiki-lawyering is the same exact side responsible for abusing the encyclopedia and fellow editors. That, my friends, is the central issue. It was Tryptofish, King and Aircorn who tried to ignore the RfC result and erase months of good faith effort by the many editors who took part in the RfC. So it makes sense for their side to try and frame the story, but it should also raise eyebrows.

I momentarily came out of retirement to weigh in when I first noticed what they were doing:


 * The "scientific consensus" wording requires extra diligent sourcing. Normally editors add content and try to summarize it afterwards. This "scientific consensus" was created by Jytdog and added, without ever fleshing out the supportive material in the bodies, to roughly 15 GMO articles. Skip to today: Aircorn, Tryptofish and KingofAces43 suddenly begin defending the use of this wording, group-edit-warring it back into the GM Crops article. Pro had been trying to align the article with our RfC and with RS, and is now enemy #1 for doing so. Editors are still refusing to add content to the articles, and are insisting on coming up with a "statement" based on their favoured sources. I regret to say, it appears to me that if the POV pushing is indeed on the "pro-GMO" side of this, it is doubtful this will ever be formally acknowledged due to group-think and intimidation for having an opposing view, or being labelled "fringe", etc.*

One last quotation from a fellow editor who has been as involved in the GMO suite/RfC as I, and who is always worth reading:
 * In the past, I've worked on Wikipedia for short spurts; I stuck around for over a year this time because I got caught up in the GM food craziness, kinda fascinated by how a tiny number of editors could so successfully defend such overall poorly sourced, unbalanced, incomplete content for such a long time. But much of the involved discussion around here, GMO and otherwise, gets mired down in toxic, petty argument that has little to do directly with content, and I suddenly hit saturation from one moment to the next, and stopped posting. It had become all disagreeable work, and no fun.* -

Statement by Spartaz
The last couple of GMO AE discussions have been really hard to resolve. The level of bickering, claim and counter-claim mean that its almost impossible to understand the issues well enough to form a proper opinion. It does feel that the current batch of GMO editors are at the point where they can no longer work productively together and there isn't clear enough evidence of poor behaviour to ban enough people to allow progress to happen. This proposal seems like a reasonable way to try and form a consensus on something that might resolve the bickering. I feel that there is pressure building up and that this needs to be let out somehow. This RFC could do that - otherwise you will be at GMO2 and effectively banning everyone. I'd therefore cautiously support the RFC as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided. Spartaz Humbug! 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) No longer participating in AE.Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
I am uninvolved in GMO, but it is indeed sometimes useful for this committee (the only body with binding authority) to include as a remedy, Wikipedians holding an RfC: eg.,The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad. From my experience, the way to do it is to have a Mediation Commission proceeding to construct the RfC. The alternative here appears to be endless dispute (with all the bad things that spins off), and one of the purposes of this committee, it is often said, is to 'break the back' of such endless dispute.


 * Wordsmith and Typtofish's discussion has reminded me that the Muhammed RfC construction was not Mediation Commission, but under the old Mediation Cabal (MCab) project (which is now closed for lack of activity) - in the MCab no one had to participate - but as with anything if you did not, you would not be heard. It seems that because MCab is now dormant then this committee is perfectly placed to lay out similar occasional process (not decide content). The involvement of Arbcom just raises the profile and hopefully leads to everyone minding the business and, hopefully, gets uninvolved to eventually thoughtfully weigh in, in the RfC. One way to go is for Arbcom to select the mediator, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wordsmith: the Commission should probably just consider merging the lighter weight process as an alternative for occasional use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
I've participated in AE cases regarding GMOs and have done quite a bit of research on the behavior surrounding these disputes. I simply don't thinking a binding RFC is necessary, and I find the concept of a timer on any wiki content to be troubling and against the spirit of the project. The principle issue seems to be finding consensus without excessive journeys into the rhetorical weeds. As such, I'd support a moderated RFC where participants are required to respect a word count cap and to contain themselves to their own sections, much as we do at AE today. The community should be able to enforce consensus after the RFC is closed. Laser brain  (talk)  23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about editors on the page respecting the consensus. I believe that reflects a failure of more uninvolved admins to patrol the page than a shortcoming of the RfC process. I am willing to help in this regard. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
ArbCom involvement is not necessary in order to have a centralised RfC. ArbCom is also not required in order to sanction anybody who disruptively refuses to abide by the consensus in such an RfC. Any RfC on content would normally stand until there is some substantive change in the evidence base on which it was formed, so any result would probably stand until a new high-impact publication shows a substantive change in the scientific evidence of safety of GMOs. Given that recent publications showing risk all turn out to be low quality and low impact, often in predatory journals, this is almost certainly not something we need to worry about in the short to medium term. I don't see why ArbCom needs to be involved, and I don't see this as anything other thana content dispute. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
has requested my presence here, so I will weigh in. I've seen this same sort of intractable dispute many times before, and each time the established processes were insufficient. However, I am not under any circumstances comfortable with giving Arbcom the power to establish consensus on content issues. That is not what Jimbo created them for, and I've been here long enough to know that this sort of precedent isn't one we want to set. Instead, I do have an alternative. As a member of MedCom and former Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, I have a long history of resolving content disputes. If all major parties find me acceptable, I would be willing to help facilitate an RFC run under the MedCom umbrella, which was specifically created by Jimbo to resolve content disputes. I believe that I could keep reasonable standards of conduct and come to a consensus, which if necessary could be considered precedent at future AE incidents. As far as I know this is a novel approach, but it makes more sense than having arbitrators decide content issues. If any major parties believe I could not act fairly, I'm sure another mediator would be willing to step up. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe editors would not accept MedCom oversight, I can offer to step in personally under my own authority as uninvolved Administrator to supervise an RFC. As per your concerns about enforcement, I would direct you to the Discretionary Sanctions procedure, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"(emphasis mine). It would seem that any uninvolved Administrator can impose a restriction on the topic area along the lines of "Consensus has shown that X is the best way to phrase Y. Don't reword Y without a new consensus.". Discretionary sanctions are not limited to blocks and topic bans; they can be restrictions on edits including imposing restrictions on a piece of an article (or multiple articles) when that one piece is what's being warred over. There are ways to work with existing policy to resolve this without giving Arbcom the power to decide what is and is not consensus and override WP:CCC. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly happy with an established group of admins (preferably AE admins who have some familiarity and mediation experience) collaborating to sort out this complex issue. : You are correct, MedCab was more flexible and more suited to this sort of issue than MedCom, and it is currently defunct. However, if there is interest from the community and Arbitrators believe it would help, I see no reason why I, as a former MedCab Coordinator, couldn't bring it out of mothballs (at least temporarily unless it generates more people willing to participate). There was never a formal binding decision to close it, there was just some discussion and then it was done. Being informal, we could just start it up again without having to jump through hoops. I'm willing to help resolve this issue, by any means necessary short of a new Arbcom case. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to be one of the three collaborating admins. I don't feel comfortable handpicking the other two (I don't have that sort of authority and it would open the process up to claims of undue influence over the result), but if two other uninvolved admins, preferably with DR experience, step up then I would be happy to work with them. As for enforcement, Discretionary Sanctions gives enforcing admins more latitude than you think. It is true that they generally stick to things like topic bans and protection, but we've also gotten creative before. It would be well within DS rules to require a full RFC to overturn the previous one, and that could be enforced with a simple talk page notice and 0RR, backed up with blocks and topic bans (if necessary). Uninvolved Admins can (unless consensus or Arbcom overturns) essentially issue Remedies through AE much like Arbcom can, and i'm sure you've seen them get creative to solve an unusual issue. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I concur with several others above that this is not an ArbCom matter. WP does just fine having RfCs and sticking to them when consensus is clear in them. The twin dangers of a "binding RfC" like what's proposed here are a) this is a fast-moving area, and it could hamper our ability to cover the topic properly, and b) if the consensus were not absolutely clear and strong, making it binding would be arbitrary (in the negative sense that ArbCom is not supposed to be) and simply cause more problems than it solves. It could, in fact, lead to attempts to WP:GAME the system by running to ArbCom to impose binding RfCs, and then engineering the RfCs to get a desired result that would latter be extremely difficult to undo. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sunrise
Since most of the other involved editors have already commented here, I'd just like to add my agreement that active moderation and enforcement is needed, especially to make sure that editors are using and citing sources appropriately. As I see it, the main paths towards a resolution are: a) a binding RfC actively moderated by uninvolved admins, as requested here, b) uninvolved admins actively moderating the topic area in general, potentially including an RfC, c) formal mediation as suggested above, or d) maybe AE will eventually be sufficient. Any unmoderated RfC is likely to be derailed, and the issue with AE alone is that patience there is already running out. I'm open to mediation, but I suspect that at least a couple of editors either would not participate or would not engage constructively (and based on past behavior, might also refuse to recognize any outcome, e.g. by making claims about the integrity of the process; examples available on request).

The safety statement has been the primary focus of dispute in this topic area. After the previous set of disputes ended in 2013, editors had accepted the sources as sufficient, but even when the statement was stable it kept consuming time and energy because new editors showed up fairly regularly to dispute it, primarily at the Controversies page. IIRC, the conflict fully resumed when several highly active editors happened to enter over a relatively short period of time, though it was probably inevitable for that to happen eventually. Some recounting of the statement's background, if it helps: A version of it has been in the articles since late 2012, shortly after the publication of a couple of strong sources, and a consensus supporting it was established in the 2013 RfC. It was stable on the RfC version until approximately May 2015, when the current disputes began, and it's had a few different forms since then. The RfC in June 2015 was derailed and ended as no consensus, which in my reading of the closure was primarily due to the procedural problems (though also see this comment by the closer). Eventually, of course, we had the Arbcom case, which I think did a great deal for the topic area, but the primary issue here is likely to remain unresolved unless the circumstances change. Sunrise (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @David, my comment was directed to the Arbs - I didn't describe my examples because they already know what the topic area is like, and engaging in behavioral analysis and counter-analysis would be a distraction here. I'd like to add as little as possible to the adversarial aspects of this process in a context where I don't think it's necessary. But if you're still interested after this request is closed, come to my talk page and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Sunrise (talk) 02:31, 7 April 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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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



Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Why do you need us to hold an RFC? Can't the community enforce a consensus like it normally does?  I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of deciding which RFCs are binding and which are not.  It's a novel solution, but not one that I think should be elevated to binding policy by us.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not unprecedented, but I don't think it's something we should return to without extraordinary circumstances. These may be those circumstances, and may be preferable for all concerned to another full case or indefinite conflict.  We all know GMOs are a contentious topic area, and there's plenty of evidence for that here.  But I'm not sure I see evidence that this is the particular step that is required.  We need to get into the weeds a bit more.  Why have previous RFCs failed?  Was it a failure to find consensus or a failure to respect consensus afterwards?  Are editors ignoring a clear consensus?  If so why are normal dispute resolution procedures and discretionary sanctions inadequate to address this?  This is what we need to sort out here.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have quite a bit of reading to do. Rest assured, having been an admin active on AE, I'm going to definitely listen to what they have to say as they have firsthand experience with these sorts of intractable conflicts.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging some uninvolved admins who have participated in AE cases related to GMOs. Could we get some of you to provide opinions above?  Your firsthand experience would be valuable.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Recuse from requests arising from the GMO case, as usual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While this would be nothing new for ArbCom (Ireland, Jerusalem, and Muhammad come to mind), I am 100% ok with turning this over to MedCom to try to do something here before we use the nuclear option. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the MedCom option as well. It's really the authoritay of ArbCom that seems to be asked for here, but given the Discretionary sanctions, the community (that is, uninvolved admins) have a broad range of tools with which to combat disruption. And now I could repeat Gamaliel's questions, but I won't; Tryptofish pointed to the last AE case, which I really didn't find all that problematic or intractable. That case proved to me, I think, that while it is still a pretty toxic environment, the accused didn't deserve to be punished with ban or block, and the plaintiff could have been hit with a boomerang. Boris's nuclear option ("I don't want to take anything off the table!" -- Donald T.) is not likely to be exercised soon, but if the proposed RfC leads to the kind of problems that the last AE suggested, we will see topic bans flying around like mini-drones. And if the proposed RfC leads to a solution, I do not think it takes ArbCom to act. A solution was reached for Jerusalem (and I don't think it required the threat [?] of serious ArbCom torture), a solution can be reached here. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , no, I didn't say or imply you didn't answer Gamaliel's questions; it's just that I agree with Gamaliel's concerns and while I read your answers (as I hope I indicated) you haven't made the case for me that this should be overseen by ArbCom. (BTW, let me add that as of yet ArbCom is completely GMO-free, and 90% gluten-free.) No, I know that ArbCom was involved with Jerusalem, but what I also think is that it didn't necessarily need ArbCom, and I think, right now, that a GMO RfC doesn't yet need ArbCom. I see, to some extent, what you mean with the "Assigned cases" pointer, though I note also that "Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process", and "Blocking parties during Mediation" is appropriate here as well. But in a nutshell, yes, your point is well-taken, that I want an RfC with strict oversight. That this requires a lot from the admins who run it, I am well aware of that (and I will gladly draw up a list of volunteers for you), but some of the comments here (you pinged two editors already) make me think that this can be done. Thank you--and please don't think that I am trying to throw shade on your proposal by downplaying the seriousness of the disputes. Looking at the previous AE, I can see this can get real disruptive (and personal) real quick. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think an RfC with strict moderation would be appropriate here. However, I'm strongly opposed to setting a time period during which the content cannot be changed from the version decided at the RfC. Not only is this "unwikipedian," but it puts the Arbitration Committee in an awkward position: if strong sources come out that would normally result in the content changing, the decision will need to be amended by the Arbitration Committee so that the content can be changed. Although stating that the outcome of a community RfC is binding would not be ArbCom making judgments on content, us deciding that the text is out of date or that the sources are sufficient to change the article would be. I would prefer the RfC be held without involvement from the ArbCom, and the content be changed to reflect the outcome, with normal enforcement measures being used to ensure consensus is being followed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with GorillaWarfare, see if this can be done without ArbCom managing it, and I am not fussy on a three-year (or other time-based) mandate on content, only appealable to the committee. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , it means I don't like the idea of it (maybe "not fussy about something" isn't as common a euphemism as I thought it to be). I particularly don't like the idea of a time-based restriction. ArbCom stating the outcome of an RfC is binding is fine, but us judging the merit of the content, and updates to the content is not. As per above, I would prefer that this be run through MedCom prior to having us step in, however. I hope this answers your question. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Arb com involvement is not needed. (And I agree with those who would not give a fixed time span--circumstsances can change (for example, conceivably a GMO product may be marketed that does indeed turn out to be a hazard)  DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (May 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Proposal to amend Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 to read as follows:
 * "1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of and . The conflict between the two users began on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, and has spilled over to various noticeboards. Another conflict took place between  and various users including  on other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, and this conflict also spilled onto various noticeboards."

Statement by Hijiri88
This wording bothered me from the start, but I didn't want to ask for an amendment immediately, and during the "proposed decision" phase I focused on the remedies more than the findings of fact.

"has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area" was not supported by any evidence, and is chronologically problematic, as the dispute between CurtisNaito and various users, including myself, on articles like Korean influence on Japanese culture, Emperor Jimmu and Soga–Mononobe conflict predates my conflict with Catflap08 by at least several months, and arguably as much as two years.

Strictly speaking, the conflict between me and Catflap08 had its origins in June 2014, but (as ArbCom observed) almost all of the diffs come from after February 2015, as the initial interaction was small-scale and simmered out quickly. The "Korean influence" conflict started in December 2013, July 2014 or October 2014, depending on how one views it. (My first involvement in the dispute area was in December 2013, my first post on the talk page of the article that was the primary locus of the dispute was in July 2014, and CurtisNaito's first involvement in the dispute was in October 2014.) The "Jimmu" conflict began in May 2014 (I emailed ArbCom last month explaining why I was editing logged-out; it is unrelated to this dispute). Most involved users would say the dispute between CurtisNaito and myself first started on the "Soga-Mononobe" talk page beginning in September 2013. But it's also possible to date the dispute back to December 2012, when I nominated an article he had written for deletion.

I fear there has been a misunderstanding here as to the "link" between the Nichiren Buddhism dispute involving me, Catflap08, and a number of other users, and the "Japanese history/culture" dispute between me, CurtisNaito, and a number of other users (Sturmgewehr88 and TH1980 were two; the other recurring players such as User:Phoenix7777, User:Nishidani and User:Curly Turkey did not appear to want to be involved in this Arbitration case, so I didn't push it). The only common threads are that they both broadly fit under the "Japanese culture" net, and that I accused both CurtisNaito and Catflap08 of the same kind of misbehaviour.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have an opinion on the proposed amendment to the "Locus of dispute" wording? Requesting an amendment to the wording of the ArbCom decision is practically the definition of WP:BANEX. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What will happen is that the Arbitration case's "findings of fact" will reflect the facts of the case rather than a confusing misconception. I don't know how the misconception came about to begin with or how it may or may not have affected the" remedies", but that's really beside the point. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The interactions were between CurtisNaito (and much, much later TH1980) on one "side" and several other users on the other, including me and Sturmgewehr88 (the others were not named as parties to this Arbitration case, as they had nothing to do with my separate dispute with Catlfap08). The timeline is pretty clear, as is the lack of any relationship to Catflap08 or, for that matter, you. It also isn't clear what evidence you are referring to. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn I personally think that this amendment request probably does fall under BANEX, but obviously I'm a little biased. Sturmgewehr88 and Kingsindian both agree with my position here but they don't seem to like the proposed amendment. Callanecc's comment below it seems highly unlikely that any good would come of dragging this out any longer. From now on I'll be careful to keep to myself any opinions I have of those portions of the ArbCom decision that touch on the areas I'm banned from, unless I'm directly requesting clarification or amendment of the bans themselves, or appealing one or both of them sometime after next January. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sturmgewehr88
While I agree with Hijiri that the original locus of dispute statement is inaccurate, I don't see what difference it would make to correct it. You've explained how it is inaccurate and provided a more accurate statement, but what exactly will happen if this change is accepted?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No offense to the Arbs, who I applaud for actually doing some investigation of this and doing something about it, but the misconception came about because of ignorance. The Arbs did not look in-depth at the disputes before last February (even calling May "too old" to consider), and the fact that both disputes were in the unneccesarily broad topic of "Japanese culture" led them to believe that these were connected and resulted with where we are now (2 years of consistent OR/SYNTH and IDHT issues, results in 1RR restriction for the two edit wars during the case). I don't believe they will admit that they were wrong or be willing to go through the pains of reexamining this, it's just the nature of the beast. I'm sure you'll do fine with appealing the TBAN in 8 months either way.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 06:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TH1980
What exactly is this about? Hijiri88 was topic banned from the subject of Japanese culture because of disruptive edits he made to numerous articles in that field. That's what all the arbs agreed upon. What is left to discuss?TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Even during the case, I raised the point about the absurd finding "Locus of dispute", which does not even mention the dispute between Hijiri/CurtisNaito/TH1980. However, all this is water under the bridge. I fail to see what difference it makes now. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I have some questions regarding what exactly is being proposed here. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the locus section changed to perhaps to roughly approximate that indicated above, if the arbs would support that. I might personally possibly suggest as alternate phrasing changing the proposed second sentence to something along the lines of "over the course of the arbitration, evidence was introduced regarding problems regarding the interactions of Hijiri88 and other users, including Curtis Naito and TH1980, in the broader topic area of Japanese culture" or something similar. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 4 May 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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not inclined at all to modify findings of fact in past cases. That is especially so that this amendment request is a violation of both Hijiri88's topic bans. The exemptions of BANEX which apply could only be "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and to "appealing the ban". To meet these conditions an amendment/clarification request would need to be about the ban(s) not about the case. The fact that Hijiri88 is still focusing a decision made four months ago confirms that they have not moved on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I take the same position as Callanecc about this.  DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, I can see how a factual error in a case involving you might stick in your craw. (Though I don't claim to understand the details of this case, which was before my time, or to have any preference between the original or proposed wording.) I do think dropping it is the right approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Doncram (May 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Doncram at 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * 3) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (25 September 2013)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * Request release from probation


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (12 March 2013)
 * Request removal of restriction on creation of new articles


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (25 September 2013)
 * Request removal of topic ban (topic = National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) articles)

Statement by Doncram
For years I have abided by the restrictions, and have not appealed them though I could have a year later. Instead I have participated in other areas of Wikipedia, including at wp:AFD where per wp:AFDSTATS I have voted in more than 600 cases since then. I'm proud of my influencing numerous AFDs in a good way (see User:Doncram/AFDs). A large number of edits of mine stem from my participation at wp:Disambiguation Pages With Links; I won its August 2015 competition by disambiguatimg 1,780 articles. I have created almost 800 articles since the arbitration case, complying by submitting articles through AFC. Early on I sought to compensate for the effort imposed on AFC editors by myself participating as a volunteer there, but dropped that when it was suggested that my promoting others' articles as part of AFC work was not allowed.

About the NRHP topic ban, I substantially complied. My compliance was questioned a few times by a non-logged-in editor in cases usually resolved by my modifying a comment that I had made in an AFD or at a Talk page. ''And I did respond directly at wt:NRHP to a suggestion that a huge amount of past work by me was suspect, when that was a misperception, and my response did completely settle the concern. (Technically I should not have responded there, and I was given warning for that, but it seemed more honest than posing a clarification request here stating the response and asking if I could communicate it, and thereby indirectly delivering it.)'' A reason for my preparing this request now is that I wanted to be free to address Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A, although that is now closed. I acknowledged in that AFD the relevance of my topic ban and addressed that in part by stating I would report myself (which this does). An ironic effect of the NRHP topic ban all along has been that I cannot improve NRHP-related articles which I created when there is a complaint that they are not satisfactory in some way. The courthouses article is an example. During its AFD I reorganized but did not add new NRHP material, but I would have preferred to be free to complete the expansion that was needed. Also over time I have noted factual errors in watchlisted NRHP-related articles that I would have liked to address. I would like to fix those problems, and I would like to resume my practice of improving NRHP-related articles created by myself and others where more sources have gradually become available online, or where I am otherwise interested.

For anyone now or ever concerned about my creation of articles, I would like to point out that in my entire editing history, by my analysis there have been only a handful of articles I created that were subsequently deleted, even though the NRHP topic ban prevented me from participating in AFDs since 2013. Also the community never addressed Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram, but for what it is worth I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area.


 * I want to ask for some slack about the first comment I made in the recent AFD, in which TheCatalyst31 is correct in pointing out that I unnecessarily commented about my experience of the 2012 actions of another editor. I was embarrassed about the state of the article, and I reacted in part by putting fault onto them.


 * I wish I had not opened my mouth that way. Being reminded of the article, I would have preferred simply to fix it without saying anything at all, but given the topic ban I could not.  It screamed at me that some explanation was needed, when the nomination was correctly pointing out that the title bizarrely did not match the contents, and also I wanted to try for a suspension/withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator (which was declined) so I commented.  When making the comment I recall feeling that I had split the difference between saying nothing to explain the article's condition (which embarrassed me) vs. saying more (I don't recall what), but I regret that I showed my thin skin and included any trace of personalized comment at all.  Granting this request would allow me to return and fix some other NRHP-related articles that I know have deficiencies and avoid exactly this kind of situation from arising.


 * As a mitigating factor, please note that after my initial comment, I think I acted reasonably:
 * I tried to recharacterize the past more moderately: "I returned to the article in 2012 when my watchlist showed several changes starting with this one. As I recall I left the article again to avoid contention, until I came across it recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today or Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), which I browse frequently." (Saying this much should not have been necessary to start with either, but I was trying to replace what I said in the first comment. Saying essentially "Yep, contention happened but we don't need to go into it.  And I haven't been hanging on whatever the NRHP editors are doing, it's just random that I noticed this.")
 * I suggested that I would seek some resolution / permission (which I could not immediately do, as it took time to figure out processes here and look for past relevant similar requests) which is what this is now
 * I acknowledged validity of some concerns and I edited at the article, reorganizing it without adding new NRHP material, immediately addressing some of them. I crossed my fingers about this being okay, ban-wise.
 * As one editor put it, I was "skirting rather close to" my topic ban, but no one directly objected and I edited some more to respond to further comments that I agreed were also valid
 * In my final edit in the AFD i provided a diff to final cleaned up list-article (readable by admins only, I presume, not readable by me) which showed the article cleaned up, organization-wise
 * At least one editor "granted" that organizational concerns had been addressed, but still compared it to a wp:kitten (a kitten could be "roughly framed out" but "left 97% undone for other editors to deal with") and questioned whether I could "see it through" to an acceptable state by doing the "heavy lifting" needed.
 * That's what I would like to do, in any other articles that are at all "kittenish"--and there are a few, none as poor as that one though--I would like to do the "heavy lifting" that this editor suggested was necessary.


 * Let me say more:


 * I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area, and it may have allowed some others to let go of some stuff too.  The continuing NRHP editors have done whatever they wanted, which is great.  At this point, I would rather not revisit any of the pre-2013 drama, and I care less about what the NRHP editors do.  I am quite happy to be out of various roles I used to play, like trying to accommodate new editors differently than others would.  I appreciate not being blamed for anything new since 2013.  I don't want to be blamed for anything else going forward either, and that includes my respecting the effective consensus that new short stubs are not wanted. (That's not so hard to abide by, either, as the short stubs that were needed for various purposes--like to avoid or settle contention from non-NRHP editors about disambiguation pages needed to support the NRHP area--were in fact all created.)


 * I don't want the article creation ban continued because it gets in the way of my working effectively in completely unrelated areas. Like my creation of this was central in settling long-running contention between others about the Isle of Man area.  Like allowing me to volunteer at AFC.  And it is not necessary.  I did in fact learn from using the AFC process, by my experiencing how uninvolved, non-NRHP editors viewed new draft articles.  I likely will continue to use AFC or seek someone else's opinion when I am unsure whether a draft is mainspace-worthy, but the project is not served by requiring that.


 * I don't want general probation continued because that is not necessary either. I have constructively participated for three years, including removing causes for contention in various areas.  At this point I deserve to be allowed to get credit or not for my peace-making or other skills going forward, without anyone being able to characterize me later as doing okay but only because I was under special scrutiny, and without a cloud over me causing editors to have unnecessary concern.


 * If I wanted to come back earlier, I and others might have still been too raw. Give me some credit for removing myself for longer.  But three years is an eternity, and I request to be trusted without any of these three restrictions. -- do  ncr  am  19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Q: Just for fun: How many short stub articles, out of the 4,412 "NRIS only" articles that Dudemanfellabra links to below, would you guess were created by Doncram? An answer is here. -- do  ncr  am  04:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)



Statement by TheCatalyst31
I was one of the folks who asked for this topic ban in the first place, and I'd still be very reluctant to see this lifted. The issue is not just the quality of Doncram's articles (though that was a pretty big issue as of when the ban took place), it's that he can't seem to get along with other editors working on NRHP-related articles. Before the topic ban, the project seemingly had a major dispute every other month, and we lost several productive editors to it; since the topic ban, we've barely had any conflict at all. Given that Doncram recently accused another NRHP editor of sabotaging an article, I don't see a change in that behavior, and I'd still be pretty worried about disturbing the peace. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
Given the issue brought up by TheCatalyst31, accusing someone of "sabotaging" an article for a simple move as recently as last month, I'd be very hesitant to advocate lifting the restrictions at this time. That's awfully similar to the behavior that led to these restrictions in the first place. I'd like to first see that Doncram has stopped taking disagreements so personally and is able to participate in discussion about them in a civil manner. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To reply to the request from, while I said I would be hesitant, I'm not categorically opposed. I think the solution proposed here is a good way to test the waters, and I don't have any objection to it. Doncram, in the event it passes, I hope your return to this area is a successful one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, though, now that I think about it, the portion of the motion removing the topic ban allows Doncram to edit "stubs". Does this mean only stubs, i.e., articles tagged as such? It would seem to me to make more sense to word it to say "existing articles" if that's the intent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dudemanfellabra
Although I did not comment on the original arbitration request, my name was mentioned several times, and I was closely involved with Doncram before the ban/other restrictions. I believe, actually, at the time of the arbitration that I was taking an extended break from Wikipedia, largely due to the conflicts surrounding Doncram and WP:NRHP.

Personally I agree with TheCatalyst31 that the project has been running rather smoothly without Doncram for the past three years (wow, has it really been that long?!). Despite the recent comments that were pointed out above, I would be conditionally supportive of lifting the topic ban, though I would still like to see the article creation ban in place. We have way too many short articles (many of which were created by Doncram himself, which is relevant in my opinion) that can be expanded before we start worrying about creating new articles, especially the short template-esque stubs that Doncram was known for creating before the ban. I might support the idea of allowing Doncram to work on these stubs and otherwise re-integrate himself into the project. If the topic ban were to be lifted in this manner, I would still think the general probation requirement should stand. If he were to get into some contentious debate attacking the editor rather than the edits, I think the ban should be reinstated.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doncram gives an estimate of the number of NRIS-only articles on this page that he believes were created by him. I have actual numbers here, generated by a script I wrote here. Of the 4386 articles currently listed on the page, he created 784, or roughly 17.9% of them. That's quite a lot higher than his estimate of 294, or 6.7%. Only two editors created more of the articles on that page than he did, Swampyank with 1169 (26.7%) and Ebyabe with 788 (18.0%). Just so everyone has the facts here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
If the ban is lifted (which seems fair enough given the passage of time without further incident) I would suggest a restriction preventing (a) title-warring or (b) the creation of context-free stubs, which were the main problems before. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ammodramus
I've been involved with WikiProject NRHP for some years, and have had a number of interactions, positive and otherwise, with Doncram. I'm inclined to concur with TheCatalyst and Seraphimblade: the project's talk page has been characterized by civil discourse and mutual respect over the past few years, and I question whether this would continue if Doncram's topic ban were removed.

One reason why Doncram's participation led to so much strife was his apparent unwillingness or inability to recognize that consensus could go against his position. When other participants joined in disagreeing with his chosen course, he tended to attribute it to "bullying" (e.g., , , ). Unfortunately, he again deployed this trope in his recent "harassing, bullying" comment at AfD. A one-time lapse in AGF is understandable and forgivable, but the choice of words suggests that he still perceives the project as dominated by active and influential bullies who find pleasure in ganging up on those who're actually trying to build the encyclopedia.

Doncram's user page does nothing to alleviate my concern. Opposition to bullying is laudable, when bullying is actually taking place; and expressing an opinion on the incidence and severity of bullying at WP is certainly allowable on one's user page. However, Doncram's past use of the term suggests that his world picture is one of "Doncram trying to improve WP despite persistent attacks by bullies". This does not bode well for the future of constructive discussion at the project talk page.

If Doncram's topic ban is removed, I'd support Dudemanfellabra's recommendation of a continuing article-creation ban. Although it was hardly the only source of strife, much of the contention at the WikiProject revolved around Doncram's mass-creation of what most members regarded as subminimal stubs. I don't share Opabina's optimism that Doncram will abide by "the minimal expectations for a reasonable stub", absent a strong and unequivocal policy to compel him to do so: while he was active in the project, he continued to create two-sentence robo-stubs despite fairly strong consensus against them. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I agree with Ammodramus, Dudemanfellabra and JzG that if Doncram's topic ban is lifted, it needs to be replaced with either a ban on creating articles entirely or, at the very least, a ban on creating basically contentless stubs. Whether Opabina's perception is true or not in the general case (I certainly haven't noticed any general movement away from the creation of "sub-stubs") really doesn't necessarily follow in this specific case. The determination of ArbCom was that Doncram was not helping the furtherance of the encyclopedia by creating such articles, and years of other activities says very little about what their behavior would be like in their preferred subject area if sanctions were lifted entirely. BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a non-Arb agreement that Doug Weller's proposal seems apt. BMK (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Einbierbitte
I have been with the project practically from its inception. I have never had any acrimony or conflict with Doncram, but I note that he has acted against consensus. I think that the ban should be lifted with the caveats mentioned by Beyond My Ken. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Station1
Late on 25 April, Doncram made edits to Chicago Boulevard System that added information about a NRHP historic district and a proposed NRHP historic district. He has also made several comments at Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System that rely on his link to a web page about the proposed district, as well as comments at User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya. Also on 25 April, he made edits to Taliesin (studio), a NRHP property. All these edits seem to me to violate the topic ban. Perhaps others disagree. I also noticed this edit summary includes an incorrect accusation. Station1 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 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.

Doncram: Clerk notes

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


 * Done. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Given the age of the sanctions and the absence of any obvious conduct issues for the past several years, I'd be inclined to lift them. However, I'd like to hear from some of the other editors who would be affected by this.   Please invite  and WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to comment here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that these sanctions were last used in 2013, and Doncram's most recent block was a brief one for edit warring in 2014. Given the time that's passed, I'd be inclined to relax or remove the restrictions. I'm not convinced that one recent incident of frustration, with a reasonably constructive follow-up response, is a major concern. The community may not have had a formal discussion about stubs as recommended in the case, but standards have drifted upwards over time in any event. The minimal expectations for a reasonable stub created by a long-term editor are certainly much higher than they used to be, so I'm not sure that an explicit restriction on article creation is needed. However, I wasn't active at the time of this case, so I'd like to hear more input before making any suggestions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Doug. Pinging to make sure you see this, since this request has been sitting for a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, . Since no one's voted yet anyway, I made the change from "stubs" to "articles". Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seem to me that enough timehas gone by to grant the appeal.  DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to propose this:
 * remove the "general probation", unused since 2013
 * allow creation of non-NHRP articles
 * revise the NHRP topic ban to allow him to edit existing stubs but not create new articles.
 * Comments? Doug Weller  talk 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I support Doug's proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug's proposal sounds like a good compromise. Seems reasonable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion


Enacted -  Mini  apolis  12:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) kelapstick(bainuu) 05:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Keilana (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Drmies (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments
 * Proposing this to get the request moving, I'm still deciding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nableezy at 22:17, 27 April 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


 * diff of notification EdJohnston

Statement by Nableezy
The longstanding practice on what edits are governed under the prohibitions passed as part of ARBPIA and ARBPIA2 was that it applied to all edits within the topic area, meaning pages that as a whole are a part of the topic area and any edit to them is covered (e.g. Hamas, Israeli-occupied territories ...) and individual edits that are about the topic to pages that as a whole do not fall within the topic area are also covered while edits to those pages outside of the topic are not (eg editing the Barack Obama page to edit material on his views and or actions regarding the conflict are covered but edits regarding his election to the presidency are not). The prohibition WP:ARBPIA3 however says that IP editors and named accounts with less than 500 edits/30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That on its face leaves out edits to pages that are largely outside the topic area but edits that very much are within the topic area. I'm requesting clarification on whether both sets of edits are covered under the prohibition, and if so suggest an edit along the lines of are prohibited from making any edits that could be ... replacing are prohibited from editing any page that could be .... This came up on AE, so thought it wise to ask for clarification here. I'm not entirely sure who needs to be a party here, I just added the admin dealing with the AE complaint.
 * Sean's comment below has several examples, the ones I think are the least ambiguous are, , , and . None of those articles can reasonably be said to be, as a whole, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, but each of the edits unambiguously are. Maybe Ed is right and this is premature, but I'm not too concerned about that specific AE. Regardless of how that is closed I'd prefer a crystal clear prohibition one way or the other, and this seems like an easy thing to make that clear.  nableezy  - 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

 * User:Nableezy probably opened this due to some comments made in the thread at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The AE thread is still open. At the moment it appears that the AE complaint might well be closed due to an agreement by Wikiwillkane to cease all edits in the Arab-Israeli topic area until he has reached 500 edits. In my opinion this request for clarification is premature. In the past it has been agreed by the committee that some articles are under a topic ban only in part. Whatever the decision reached about partially-banned articles, the AE can go forward anyway since several fully-banned articles are named in the diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The thread at AE about Wikiwillkane has now been closed with a warning against any further violations of the 500/30 rule. I am unsure whether it makes this ARCA moot or not, since I think Nableezy would like the committee to issue a general ruling. The question (I think) is whether the General 500/30 prohibition and a typical ARBPIA topic ban have the same scope. That is, they both restrict all A-I-related editing across all of Wikipedia even when the entire article (such as Roseanne Barr) is not otherwise an ARBPIA topic. In the AE I found myself rejecting the arguments by Wikiwillkane who believed that adding mention of Roseanne Barr's speech to a BDS meeting was not an A-I violation. My view was based on what I consider to be common sense. The matter is sufficiently obvious that I don't think the committee needs to pass any motion to revise the wording of the 500/30 prohibition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
Recent examples:  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM authorized the WP:ARBPIA3 restriction for the ARBPIA topic area as everyone knows.
 * The restriction can now be implemented automatically by the server via extended confirmed protection (see WP:BLUELOCK). This automates the task of ensuring IPs and accounts that are not allowed to edit certain articles cannot edit those articles.
 * Extended confirmed protection has not been rolled out across the topic area for reasons that are unclear to me at least. It has only been implemented on articles on request after the articles have been subjected to disruption. The ARBCOM authorized restriction will be enforced whether or not an article is given extended confirmed protection. If the restriction is not enforced by the server via extended confirmed protection, it will be enforced by editors. The effect will be the same but the cost is different. Extended confirmed protection automates the enforcement of a restriction that already unambiguously applies to thousands of articles.
 * Extended confirmed protection is limited in the sense that it only works at the article level. So it could be argued that it can only reasonably be implemented on any page that "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If extended confirmed protection had been rolled out across the topic area, Wikiwillkane, an editor recently brought to AE, would not have been able to edit the Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Omar Barghouti and the Judea and Samaria Area articles and no one would have had to waste their time reverting them.
 * Extended confirmed protection could not have prevented the creation of the Dafna Meir memorial article created for one of the 230+ victims of the latest wave of violence and the associated image copyright violations. Editors have to enforce extended confirmed protection in cases like that and they will.
 * Extended confirmed protection is also not yet smart enough to help with the examples above where content unambiguously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is added/updated/removed by people whose edits would have been rejected by the server if they had made the same edit in a protected article. The 500/30 rule needs to be implemented at the content/statement level to provide the kind of protection it is intended to provide. Any weakness will be exploited by people who lack the experience or integrity to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Editors who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE will relentlessly exploit gaps in the protection, gaps that currently have to be plugged by people rather than the server.

Statement by Sir Joseph
We also have something similar where an editor will revert and label it ARBPIA 30/500 when the article is not under sanction at all. Most recently, I saw it at one of Israel's ambassadors. The page has no mention of any conflict, yet someone edited the page and it was reverted as if that page is under sanctions. What is to be done with things like that? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, why is Haaretz under sanctions? It's an article about a newspaper company. I looked at the history and couldn't find vandalism so extreme to label it under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles). However BLUELOCK should only be applied to pages which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid a situation where we have Barrack Obama's article (for example) BLUELOCK'd due to a related paragraph. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My first instinct was that this is scope creep. In particular, there is no way of informing newer editors of this restriction before they make an edit about the topic to some seemingly entirely unrelated page. But the examples offered are so obviously inappropriate that I do think they should be covered as a matter of common sense. I would hope to see people reserve strict enforcement for unambiguous cases, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Callanecc on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Callan --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming late to the party with nothing to add except that I agree with Callan also. Doug Weller  talk 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (May 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Penwhale at 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request




 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence
 * to be indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of ; this would in essence make it a two-way IBAN between the two editors. because of the wording of the TrevelyanL85A2 TBAN.

Statement by Penwhale
Previously I have filed an amendment request, now archived here, on the same topic. I was told that the issue would be revisited when Mathsci was under consideration to be unbanned/unblocked, and it might have been an oversight to not visit this issue.

Somethings to make it easier:
 * 1) The linked remedy against TrevelyanL85A2 has an embedded one-way interaction ban within that remedy (TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic... [emphasis added]).
 * 2) The linked motion turned certain one-way interaction bans into two-way IBANs (and continues to be in effect when Mathsci is unbanned).
 * 3) Previous request was basically turned down on the grounds that Mathsci was banned (at the time) and didn't need to be addressed.

- Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This request isn't meant to be an attack on your editing; rather, it was a concern (at the time) that a one-way IBAN isn't beneficial, and I note that some of IBANs involving you were converted into mutual IBANs. However, since arbitrators figured it didn't need to be addressed at the time (because you were banned and TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked), they must figured that they can revisit the issue at a later time. I am unsure whether they didn't know such a request existed back then, but I figure it needs to be visited nonetheless. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hospital visits are never fun (especially ER visits). I don't know whether my well wishes would be taken at face value given the fact that I submitted this request, but I still wish you a speedy recovery, nonetheless. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

 * Penwhale's ARCA request from August 2014

This seems to be a repeat of the above request by Penwhale, who has disclosed that he is a RL friend of TrevelyanL85A2. I don't quite understand the point of the request at this stage.

I will, however, take this opportunity to bring up a recent query from an arbitrator.

My site ban was unrelated to editing in the topic area of R&I. It rested on one edit to my user page. The site ban could have been appealed after six months. I waited for two and a half years.

Shortly after the unban, one of the arbitrators privately raised a query with me. Apparently during their discussions some of the arbitrators had a distant memory that my topic ban "by mutual consent", imposed in August 2010, had been lifted. That is correct. It happened at the initiative of arbitrators and was enacted by motion on 20 December 2010. I did not request it.

In March 2016, after a majority of arbitrators had voted to unban me, an intermediary from arbcom asked me if I would agree that a condition of the unban should be a topic ban appealable after 6 months. On arbcom-l I pointed out my voluntary withdrawal from the topic area since August 2010, mentioning the motion of December 2010. That information on the voluntary withdrawal from the topic area was adopted in the current phrasing of the unban but now with a topic ban in perpetuity. That was an odd thing to do.

What are my editing interests at present? A return to a long but incomplete article on baroque music; and the use of images from illuminated manuscripts to enhance articles on fifteenth century art and history.

I have just come out of hospital after an emergency. Here fresh on the doormat is Penwhale's rerun of his request from 2014. Pure bliss. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. What I wrote above just concerned a few loose ends; they have no real urgency and could be discussed at some other time. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2
I think I should address Newyorkbrad's comment. As a party to this request, I assume I'm allowed to comment here.

The reason ArbCom made the rest of the interaction bans mutual in September 2013 is because Mathsci kept pursuing his conflicts with other editors even when they were inactive or were no longer editing R&I articles. During the 2012 R&I review, he was doing that to me when I'd been offline for the past four months. SightWatcher described a similar experience in his statement here, and here are some examples that were directed at The Devil's Advocate:, , , and. The last two diffs happened while TDA was under a one-way interaction ban with Mathsci.

Part of what happened is that individuals who had been in conflict with Mathsci on R&I articles were given one-way interaction bans with him, and then Mathsci followed these users to unrelated disputes and they weren't allowed to respond. When he did that to me, I objected to it, and the diffs of my complaint were reported at AE as violations of my interaction ban. 

I know that Mathsci hasn't tried to game my interaction ban with him in the month since he was unbanned, but the fact that he and I are no longer editing the R&I topic is not a reason to assume there's no danger of that. Most of the times he did this to me and other people before his ban, he and the other editors weren't editing R&I articles when these things happened. I had a lot of trouble dealing with this when it was directed at me, and my poor response to it led to me being blocked for two years. I'd like ArbCom to make sure a similar situation doesn't happen again. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom
I see the prevailing view is that there's no need to make my interaction ban mutual until and unless Mathsci provokes me again, and that ArbCom can deal with that when and if it happens. If that is ArbCom's decision, could the arbitrators please clarify what steps I should take if it becomes an issue again? Will I have to make an arbitration amendment request about it, and is that allowed under my interaction ban?

The 2012 ArbCom was very unclear about what steps they wanted me to take. When I asked on the ArbCom mailing list, I was told to raise the matter in public, and when I asked the same question in public here, no arbitrators replied. I want to make sure that if the issue arises again in the future, I'll have clear instructions on how to resolve it. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
I appreciate Penwhale's attention to detail and good faith in raising this issue: sometimes it's best to anticipate a potential recurrence of problems and nip them in the bud. That being said, I think this is probably not one of those times. Mathsci has resumed editing, but he will not be editing about race and intelligence, the area in which he previously had negative interactions with TrevelyanL85A2. Meanwhile, TrevelyanL85A2 has a total of three edits within the past year, none of which relate to race and intelligence. Unless something changes, the odds that the two of them will come into conflict again are hopefully slight. Unless I have missed something, the better path might be to let these two editors try to forget about each other, rather than reviving the ill memories of the past on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
TrevelyanL85A2's statement shows that the message may not have been received—the community is over R&I battles and anyone pursuing them or past participants will not be successful. TrevelyanL85A2 has made a total of ten edits in the last 21 months and should focus on Wikipedia's purpose rather than pursuit of some theoretical justice.

Penwhale should know that "I know TrevelyanL85A2 in real life because of a mutual friend" (posted 31 July 2014 at WP:AN) is a good reason to leave requests like this for someone else.

Per not bureaucracy it is not necessary for Arbcom to formally address the issue raised in this request. Swift action will follow if Mathsci ever pokes TrevelyanL85A2, and imposing an unnecessary formal sanction for a very productive editor would not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 17 May 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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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



Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I haven't had a chance to look in detail at this yet, but did want to say that I'm sorry to hear about your emergency,, and glad to hear you're doing better. If you want to discuss other aspects of your editing restrictions, I suggest opening a new request. On the current topic, my first reaction is to agree with NYB that this isn't really a matter that needs urgent attention and can probably be settled by both parties just ignoring each other and going about their business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need for us to do anything. Mathsci, I'm also sorry to hear about your emergency. It doesn't say indefinite, just "standard topic ban". You were told 6 months originally and in my opinion you can appeal then. Whether that is in your own best interests is up to you to decide. If you think that editing in that area puts pressure on you, wait a while to appeal. Doug Weller  talk 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it becomes an issue, I'd suggesting filing another request here with recent evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Scientology (June 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Elvey at 01:45, 27 May 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

No user accounts to notify. IPs are ephemeral.

Statement by Elvey
The ruling states in relevant part (bolding mine):

8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:


 * (A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;

Despite this, edits to an article under discretionary sanctions as part of this case (and its talk page) are being made largely from a half dozen or so IPs, and the IPs are all on the same UK mobile ISP (except for one from a UK fixed line ISP) per an admin.

Clarification requested on this point : I read the ruling as saying editing needs to be from a single user account, not multiple anonymous IPs. Is it thus proper at this point to file for AE? (Why or why not?)

I think it is but am being cautious. It seems to me the appropriate enforcement action is simply to apply semi protection to the two pages. No need to deal with individual IPs. Support would be diffs from the page histories, though the page histories themselves are very readable for this purpose. There's a DS notice at the top of the talk page.

I'm refraining from characterizing the nature or motivation of edits or person(s); you are strongly urged do the same, so this can remain succinct and be dispatched quickly.


 * Follow-up: Thanks for the clarification and action, Doug Weller, Courcelles, and Callanecc.  Part 2: As I noted  above, there are anonymous edits to the talk pages too.   The prohibition seems to clearly extend to the talk pages, per the "or discussions" language that I quote above, so I suggest that appropriate enforcement action here too is that these be semi'd as well:  Talk:Richard_de_Mille, Talk:Scientology Talk:Carlos_Castaneda, with the rationale being something like: Per WP:ARBSCI.

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.

Scientology: Clerk notes

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



Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * To me it reads as a fairly clear prohibition against anonymous editing. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, noting that Scientology is indefinitely semi-protected. I've done that for this article. Doug Weller  talk 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Rodhullandemu (June 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by George Ho at 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Indefinite blocking of Rodhullandemu


 * 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


 * Hasteur
 * Roger Davies
 * Rodhullandemu
 * Casliber
 * Risker
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Xeno
 * Newyorkbrad
 * Silver seren
 * Bishonen
 * Jimbo Wales
 * David Fuchs
 * Mailer diablo
 * PhilKnight
 * Jclemens
 * Coren


 * Information about amendment request
 * Indefinite blocking of Rodhullandemu
 * Unblock him as a regular editor, but he would no longer be an administrator he once was.

Statement by George Ho
Five years have passed since Rodhullandemu was blocked indefinitely. Once he was accused of violating his block by sockpuppet, but he was cleared because another person imitated Rod's name and almost made him the bad guy. I am definitely uninvolved party because, while I was looking at contribution stats of Yesterday (Beatles song), I stumbled upon this case. Looking at case evidence against him, he made definite mistakes as an administrator. Moreover, his abuse of position could not be denied. Nevertheless, he might have been a good contributor to articles, like this one. I am not proposing that he'd be an administrator. Instead, why not let him contribute again? Again, it has been five years. Let's give him a chance, shall we?

I could not contact most or all of who have not been active in Wikipedia for at least one year or so. Feel free to contact those if you wish.

EdChem: How is five years not enough? A statement should come from him? By the way, I contacted him via email, and I gave him a link to contact the ArbCom, who blocked him. Also, Ed, what if his email is inactive at the moment?

Shall we ignore all rules to unblock him regardless? I don't see how this rule improves Wikipedia in this case.

@Johnuniq: What about giving him conditions of being unblocked? George Ho (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Question from EdChem
Have you been in contact with Rodhullandemu, and does he want to appeal? If so, a statement from him is really needed. If not, ArbCom have demonstrated before that they won't hear an appeal without the appellant, and so this will be closed without action. EdChem (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no view on whether the ban should be lifted nor on whether five years is enough, as you put it. I also am not arguing that a statement should come from him, I am stating that ArbCom usually refuses to act on an appeal without a statement from the appellant. The power to change ArcbCom's mind / actions is given to no editor, except through persuasion. You are free to try to persuade them, but my view of your chances is not positive. Some reasons for wanting a statement from Rod are (1) it says that there is a point in the discussion, in that if an unblock was made, would he start editing again? (2) maybe he would prefer to appeal to ArbCom quietly by email, rather than inviting the peanut gallery to offer thoughts - indeed, maybe this is already in progress. (3) (not so much here), but if appeal frequency is limited, other editors launching appeals at inopportune times could be unhelpful, or even deliberate harassment. On an IAR unblock, I think an admin doing that risks getting criticised or worse. As a scientist, my prediction is: ArbCom-ban&block + IAR-unblock &rarr; ArbCom-reblock + DesysopMotion. EdChem (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno
I'd recommend closing this and having Rodhullandemu contact the committee via email if they wish to appeal. –xenotalk 12:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I saw the events unfold and they were very distressing. An arbitrator should preferably remove this request, or collapse it, and use email to determine why George Ho wants to re-expose settled wounds. If the editor concerned would like to be unblocked, they would know how to email Arbcom. I would support an unblock request from the editor as acknowledgment of the excellent work performed for the community, and to clear the record. However, some other issue should be picked if George Ho just wants to chew the fat. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 14 June 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.

Rodhullandemu: Clerk notes

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



Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Tryptofish at 20:07, 5 June 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
 * diff of notification of The Wordsmith
 * diff of notification of Laser brain
 * diff of notification of Coffee
 * diff of notification of SlimVirgin

Statement by Tryptofish
At an amendment request that I made earlier this year:, there was discussion of whether there might be a community RfC about some contentious GMO-related content. Subsequently, The Wordsmith and Laser brain began to work with members of the community, under authorization from the Discretionary Sanctions issued in the GMO case, to develop such an RfC. After Laser brain withdrew for reasons that have (if I understand correctly) been privately communicated to ArbCom, Coffee stepped in as his replacement. At the time that I write this, the RfC page can be found in draft form at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC.

Since January, editors who were parties to the GMO case have been lobbying SlimVirgin at her talk page, for her to intervene in the content dispute:. A few days ago, just as the RfC plans were being completed, SlimVirgin raised questions about whether The Wordsmith and Coffee really have the authority under DS to conduct an RfC in the manner planned. You can see these discussions at Administrators' noticeboard. It appears that the community is divided as to exactly what ArbCom did and did not authorize under the DS of the GMO case. Therefore, I want to ask you a direct question to clarify that point:


 * Is the RfC planned at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC an allowable option, under the Discretionary Sanctions that ArbCom issued in the GMO case?

I think the answer is "yes", but I hope that a clear reply from the Committee will allow the community to go forward with a definite understanding of whatever may actually be the case. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * About what David Tornheim said, I already tried to explain to him:, , but in any case I think the Arbs should speak for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is probably obvious, but the diffs of evidence presented by Petrarchan47 simply link to her own statements of opinion, and Jusdafax bases what he said on what David and Petra presented. Anyway, the accusers should notify the other editors who are being accused. And if the RfC goes down in flames, Boris' plan works for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me to clarify another point. Although I originally proposed a 3-year time period as was done with Jerusalem, consensus was against that, and what The Wordsmith is preparing has no such time period. Changes could be made anytime either by a new RfC, an AE consensus, or by permission from ArbCom. Just not ad hoc or by edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arbs: I'm noticing that many of you are commenting about the issue of how the community could eventually alter the outcome of the RfC, and are commenting about your own personal preferences. That's OK, and it's fine to discuss it. But the question that I asked isn't really about each of you backseat driving for the administrators who have taken on the thankless task of enforcing the DS that you issued – and indeed, you previously said quite clearly that ArbCom should not run the RfC. So – it would be very helpful if you could make it clear whether you feel that The Wordsmith's existing plan is, as I put it in my question to you, "an allowable option" under DS. If it's allowable, then ArbCom really ought to say to the skeptics in the community that it's allowable. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
Eurgh, I was hoping to avoid this. At the previous ARCA, Arbs seemed to think that the community holding an RfC to decide this issue was preferable to having Arbcom make a content decision. The decision to use DS was, I believe, my suggestion. It is certainly the most creative use of DS I've seen in 8 years or so, but seems to be allowed. Page sanctions are explicitly allowed; this covers the imposition of a restricted format on the RfC. It also covers imposing whatever the result is by sanction on the resulting page. Contrary to whatever others suggest, it can be overturned at any time with another RfC or, since it is imposed as an Arbcom Discretionary Sanction, through AE or Arbcom directly. Scientific consensus can change, but not quickly, and there is no deadline. Editor-sanctions give admins broad discretion to remove editors from pages they disrupt on (including the RfC, which now has an editnotice that it falls within ACDS) or to impose interaction bans. My hope, however, is that my role is purely symbolic and that I will be more of a mediator and facilitator.

Several times over the last few months there have been requests to open it, and each time other editors came and requested more time. I have been more than accommodating whenever asked, but it gets to the point where the RfC will become pointless through attrition. We have already had one admin bullied out. Unless any Arbitrator opines that these actions do not fall within the bounds of DS and the community's own authority, I plan on publishing it at 1400 EDT as planned. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note regarding "uneven" enforcement: It should be noted that I have a lot on my plate and thus don't see every comment (and there have been volumes and volumes of text produced on what I think is a rather boring topic), plus I have a very thick skin and don't necessarily notice personal attacks where others do. I have asked to ping me or drop a note on my talkpage if she sees something she thinks violates NPA (others are welcome to do the same). Given SlimVirgin's recent postings (and extensive history on Wikipedia), she is far more of an expert on personal attacks than I. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note that since no arbitrator has objected, I have initiated the RfC according to the schedule stated on Friday. And in response to, since it is being imposed as a DS it can also be overturned by the usual means. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Update The RFC has been open since yesterday afternoon, is getting input from a variety of editors outside the topic area, the sky has not fallen, and I haven't had to sanction anyone. I know it is very early to be counting chickens, but it looks like the process is a success so far. If this works, it might be useful to consider for other contentious areas. Perhaps someone (likely meaning me) should write an essay about the types of Discretionary Sanctions available and what sort of precedent there is, as well as how they work. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
I encourage ArbCom to clarify that this moderated RFC (accepting it as a "creative" use of DS) is allowable and its resulting consensus enforceable, to settle the content dispute in the lead that has led to many accompanying behavior problems. The original hope was that if one key contentious content dispute was laid to rest, some of the behavioral issues might go with it. I don't think anyone has clean hands, and maybe an Arb case needs to settle behavioral problems. But the RFC should go forward, if for no other reason than to get wider input and an enforceable consensus from more outside editors.

A lot of behavioral issues emerged while this RFC was being planned, and I encourage anyone making allegations on this page to provide diffs. Many of your summaries of events that transpired are inaccurate. I don't recall anyone ever telling you to "shut up" (I'll await your diff). You are correct that I warned you that I would apply DS if you suggested that any other editors have a COI without evidence here. My message is neutral and professional, so I object to your statement that you were "severely threatened with DS". I do recall assisting you in expressing your concerns about the RFC wording (here and here); in fact you even characterized my statements as being in support of your position on changing the RFC questions. So I find the following statement utterly dishonest: "I got zero assistance from the moderators, despite complaints from numerous editors that the RfC questions would create problems. Despite numerous pleas, the moderators made no effort to address the issue." -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker (uninvolved)
I commented the last time this came here (on the utility of RfC's) and at the AN but have no interest or history in the GMO article(s) or the prior GMO case. At the AN I linked to a principle of this committee, which should be helpful, so I will quote it here in full: "If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective."

In the most recent AN, a concern has again been raised that an RfC will lock in a consensus - in part sure, maybe (if it has some success), but really, it happens all the time, and if a new consensus in the future can be formed quickly or it takes a month, so what, there is no deadline on that, but what there is a helpful end to (deadline to) is putting things to bed for awhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim
A number of editors have misrepresented you, claiming the RfC is "mandated" by ArbCom :
 * : "this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case"   (also ).
 * In fact, it was Trytpofish who threatened another full ArbCom case if he didn't get the RfC on his terms: "Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2".


 * : "this ArbCom mandated RfC".
 * Tryptofish: "the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom."

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in the preparation of this 3rd RfC since inception, and spent hours creating an NPOV proposal for it. I participated in the AE where I was open to Mediation. I participated in good faith, assuming the RfC would be handled fairly.

I am shocked by how I was treated during the rule-making phase. It was not even-handed:


 * The discussion was well hidden here: For the first 18 days, only two editors knew of it besides the moderators.  Both happened to be advocates for restoring the Wiki-voice to state a "broad consensus" of scientists find GMOs safe in ~10 articles and hammer it down--for 3 years.  When I said that the rule-making discussion should not be one-sided and others should be notified  I received a frosty response from a moderator . I did the notification.


 * When I made comments similar to SlimVirgin's about the money at stake, and asked that closing admins make declarations of no COI with GMO, I was threatened with DS by both moderators . ,


 * When I asked that a new proposal with language clearly not supported by RS problems, I was told to shut up. here


 * When I objected to moving forward because all revisions of the rules were made exclusively by the proponents of the scientific consensus language, I was accused of filibustering.


 * When I tried to work with the other side, I got zero assistance from the moderators, despite complaints from numerous editors that the RfC questions would create problems. Despite pleas, the moderators made no effort to address the issue .  The language created by the proponents is still in place.  Laserbrain denies this.  But look at the edit history of the rules:  Tryptofish and King run the show.   King forced in Q1  and reverted all attempts to take it out, despite numerous objections to it. (added 02:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

Instead, the moderators gave the proponents everything they asked for, never threatened them for their name-calling and behavior. Something is seriously awry at the RfC.

made a similar observation here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

I agree with Justdafax and Petrachan47: Enough is enough. I have seen the disruption and wiki-lawyering by these same two editors in their obsession to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" in the ledes of 5-10 GMO articles.

Petrachan47 is absolutely correct about the sourcing issues. I have seen similar troubling claims about RS:

The number of cases and drama they have brought or caused at AE, ARCA, AN/I and attempts to TB editors in their mission to try to force this language and lock it down, despite the previous RfC that rejected it, is astounding and exhausting for all of us. The best way to avoid the drama and GMO-2 is give them both a 6 month hiatus.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (revised 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC), 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

NEW: This is the kind of harassment and intimidation that I constantly get from these two when I speak about NPOV content issues:. They keep begging admins to have DS applied to me. I was not even pinged. I will provide more diffs of this. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47
The community should be aware that this constant GMO drama could be considered distraction by Tryptofish for the fact that he, KingofAces43 and Aircorn went against the RfC findings and tried to argue for "scientific consensus" even after the community discovered this is an unsupported claim. That activity should be actionable to this day, considering the suite is under DS. I spoke to this: * * *


 * Here is Tryptofish reinserting language disallowed by the RfC: *

On the misuse of sources:

According to WP:MEDRS, Domingo and Krimsky, being recent review articles in peer-reviewed journals, are the best sources we have with regard to GMO safety. David elucidates on these sources here.


 * KingofAces43 called Domingo and Krimsky "fringe".*


 * KingofAces43 incorrectly used an article that spoke to six studies, and claimed that it debunked the entirety of the aforementioned reviews (which looked at over 26 individual studies)*
 * Tryptofish buried these same two sources in his RfC Proposal (#1) by using "but see also" so that it's almost impossible to find them.

These diffs show Tryptofish (and KingofAces43) should be topic-banned. I explain to Tryptofish here
 * these diffs show that you have suppressed the very best review articles we have on GMO safety to a "but see also" in the sources for your "GMOs are safe" proposal. Those articles say that there is lively debate in the scientific community about GMO safety, but this isn't mentioned in your proposal. So you are showing an inability to properly weigh and summarize GMO science. Further, there is a diff showing where you re-entered the term "scientific consensus" months after the RfC mandated a wording change, since this phrase does not have support in current literature. You were aware of that RfC, I have seen you refer to it many times, and you were well aware this suite is under DS.

In general, they fight anything that brings into question the safety of GMOs using bullying, walls of text, obsessive noticeboarding, and misusing sources.

Based on the behavior I have observed and illustrated above, I support JusDaFax' proposal: King and Trypto should be topic banned for being disruptive to the process of writing neutral, informative content.

Additional comment

Not only is "the other side" of the GMO safety issue being kept from WP's pages, but when I tried to simply add a note about the percentage of Americans who support GMO labeling, and mention of the USDA's new GMO labeling program, I was reverted and 'handled' on the talk page. To this day we don't tell our readers this and other basic information about the GMO issue. WP is loosing good editors due to the refusal to put an end to, or even acknowledge, this idiocy.**

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
Arbs, you know you're going to have to turn WP:ARBGMO2 blue eventually. May as well get it over with. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax
I strongly disagree with the above statement that GMO2 is needed. The solution is simple: topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces from the GMO articles and subpages under the existing discretionary sanctions.

David Tornheim and Petrarchan47 have made an excellent case just above that Trypto and King have misrepresented themselves repeatedly, abused process, and distorted sources. This is arguably bad faith editing. The diffs David and Petrar present are clear, and direct. Their case is strong, and I thank them both.

Slim Virgin aka SarahSV has also shown clearly what is going on at the current AN thread referenced above.

If further confirmation is needed, look at the edit histories of Trypto and King. Clearly these two editors see themselves as heroic defenders of the Wiki, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They are obsessive, and will do or say literally anything to get what they want.

Enough is enough.

Regardless of whether the RfC proceeds, in my view ArbCom should decide here and now to topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces and end their ongoing disruption. Im suggesting six months. Thanks.


 * Additional comment - David Tornheim's backing of my above-proposed GMO topic ban for Kingofaces and Tryptofish is a seriously telling endorsement, which adds considerable weight to my contention that those two editors need a six month vacation from the subject to stop the waste of editor time. David worked patiently for many weeks with these two, and few are more qualified to testify to their tendentious and abusive editing. I thank him sincerely for his protracted attempts to bring balance to the RfC in question and the overall GMO issue, and his just-posted specific support for the proposed GMO topic ban for King and Trypto, which as I see it is long overdue. I also thank Petrarchan47 for her specific support. Jus  da  fax   19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
I'm on the road for work with less internet access that I expected, so I won't likely have time to respond here further this week (though I'll say my part at the RfC on Monday). My understanding from the last request was that ArbCom didn't think they should intervene directly in moderating the RfC and leave it up to the community/DS. Once The Wordsmith and Laserbrain said they'd be willing to set up the RfC, arbs let that responsibility fall to those admins as that settled the request without a need for a vote. The request was closed because a solution was found. That far from implies Arbs disapproved of the RfC, especially when specific arb concerns about implementation (not simply having the RfC) were addressed. Regardless, the DS are meant to break the back of disputes in these topics without explicit ArbCom oversight on each action, and that's exactly what is being done with this RfC.

At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with an RfC that forces all editors to focus only on the content for once. That's especially when all parties had ample time to submit whatever proposed content they wanted. I could rail about various behavior issues I've had to deal with, but now isn't the time for that. That's for GMO-2 if it becomes warranted at a later date. There's a lot of absurd stuff there I've kept relatively quiet about for now even though it would likely result in boomerangs. That's because now is the time to focus on content by giving the RfC a chance under discretionary sanctions first to really sort out content to see how much it fixes.

We've got the potential for this RfC to halt the primary dispute to the point editors all sides will have to move on instead of calling for heads to roll as part of the content dispute. We might finally beat this poor horse to the point there isn't any point in editors continuing further battleground behavior. Continued distractions away from the RfC through admin boards won't help the topic right now. I for one am choosing to forgo that to focus on the RfC content, as that's what really matters here. I hope other involved editors do the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 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

 * In the March 2016 amendment request, the Arbitration Committee declined Tryptofish's request that the ArbCom hold a moderated RfC to decide on this wording. A number of us, including myself, agreed that an RfC would be a fine way to handle it, but that the ArbCom did not need to be the ones managing it. Myself, kelapstick, and DGG also agreed that we did not like the idea of mandating that a fixed time pass before the wording could be changed (the original proposal by Tryptofish said "ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years."). I agree with David Tornheim's correction above that ArbCom did not mandate an RfC be held, but I also don't see those comments as deliberate misrepresentations. I am, however, somewhat concerned about the visibility of this RfC during its drafting phase, as it does not appear to have been widely publicized. However, I see that David Tornheim posted to the GMO article talk page (as well as a few other pages such as Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, Talk:Genetically modified organism, etc.) to notify of this discussion on May 2. This was a good call, and I see that a month passed between those notifications and when Wordsmith protected the draft RfC talk page. I think that is probably sufficiently long for outside parties to have stated their opinions, though these parties should really have been notified from the getgo. Mandating that the result of this RfC can only be changed by another 30-day RfC is certainly unorthodox. I agree that there should be a high level of agreement to alter the wording, if the outcome of this RfC does result in consensus for a change. I also don't think that kind of agreement will come about in this topic area without a fairly strict discussion, so at the moment I am not opposed to this clause being included in the RfC. However, I'd be curious to hear my colleagues' opinions on the inclusion of this clause, and their opinions on how this jibes with current policy.  If he is willing, I would urge Laser brain to contact the ArbCom, and perhaps also the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team, regarding the harassment he has endured recently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Any RfC can by consensus mandate some form of moratorium, either in length of time or some form of consensus, as otherwise results could be ignored or tossed aside very quickly by people with enough time, motive and energy. So maybe mandating a 9-month moratorium could bring some stability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Recuse, for the record. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a creative use of discretionary sanctions, but, as far as I'm concerned, I find it entirely cromulent. I also have absolutely no problem with the fact that the results of the RfC will be binding for a specified term, as long as the community has a way to modify them before such term has expired, in the event consensus changes in the meantime and, again, as far as I'm concerned, another monthlong RfC is perfectly acceptable. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious to me that an RfC like this, with so much expected input and a panel of three judges (Simon Cowell is unavailable, I understand) to bless the result, would need an equally voluminous RfC to overturn it. If that's not obvious, then I'll put my wooden shoes on my head and walk out of the temple. In other words, I do not see a need to quantify or legislate a moratorium. On the other issue, whether we'll run this with DS on it, sure. I have no problem with that; it seems to me that that is the kind of thing DS is also supposed to do, with much of its language pertaining to discussion and disruption of discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to any extension of the use of Discretionary Sanctions, which I think are too often used in an unfair manner- I would rather try to avoid the use of DS. This is independent of any guess about the likely outcome.  DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the RfC taking place and agree with Drmies (and Salvio) that the use of Discretionary Sanctions is fine here. Ambivalent about the need for to quantify or to have a definite moratorium. Doug Weller  talk 14:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies and Salvio that this is fine. Requests for comment/Jerusalem, Requests for comment/Muhammad images, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx), WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, and Talk:Gdansk/Vote come to mind as "lock ins" in language via an RFC --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (July 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 2


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Remedy 2
 * Termination of remedy

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
In a case brought against me something over four and years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically WP:BOTPOL, WP:5P4 and WP:ARBRFUAT.

I note that in the intervening period I have complied with WP:BOTPOL, been civil and collegial with other editors, and been responsive to other editors concerns, as anyone active in the community will know.

In particular I have worked at WP:TEAHOUSE, welcomed new users, attempted to smooth ruffled feathers at WP:GGTF, mainly by focussing discussion on substantive issues, provided assistance to other editors both on and off-wiki (a list could be made available if desired). I have continued to work on other wikis with no issues.

I also continue to perform work high community trust, on protected templates, but more importantly on edit filters where, together with others (notably Dragons Flight) I have overhauled almost every filter to ensure that the whole system continues to work (it was failing) and additional filters can be implemented.

Moreover not only have I been policy compliant, collegial and responsive, I have every intention of continuing indefinitely to be so.

For these reasons in October 2015 I requested (with substantially the wording above) the then Arbitration Committee to terminate Remedy 2. The Committee agreed, partly as a response to significant community support, as a first step to reduce the scope of the remedy, removing restrictions from my user spaces and subpages of Wikipedia:Database reports.

Subsequently, in addition to my regular contributions as outlined above, and other endeavours to help make the way Wikipedia works more public, I have been able to add value in other ways.

I have been able to run User:Femto Bot (after the usual, though not strictly necessary for user-page-bot Bot Authorisation Request), to maintain the reports, by county, of UK geolocated articles with no image - and appropriate links to Geograph, a source of suitably licensed images.

I have also implemented the control panel I suggested in 2012 which allows any editor to turn off any bot task.

I have also been able to perform mundane administrative tasks such as checking out systemic naming descriptors, monitoring the migration of RAN drafts, creating lists of missing women scientists, women of Scotland and redlinked FRSs without fear of retribution.

Given the above which indicates the benefits to the project of the previous reduction, the length of time which has elapsed since the original case was brought, and the lack of any subsequent substantive issue, and the apparent support from the community, I would request the Committee to terminate remedy 2 as soon as convenient.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).


 * Please feel free to raise any issues, or just have a chat, here, on my talk page, by email (though please leave me a note on my talk page) or in person at Wikimania, where I look forward to discussing all metters Wikimedian with colleagues, including Arbitrators. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC).


 * Of course I would rather not have to re-auth the old tasks, but it is a sensible idea, which I cannot really fault. And many of those tasks were one-offs, so they present no problem.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC).


 * One of the BAG mentioned they have reviewed my old bot tasks, and of them all only couple of handfuls are relevant today. It is of course not guaranteed that I will have time to revive these tasks anyway. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

Note: I have already agreed with BAG to re-apply for any old tasks that still need running. So it is a matter of form only whether this clause is included. I thank those Arbitrators who have already !voted on these proposals, and look forward to a speedy resolution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Xaosflux
As an active member of the bot approvals group I am not opposed to vacating the prior remedy. I suggest that any closing motion include a final reminder to Rich Farmbrough that both the spirit and letter of the bot policy are important to the community. As far as bot tasks that were approved and since suspended prior to the original sanctions (e.g. Fepto Bot tasks 0-6 and any other tasks approved prior to the sanctions listed on other bot accounts), I recommend that the original approvals are explicitly rescinded, without prejudice for future (re)approval requests. — xaosflux  Talk 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, will seek consensus from others in WP:BAG. — xaosflux  Talk 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Magioladitis
As I BAG member, I am in favour of Rich being able to use semi-automated tools such as HotCat, Twinkle, etc. All old bot requests whether they have been approved or not, they should be considered as expired. This is something I would suggest to anyone who would like to resume a code written 4-5 years ago. Any bot request should go through the normal bot approval process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung
For a long time already these sanctions continue to be merely punitive rather than preventative. That is contrary to the spirit (and policy) of Wikipedia. RF is a highly intelligent and mature individual and I see no point in continuing to deprive him of the use of any scripts. After all that has been said and done, including the appalling treatment he received on his bid for re-adminship, I don't perceive any risk whatsoever in lifting the last remaining restrictions and it's time now to fully restore his dignity. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I'm not completely comfortable at the moment with a total removal of sanctions. However I am in favour of a near total relaxation. Specifically I would allow everything except unsupervised edits to content namespaces.

The reason for this is that I don't have confidence that he understands why the community viewed the mistakes as seriously add they did/do. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 19:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @Amanda - that will lead to much confusion about whether the community sanctions expire in sixth months with this probation or only when successfully appealed. It also implicitly allows high speed bot and bot-like editing from a non-bot account. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 10:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by slakr
As a BAGer, I have no problem with rescinding his blanket prohibition against using all automation tools, as supervised script use can certainly make one more productive and generally less frustrated by many of the shortcomings of the editing experience. That said, I still feel it prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to suspected unsupervised edits that haven't been approved, especially if done in high volumes or at high rates, as alludes to. For example, if, while a large number of clearly similar edits are being made, an editor pings his talk page with a concern related to them&mdash;especially if it's an objection&mdash;then he should be expected to immediately stop and respond, thereby demonstrating he's likely supervising his edits.

As far as old bot approvals go, I wholeheartedly agree with and ; all the old bots should be assumed to be unapproved (perhaps something along the lines of any of those approved prior to whenever the latest AE action was?). No prejudice against re-approval. -- slakr \ talk / 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by L235
Weighing in purely as a matter of principle, the proposed probation terms don't look bad to me. They somewhat resemble probation terms imposed years ago, which commonly stated (something like) "so-and-so may be blocked if, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, so-and-so violates any [principle of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia policy, or whatnot]" or "so-and-so may be banned from any page so-and-so disrupts". The probation usually doesn't prohibit anything that's not already prohibited, it simply provides that administrators have greater available remedies available for breaches of the admonition. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
The case was quite a while ago, and no problems I know off have occurred during the last two years (perhaps longer, I haven't checked; the most recent ones I remeber were with the buggy "redirect creator", but I can't recall the date of those). I don't really see what could change between this appeal and a next one: either Rich Farmbrough has regained enough community (or ArbCom) confidence to give him a new chance at automated editing, and then now is as good a time as any, or else he will never regain that confidence, and then it is rather cruel to let him appeal every six months or so, and the committee should just send a "never" message. I would support a lifting of this restriction, with the need to get renewed bot approval for all tasks he wants to restart (or any new tasks obviously). The advantage of probation seems to be that, should serious problems happen in the probation period, we can go to Arb enforcement instead of ANI or a new ArbCom case? Fram (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing)
I am in favour of removing all these restrictions, with the caveat that all bot tasks be deemed expired, and thus requiring re-approval. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7
I don't have much to add to what has been said above. The sanctions on Rich were ridiculously broad, and it is to his credit that he has complied with them. Time for the sanctions to be removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Omni Flames
The sanctions in question were applied over four years ago now. At the time, yes, that was probably necessary to prevent further disruption to the project. However, since that arbitration case, Rich has always fully complied with the sanctions laid upon him, and the remedy has long since been more of a punishment than a preventative measure. I would be fully supportive of a complete removal of these sanctions, assuming that the previous bot approvals are rescinded (as they're most likely outdated or done by other bots now).  Omni Flames ( talk ) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
While reading through this request (and being familiar with previous controversy over the sanctions on Rich), I was working out how to express my opinion, and then I saw that Kudpung has expressed my thoughts perfectly (I wish I knew how he did that). So please consider my recommendation to be exactly the same as his, for exactly the same reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
He's clearly gotten it, and changed. Four+ years is long enough. We should expire ancient sanctions, with much less drama, far more often when it's clear that the editor is question is not some nut-job or patently incompetent. Rich is capable, collaborative, and productive. ArbCom should remove the tattoo it placed on his forehead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers
Some parts of the restrictions, such as the ban on use of hotcat, always looked punitive rather than precautionary. Other restrictions may have been worthwhile in the past but are now unneeded. Past Arbcoms have made some bad decisions re Rich, I hope this Arbcom will do better.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:03, 6 July 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.

Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes

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


 * ✅. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Recuse to give a statement. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Given the apparent success of last year's partial lifting of these sanctions and the lack of any ongoing conflict in this area, I'm inclined to end the remaining sanctions as Rich requests.  please invite the active members of the Bot Approvals Group to comment here if they have any thoughts on this matter. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kirill on this one. Thanks for your thoughts. Not to get all WP:BURO, but I assume you mean BAG would rescind the prior approvals? In the absence of sanctions, bot approvals sound more like your wheelhouse than ours ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for writing this up. But how are the probation terms different from what anyone else running a bot is expected to do? After the probation is over, he can use edit summaries of "because reasons"? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't object to probation, I guess, but I think it would be much simpler to just get rid of the restrictions rather than fussing with the details of what "probation" means. Providing a hair trigger for the strictest admin who happens to notice a minor problem is a bug, not a feature. I'd rather just say something like "Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case is rescinded. Rich is expected to follow the bot policy for all automated tasks and must consult with BAG regarding tasks for which approval was previously suspended. The applicable community sanctions remain in force." Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. With the caveat suggested above that a new bot approval be required for previously approved tasks; any issues with that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very cautious about this -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So there are the community sanctions that still are not rescinded either. We also reviewed the sanctions about 6 months ago. I'm thinking that probation would be a best next step, with an auto-expiry clause. Something along the lines of:

It's only a rough draft I made in about 20 minutes, so feel free to edit for grammar/wording and propose change on issues with it. I feel like it strikes a balence of ensuring a smooth transition and keeps our hands out of areas that aren't ours. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sent my thoughts through the car wash. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Kirill and OR. If there is questionable behaviour, I think we will be pinged soon enough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Slakr seems to have raised some valid points. If the probation is no more than what we expect normally, it almost sounds as though after 6 months he can deviate from those expectations. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is that normally if someone violated the expectations, we would consider sanctioning them, depending on the severity etc.. ; on probation, a violation would unquestionably immediately cause the previous sanction to be reimposed.  DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support relaxing restrictions per Kirill and Cas. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I support relaxing the restrictions, given the success of the previous changes to the remedies. I would appreciate more input on how the larger community feels about relaxing restrictions to allow fully-automated tasks. I am at least willing to relax restrictions regarding supervised edits; I am tentatively willing to allow fully-automated changes, and I do believe that Rich knows that these can be revoked very quickly and easily if he does not comply with enwiki best practices, and that such a revocation will affect his ability to perform such tasks in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I would support Amanda's proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mind providing some more comment on your votes? I can see you've said above "I am very cautious about this," and then voted to oppose both motions without explanation. I'd be curious to know in more detail why you're opposing these motions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would much rather see a longer tail of these sanctions with a first step for allowing a bot or three and seeing what happens. I am just very cautious about the problems that lead up to the case resuming. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for explaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: Motion (probation)

 * Support
 * Second choice, in the better-than-nothing sense. As I said above, I don't think we need to fuss around with defining "probation" or invite hair-trigger reactions to minor problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second choice. This is a completely viable option, but I think that Rich has shown enough willingness to work with us and with the community that we can remove the sanction entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm split equally. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second choice. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * second choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second choice, but just. Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second choice .  DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Rich Farmbrough: Motion (sanctions rescinded)

 * Support
 * First choice. Though I'm not sure about the second paragraph - we don't need to tell BAG they can handle the existing task approvals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First choice. I am optimistic that this will turn out well; if not, sanctions can be reapplied. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First choice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm split equally. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First choice. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, with the understanding that if it unfortunately doesn't turn out as hoped he's liable to be sanctioned again. Doug Weller  talk 15:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First choice, with the same understand as Doug, just above.  DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * supported this motion very enthusiastically!!!! ;) Fixed by Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain