Revision as of 00:55, 3 May 2016

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by Tryptofish at 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Tryptofish

An unresolved locus of dispute remaining after the case concerns how Misplaced Pages 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)

@Gamaliel: 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 (, , , ), "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)

@Gamaliel: 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)

@The Wordsmith: (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)

@Laser brain: 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)

• @David Tornheim: 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.
• @Drmies: 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide#Assigned cases. 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.
• @The Wordsmith: @Laser brain: 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)

@The Wordsmith: 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)

@Kelapstick: 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#Third Proposal (a non-SYNTH, sourced, one-liner). 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 The Wordsmith for taking the lead in it, and also Laser brain for helping. For anyone interested, please see User talk:The Wordsmith#GMO RfC 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)

1. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center. March 2014.
2. United Nations Environment Programme, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Report: Report. "Agriculture Crossroads",English version, 2009.
3. Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

Comment by Tryptofish

I find this comment by Tryptofish 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 Sunrise'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. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

List of articles where the "scientific consensus" or "scientific agreement" statement is made:

• 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)

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). AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• @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#Potential RFC) AIRcorn (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. AIRcorn (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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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. petrarchan47คุก 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 Misplaced Pages 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.* - Tsavage

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 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) No longer participating in AE.Spartaz 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)

@Tryptofish: 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

@Gamaliel: 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 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish::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 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish::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. @Alanscottwalker:: 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 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: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 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  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)

• @Tryptofish: 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)

• @Tryptofish: 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)

• @MastCell, EdJohnston, SlimVirgin, Spartaz, The Wordsmith, Bishonen, and Laser brain: 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 | 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)
  • Tryptofish, 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 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tryptofish:, 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 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)

Clarification request: Oversight blocks

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=542990142#Oversight-related_blocks

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

• NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by NE Ent

The motion clarifies an admin should not reverse a block designated oversight without consulting with an oversighter, but the Misplaced Pages policy says to contact the committee mailing list, not the oversighter mailing list. team Please clarify the proper contact.

Gorilla Warfare, your point is well taken, but perhaps reflects a poor assumption / phrasing on my part rather than the essence of the question; by design "Oversight" is easy to contact, as indicated by the prominent

The fastest way to request oversight is to email the oversight team.

on the Oversight page; the question is does the committee want be involved with Oversight block discussions from the get go, or should the first step be contacting the oversight functionaries team? NE Ent 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There's actually an issue with the wording of that 2010 Gorilla Warfare linked, the phrasing the "block has been made in error" falsely implies unblocking means the intial block was an error -- to the contrary, unblocking simply means a block is no longer necessary to protect the encyclopedia, not that the initial block was incorrect. My $0.0002 is that Courcelle's position is preferable, but either solution is workable, as long it is clear what the policy is. NE Ent 21:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, the problem is that, per the 2010 arbcom motion , arbcom consent is not required to unblock (only input from an oversighter); so when an oversighter posts "appeals must be directed to arbcom" it looks like a power-grab. NE Ent 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Committee: this is getting surreal; it's perfectly fine to either require another oversighter input or require arbcom consent; the problem is this absurb status quo, where a blocking oversighter admin posts a notice like:

You have been blocked for abuse of editing privileges regarding information which has been removed from Misplaced Pages's public records. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

where "this announcement" actually says Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; NE Ent 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Observation: It is written nowhere arbcom shall only use existing resources to resolve issues; if the best answer is a oversighters only, non-archived or time limited archive, why not simply decide what ya want and have a such a list created? NE Ent 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Snowolf

Please take my $0.02 for what they're worth as I have not been that active as an Oversighter lately. I think that Oversight block are fairly rare and as such the even rarer occurrence of an appeal can safely be handled by the Arbitration Committee, whose members can easily reach out to the Oversight team for input if appropriate. Snowolf 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re oversight block appeals)

As a non-arbitrator oversighter and former arbitrator, I think the best way forward is as Courcelles suggests. The Committee doesn't need the workload of every appeal, and the functionaries-l list is well set-up and generally sufficiently responsive to be able to handle these requests in the first instance.

As an aside, the wording quoted by Gorilla Warfare below still refers to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, which was dissolved last year. Changing it is not urgent, as it just refers to referring something to BASC if that is the most appropriate action (it simply will never be such), but it is something to bear in mind for when it does get revised. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: it is entirely possible to discuss non-public information without repeating or quoting any non-public information. Indeed in my experience of functionaries-l this is exactly what happens, oversighters will say that e.g. user:example was sexually harassing user:example2 at $page, or ask for opinions regarding a specific OTRS ticket. In the same way checkusers give links to the CU wiki. If you have access to the non-public information, you can go and look at it for yourself if you need to. If you don't have the necessary access then you can't see it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I think it would be worth including language that these blocks are still appealable and queryable to the blocking administrator (as anyone making a CU or OS block will be a holder of the relevant permission). Bringing discussion to the wider body of functionaries should be done as the step after that if either party feels a wider review is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC) resigning after fixing capitalisation of username to generate a ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: in practice I have never encountered any actual issues with not being able to include oversightable information in functionaries-l discussion, and moving to oversight-l is always an option if necessary. I also strongly oppose directing appeals to a non-archiving list in the first instance, and (less strongly) oppose changing the scope of oversight-l to allow it to be archived as we would then require a third list on which oversightable material may be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NativeForeigner

There are relatively few OS blocks, and most are related to arbcom cases. My intuition is that OS blocks related to arbcom cases or explicitly designated as arbcom only should be reviewed by Arbcom. All other OS blocks should be reviewable by functionaries or OS-l, although which of those (func vs OS vs both) is chosen doesn't seem to be of huge importance to me. NativeForeigner 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell

Oversight blocks are rare, especially compared to checkuser blocks (though like buses, their appeals all seem to be coming at once lately), so it's unsurprising and not necessarily a bad thing that we don't have a formal procedure for their appeals. My own opinion is that there's nothing wrong with the current system, and that the functionaries' list is a good venue for appeals. All oversighters and all arbitrators are subscribed to it and it accepts incoming mail from the blocked editor, unlike oversight-l, and input from our checkuser colleagues and the various ex-arbs on functionaries-en can be useful. Of the handful of oversight blocks I've made, most if not all would have bee made by any oversighter—I just happened to be the first oversighter to come across the issue—so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be appealing to me individually.

@Callanecc and Doug Weller: Everyone on the functionaries' list has been through the same vetting and satisfied the same criteria for access to non-public information (with the exception of a handful of WMF staff, who have been through the WMF's processes). The differences in user rights are largely due to different interests and different levels of technical skill, not checkusers or oversighters being untrustworthy to handle certain things. My understanding is that sensitive information (like checkuser data or suppressed revisions) is not supposed to be posted to functionaries-en because that list is archived, meaning that the data would be retained for longer than it should be (neither oversight-l nor checkuser-l are archived, whereas any subscriber to functionaries-en can read every email sent to the list, back to the day of its creation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Avraham

For what it is worth, I agree that there are few OS-specific blocks, and that func-en is an appropriate place to discuss it. Everyone on that list is OS/CU eligible and has been vetted for private information. Oft times the institutional memory contained by members of that list is very helpful when dealing with these issues, as human behavior tends to repeat itself and the more seasoned members may have valuable insight. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

Thanks to NE Ent for opening this ARCA request. Hopefully the matter will get clarified somewhat. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A further comment. I don't really see why it should be an ArbCom block versus an oversight block. If it is an urgent case, there can be a temporary block put by oversight, but a proper ArbCom case should be opened if it is to be an ArbCom block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: See this for background for this ARCA request. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

I was a member of the Arbitration Committee that first approved the concept of an oversighter block. At the time, I believed that it should be a rarely-used but potentially useful tool for addressing very specific problems, i.e., applied only to editors who had repeatedly posted information that easily qualified for oversight, after they had been explicitly warned by an oversighter not to repost. Unfortunately, we on Arbcom didn't go as far as we should have at the time and did not establish the framework for applying such blocks, leaving it to "best judgment". Most of the time, oversighters are probably correct in their assessments, but without even a structure to review these blocks (starting with an email to the oversight or functionaries list announcing that one has been made), it is very difficult to honestly say that all of the oversight blocks are indeed appropriate. I have been quite concerned about the nature and quality of some of the oversight blocks applied; in some cases, a block was probably appropriate but an oversighter block not required (that's the original reason for developing the ability to turn off talk page access of blocked users), and in other cases I'm not even sure a block was called for. I'm definitely concerned that they're over-utilized.

I would like to see *all* oversighter blocks announced to the oversight list (or alternately the functionary list) at the time they are applied, and for *all* oversighter blocks to be reviewed by the appropriate group. The principle on which suppression is utilized is that it is better to suppress and then step things down on review than it is to not suppress and leave potentially problematic posts in full public view; however, all suppression decisions are subject to oversight team review. I don't see why an oversighter block should be treated any differently. I would very much prefer that the oversight mailing list continue to be utilized as a non-archiving list for oversighter discussions, and that we not reinstate community access to the list; the decision to do this was to protect the privacy of the information that is being suppressed. Expanding the function of the list would require that we turn archiving back on, since it would be important to have a "record" of the request; since the functionary list remains an archived list (and in turn doesn't permit revelation of suppressed material or CU results), that would be the best place to send any requests for oversighter block review (or suppression review, for that matter).

Statement by JzG

I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the problem here. ArbCom looks to be the most appropriate body to provide independent review and appeal for an oversight block, what problem are we trying to fix? Guy (Help!) 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Well, what I see there is a reference (stated in rather hyperbolic terms) to a case that got handled pretty promptly and via an obviously defensible route. I don't think ArbCom necessarily have to codify this. That doesn't stop them doing so I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil

I think it is important that this is clarified so as to eliminate any confusion and establish a clear escalation hierarchy for appeals. As a non-Arb oversighter, my preference would be for it to go to functionaries-l first (if it is possible for this to occur), not for an official "review by the functionaries", but simply so that admins who happen to be oversighters can have a look, as per the usual procedure for all unblocks. If that's unsuccessful, then and only then should it be referred to ArbCom. Lankiveil 11:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754

@Callanecc: Is WMF okay with a list like oversight-l being archived? During the setup of mail:wikidata-oversight we were told that such a list should not be archived, so that WMF could not hand information over if it was requested to under a court order. Though OTRS retains the information, so I'm not sure how useful that is, unlike checkuser-l. --Rschen7754 06:33, 19 April 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.

Oversight blocks: Clerk notes

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

Oversight blocks: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I wonder if this was codified this way because there is not a way for non-oversighters to email the entire oversight team. People can submit oversight tickets, which are handled by individual oversighters on OTRS, but the oversight-l mailing list does not accept external mails. Although oversight blocks can be overturned with the consent of a single oversighter, they tend to be issues where feedback from multiple oversighters is valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That contact link would more accurately be labeled as "contact a member of the oversight team"—once an individual oversighter sees a ticket, they generally handle it and no other oversighter winds up seeing it. The OTRS interface really isn't conducive to group discussion. I realize this probably sounds nitpicky, but as I said above, I feel these types of unblock requests are best handled by a group of people and not a single person. Though I think the oversight team would be a fine group to handle these discussions, it is difficult for an outside party to contact the entire group. I think the potential ways of handling oversight-block appeals are as follows (in no order of preference):
    1. Direct appeals to ArbCom
    2. Direct appeals to the oversight team by instructing blocked users to send an email to the standard oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), with the expectation that any oversighter seeing such a request will begin a discussion on the internal oversight-l mailing list to reach a group decision
    3. Direct appeals to the oversight team, opening up the oversight-l email list to outside senders
    4. Direct appeals to the oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), where any appeal will be handled by an individual oversighter
    5. Direct appeals to the oversight team via the functionaries-en email list (whose members include all current arbitrators, some former arbitrators, users with CheckUser permission, and users with Oversight permission on the English Misplaced Pages)
  • Before making any decisions, I'd like to get input on this from any non-ArbCom oversighters who have an opinion one way or another. I'll send an email to the oversight list so they're aware of the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • As a point of clarification, there are two oversight email addresses. oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org (or Special:EmailUser/Oversight) is an OTRS queue, where emails (usually suppression requests) open tickets that are handled by individual oversighters. oversight-llists.wikimedia.org is a standard mailman mailing list for internal discussion among oversighters; emails from non-oversighters are automatically rejected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I notice that the initial decision regarding checkuser blocks directs all checkuserblock appeals to ArbCom: Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted. Our motion on oversight blocks was not as clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @NE Ent: Agreed with your point about the "block made in error" wording, though I'm not sure it's something we need to formally reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @NE Ent: Blocks with the instructions "appeal only to ArbCom" are already within policy as written, though, in that same 2010 statement: The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified. In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block. Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the arbitration committee mailing list before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Would it satisfy you to add "and this statement" to the OversightBlock template, to clarify that we recognize sometimes issues should go only to the ArbCom? Regardless of whether we decide to clarify the language such that the appeals can go to oversighters (be it the team or individuals), I don't see taking away the ability for blocking admins/functionaries to limit appeals to ArbCom when there are circumstances such as those described in the 2010 statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you to all the oversighters/functionaries who've weighed in. It seems like directing appeals first to the functionaries-en list is the preferred way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've said this before, but I think the first line of appeal for CU/OS blocks should be via email to the functionaries-en list, so there is a second line of appeal to the committee itself. Courcelles (talk)
• Open to hearing more comments, but on first look I don't see a problem with the effective status quo that appeals can either be directed to oversighters or to arbcom. (I did recently correct an error in the {{OversightBlock}} template that made the wording inconsistent, but directing appeals to arbcom has always been an available option.) I do agree with GW that the "appeal to oversighters" option should be refined so that the appeal is handled by the group rather than a single individual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To recap: In 2010, the committee passed a motion formally establishing the concept of "checkuser blocks", including some guidance on when to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2013, this was extended to include "oversight blocks". Immediately thereafter, the {{OversightBlock}} template was created for this purpose, which has from the first edit provided an option to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2015, BASC was disbanded with the provision that arbcom would continue to hear appeals of checkuser and oversight blocks. At least 12 currently active blocks, some going back to 2014, have the "appeal directly to arbcom" version of the {{OversightBlock}} template in the most recent version of the user's talk page. The idea that it is a new "power grab" to direct OS blocks to arbcom is not supported by the evidence. No objections to adding a link to the 2010 motion to the template, and as long as we're here we might as well sort out how to appeal to "oversighters" collectively as opposed to individually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Callanecc on this; it doesn't make sense to direct appeals to a place where their context can't be discussed openly. The more this goes on, the less convinced I am that a separate Official Process is needed for this relatively rare category of appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• My preference is that appeals of OS blocks should go to the OS who placed the block, the Oversight team (probably by opening up OS-l to external mail) or to ArbCom. The issue with having appeals directed to functionaries-en is that CU data can't be directly discussed as there are non-CUs on the list, likewise suppressed information can't be discussed there as there are non-OSers on the list. It's also worth noting that CUs or OSers (as can all admins) can direct that individual blocks only be appealed to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell, Guerillero, and Courcelles: The access to nonpublic information policy states that information (ie suppressed information and CU data) can only be disclosed to "other community members with the same access rights, or who otherwise are permitted to access the same information, ...". I'd want positive confirmation from the WMF that they consider users who formerly had access to be tools to be "permitted to access the same information" before encouraging it to be discussed on functionaries-l (I definitely don't feel it would meet that requirement). This is especially the case given that the policy also requires that, "When a community member's access to a certain tool is revoked, for any reason, that member must destroy all nonpublic information that they have as a result of that tool", as that seems to indicate that if you can't access the information yourself you shouldn't have access to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I agree it's possible, but if it were my appeal being considered I'd like the people discussing to be able to talk about it directly rather than stepping around what I actually said. For example, there could be a situation (with an OS block) where the people discussing it would need to say something like "I took User:Example's comment (tenth word to twenty second word) to mean blah not blah as you suggested" or if, for example, User:Example posted a link and brief synopsis of the linked webpage (such as a blog which outs another editor) the people discussing it couldn't link to the blog, might run into problems quoting from the blog and couldn't refer to or link to other pages on the blog (content of suppressed edit). That makes handling an appeal very difficult. We'd also need to consider who would have a 'vote' in appeals (should users without OS access be able to vote or comment even though they can't know the full story?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Callanecc is correct in saying that appeals to the Functionaries mailing list would not be appropriate. I'd prefer the first appeal to be to the blocking Admin. I also would like to hear from more Oversighters before supporting opening up that list. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with courcelles and disagree with Callan. Functionaries-l is the perfect place for appeals --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If indeed such information can be handled there, it may be. I've posted to the list about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• The simplest procedure is for requests to go first to the functionaries list, either directly or via a n individual functionary. As suggested, with the provision that it can be specified in a block that appeals go directly to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: Given that oversighted information is stored indefinitely by the software why would there need to be a list which doesn't archive? Given the amount of discussion at OS-l which includes suppressed information as well as the suppressed information included in appeals at ArbCom-l I'd say it's fairly regular to refer to it and quote it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Rschen7754: I can't imagine why given that OTRS records indefinitely, and suppressed edits are available onwiki (by oversighters) indefinitely. But it's worth us checking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the functionaries team via email to be decided by the English Misplaced Pages oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. As proposer. We had some discussion of sending appeals first to the oversight team, with the Committee as the second course of appeal, but most people preferred an either/or option. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Everyone on the funct-en list should have signed the NDA by now, so it could be functionally used for all discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   @Courcelles: Even if they have signed it, you still can't reveal suppressed information to anyone apart from oversighters and you can't reveal CU information to anyone apart from checkusers. Therefore, you still can't discuss suppressed information on functionaries-en. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my comments above about the difficultly in hearing and deciding on appeals when the people deciding can't discuss openly all of the information. I'd absolutely support if appeals were to be sent to OS-l instead of functionaries-en. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
2. I agree with Callanecc. I support almost all of this, but can't vote for it while there's an open possibility of appeals landing in a place where they can't be fully discussed. I think the destination should be either oversight-l or a new archived list specifically for appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
4. @GorillaWarfare: Like Callanecc and OR, I would support this if it was OS-l. You may wish to consider that wording. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Yes, what Callanecc says. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Piling on. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
7. As above. kelapstick 23:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Misplaced Pages oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Put your money where your mouth is and all that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Thank you Callannecc. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Keilana (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. If we're going to open OS-L like this, might as well shut down the OTRS queue and just handle requests there, too. (I truly hate OTRS for requesting oversight. Does nothing but add an unnecessary step to the workflow, especially when working on a mobile/tablet.) Courcelles (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   The benefit of OTRS is that is does require someone to reveal their email address, and to hence single one member of the team out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

5. Assuming that the list is archived. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Agree that the list should be archived. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
7. the list must be archived. (second choice) --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
8. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
9. With archiving, this could work, although there is no process in place for how they would be handled when requested. --kelapstick 23:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

@Callanecc: Is the intention here that archiving would be turned on for OS-l? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be best that archiving be turned on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Looking into it. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Checkuser block appeals

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an checkuser as checkuser blocks should be sent to the functionaries team via email to be decided by the English Misplaced Pages checkusers, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking checkuser as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. I think it's worth keeping the two practices in sync. Proposing this now to avoid having to have a follow-up statement (as we did in 2013) to clarify and sync them up again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Per above. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Thinking about this some more, checkuser blocks are much more common and the appeals are usually less complex than for Oversight blocks. Currently CU blocks can be appealed to any other CU(s), in consultation with the blocking CU, or to ArbCom. Making them all go through functionaries-en is going to complicate this and, given that IPs/locations/UAs can't be discussed, get complicated. Plus consider how many appeals are dealt with quickly in unblock requests, or through normal talk page discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
2. As above, I can't support the possibility of sending appeals to a place where they can't be discussed in full. I do think the two processes should be synchronized and there should be a venue for directing appeals to CUs as a group, though that doesn't preclude directly contacting the blocking CU. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
4. There is already sufficient practice in place to deal with Checkuserblocks without us muddying it more. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. As above; per Callanecc, basically. There's something to be said for keeping processes in sync, but the two processes start in different enough places. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Per Callanecc & Drmies. Keilana (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
8. And me, per Callanecc and Drmies. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
9. Per Amanda, despite my preference for consistency. --kelapstick 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Amendment request: Doncram

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

Case or decision affected

Doncram arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation (12 March 2013)
2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Article creation restriction (12 March 2013)
3. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Sanctions (25 September 2013)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation (12 March 2013)

• Request release from probation

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Article creation restriction (12 March 2013)

• Request removal of restriction on creation of new articles

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Sanctions (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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Stub content debate remanded to community, 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 Misplaced Pages: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. --doncram 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. --doncram 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 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 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To reply to the request from Callanecc, 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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#source denial?. 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).

• @Kirill Lokshin: Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · 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. @ArbCom Clerks: Please invite Seraphimblade 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 Doncram to make sure you see this, since this request has been sitting for a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 25 April 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 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Doncram: Motion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:

• Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded.
• Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded
• The topic ban imposed by Seraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
• The following remedy is added to the case: Doncram (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

Support

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: Interaction ban

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 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 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)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Nableezy at 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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#500/30 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.

@Kirill Lokshin: 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wikiwillkane. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

• ARBCOM authorized the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 28 April 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

• Nableezy, can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages requests