< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:35, 7 May 2016 editMiniapolis (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators71,884 edits →Clarification request: Interaction ban: Rmv per request on clerks-l← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:41, 7 May 2016 edit undoMiniapolis (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators71,884 edits →Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms: Archived closed amendment request to WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms Next edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	]		]
	]		]

	== Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms ==
	'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

	;Case or decision affected
	:{{RFARlinks\|Genetically modified organisms}}

	; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
	*{{userlinks\|Tryptofish}} (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 ] says: {{tq\|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 ] by establishing by motion (, ) a community RfC (]) 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 ]. 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''' (]). 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. --] (]) 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 ]: (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. --] (]) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

	:{{Ping\|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: ]. 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. --] (]) 19:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	::{{Ping\|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 ] and ]. 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. --] (]) 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 ], opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{Ping\|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 ] 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. --] (]) 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? --] (]) 22:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	::::::{{Ping\|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. --] (]) 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.
	#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.
	#No one is asking ArbCom to decide about content. Whatever the format of the RfC, it will be the community that decides content.
	#No one is asking ArbCom to create a new precedent. ArbCom already ordered an RfC about ]. The sky did not fall.
	#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.
	#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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

	*{{Ping\|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.
	*{{Ping\|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 ]. 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 ]. 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.
	*{{Ping\|The Wordsmith}} {{Ping\|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? --] (]) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

	::{{Ping\|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. --] (]) 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|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. --] (]) 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: ]. 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. --] (]) 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 {{U\|The Wordsmith}} for taking the lead in it, and also {{U\|Laser brain}} for helping. For anyone interested, please see ] and ]. 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, --] (]) 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.

	<b>I am strongly opposed to making the content of the RfC fixed for three years.</b> GMO's are fairly recent and regulation of them is still developing and constantly changing, varying widely by country.<ref name=lawlibrary>{{cite journal\|title=Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms\|journal=The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center\|date=March 2014\|url=http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/}}</ref> 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. <ref name=IAASTD>United Nations Environment Programme, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Report: ,, 2009.</ref>, . .
	A major review article 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."
	<ref>{{cite journal \|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003 \|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011). \|year=2011 \|last1=Domingo \|first1=José L. \|last2=Giné Bordonaba \|first2=Jordi \|journal=Environment International \|volume=37 \|issue=4 \|pages=734–42 \|pmid=21296423\|url=http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf}}</ref> 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. --] (]) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

	{{reflist}}

	<b>Comment by Tryptofish</b>
	:I find by {{u\|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."
	:<u>Comment (1) is disingenuous.</u> After , the closer found no consensus for the old language and a new consensus was established (8/26/2015) after 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 ) I explained the situation in more detail . 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.
	:<u>Comment (2) seems like a kind of Wiki-extortion.</u> --] (]) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

	<b>Mediation</b>: Mediation might be an option. I would like to see {{u\|Sunrise}}'s example that meditation broke down. --] (]) 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. ] ] 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

	List of articles where the "scientific consensus" or "scientific agreement" statement is made:
	*] (lead and health section)
	*] (lead and controversy section)
	*] (lead and health and safety section)
	*] (controversy section)
	*] (controversy section)
	*] (background section)
	*] (mission section)
	*] (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 ]). ] ] 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 ]) ] ] 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 ] 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. ] ] 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 ]. These ] actions trying to further a fringe point of view to this degree technically should be sanctioned as ArbCom has ] 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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 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. ] (]) 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. /

	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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 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 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 about it, he launched, 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. - {{u\|Tsavage}}

	=== Statement by Spartaz ===
	<s>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. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)</s> No longer participating in AE.] <sup>'']''</sup> 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 ]) to include as a remedy, Wikipedians holding an RfC: eg.,. 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. ] (]) 11:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

	:Wordsmith: the Commission should probably just consider merging the lighter weight process as an alternative for occasional use. ] (]) 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. ] ] 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|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. --] ] 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. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

	===Statement by The Wordsmith===
	{{reply to\|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.<span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|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 ]. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|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. {{ping\|Alanscottwalker}}: You are correct, MedCab was more flexible and more suited to this sort of issue than MedCom, and ]. 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. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|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. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 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 ] 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 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 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 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. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 01:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

	:@], 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. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 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.
	<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

	=== 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. ] <small>(])</small> 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	:*{{ping\|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. ] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	::*{{ping\|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. ] <small>(])</small> 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

	* {{reply to\|MastCell\|EdJohnston\|SlimVirgin\|Spartaz\|The Wordsmith\|Bishonen\|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. ] <small>(])</small> 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Recuse''' from requests arising from the GMO case, as usual. ] (]) 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. --] \| ] 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. ] (]) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
	**{{U\|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.<p>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. ] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
	**{{ping\|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. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 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) ''']''' (]) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

	== Amendment request: Doncram ==		== Amendment request: Doncram ==

Revision as of 12:41, 7 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!)

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.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

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:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Shortcut

WP:ARCA

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Doncram	Motion	(orig. case)	10 April 2016
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3	none	(orig. case)	27 April 2016
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88	none	(orig. case)	4 May 2016

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation (12 March 2013)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Article creation restriction (12 March 2013)
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. --do ncr am 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by TheCatalyst31

I was one of the folks who asked for this topic ban in the first place, and I'd still be very reluctant to see this lifted. The issue is not just the quality of Doncram's articles (though that was a pretty big issue as of when the ban took place), it's that he can't seem to get along with other editors working on NRHP-related articles. Before the topic ban, the project seemingly had a major dispute every other month, and we lost several productive editors to it; since the topic ban, we've barely had any conflict at all. Given that Doncram recently accused another NRHP editor of sabotaging an article, I don't see a change in that behavior, and I'd still be pretty worried about disturbing the peace. TheCatalyst31 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)
- Good point, Seraphimblade. Since no one's voted yet anyway, I made the change from "stubs" to "articles". Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It seem to me that enough timehas gone by to grant the appeal. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to propose this:
- remove the "general probation", unused since 2013
- allow creation of non-NHRP articles
- revise the NHRP topic ban to allow him to edit existing stubs but not create new articles.

Comments? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

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

Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
kelapstick 05:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

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)
500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles). However BLUELOCK should only be applied to pages which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid a situation where we have Barrack Obama's article (for example) BLUELOCK'd due to a related paragraph. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88

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

Case or decision affected: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Locus of dispute

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

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
CurtisNaito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

Proposal to amend Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Locus of dispute to read as follows:

"1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). The conflict between the two users began on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, and has spilled over to various noticeboards. Another conflict took place between CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) and various users including Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) on other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, and this conflict also spilled onto various noticeboards."

Statement by Hijiri88

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

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

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

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

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

@TH1980: Do you have an opinion on the proposed amendment to the "Locus of dispute" wording? Requesting an amendment to the wording of the ArbCom decision is practically the definition of WP:BANEX. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: What will happen is that the Arbitration case's "findings of fact" will reflect the facts of the case rather than a confusing misconception. I don't know how the misconception came about to begin with or how it may or may not have affected the" remedies", but that's really beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by CurtisNaito

Statement by Sturmgewehr88

While I agree with Hijiri that the original locus of dispute statement is inaccurate, I don't see what difference it would make to correct it. @Hijiri88: You've explained how it is inaccurate and provided a more accurate statement, but what exactly will happen if this change is accepted? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: No offense to the Arbs, who I applaud for actually doing some investigation of this and doing something about it, but the misconception came about because of ignorance. The Arbs did not look in-depth at the disputes before last February (even calling May "too old" to consider), and the fact that both disputes were in the unneccesarily broad topic of "Japanese culture" led them to believe that these were connected and resulted with where we are now (2 years of consistent OR/SYNTH and IDHT issues, results in 1RR restriction for the two edit wars during the case). I don't believe they will admit that they were wrong or be willing to go through the pains of reexamining this, it's just the nature of the beast. I'm sure you'll do fine with appealing the TBAN in 8 months either way. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TH1980

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

Statement by John Carter

I have some questions regarding what exactly is being proposed here. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the locus section changed to perhaps to roughly approximate that indicated above, if the arbs would support that. I might personally possibly suggest as alternate phrasing changing the proposed second sentence to something along the lines of "over the course of the arbitration, evidence was introduced regarding problems regarding the interactions of Hijiri88 and other users, including Curtis Naito and TH1980, in the broader topic area of Japanese culture" or something similar. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm not inclined at all to modify findings of fact in past cases. That is especially so that this amendment request is a violation of both Hijiri88's topic bans. The exemptions of BANEX which apply could only be "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and to "appealing the ban". To meet these conditions an amendment/clarification request would need to be about the ban(s) not about the case. The fact that Hijiri88 is still focusing a decision made four months ago confirms that they have not moved on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories: