Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 87

This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

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

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by JzG at 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
wuerzele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

SageRad

Statement by JzG

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

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

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

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

Addendum: It's also pretty clear that Monsanto is core to the dispute, so edits like [1] might be more problematic even though they do not actually relate to GMOs or agricultural chemicals, other than in the involvement of the one company which, more than any other, acts as a focal point for the righteous anger of the anti-GMO and anti-pesticide lobby.

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

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

Statement by SageRad

Statement by ScrapIronIV

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

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

Statement by Looie496

I urge ArbCom not to fall into the futility of trying to micromanage remedies. The remedy is stated as precisely as it needs to be. And JzG should leave efforts to help SageRad to other editors. Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will further note that the statement by Wuerzele below massively violates his/her topic ban. I have informed him/her of this and urged that the statement be removed. Looie496 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

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

I will also point out that JzG's bad behaviour in this area is continuing from the time of the case [2]. He was excluded from the findings because of not being a named party, something that should be looked at again. His edits are not that of a careful admin in a contentious area seeking consensus before making large changes. He should know better. AlbinoFerret 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

These are chemicals made by Monsanto, are they under the ban?

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (in lubricant for electric motors, might be on a farm)
saccharin (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
aspartame (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
polystyrene (you can grow plants in a Styrofoam cup)
How about Chemical weapons[3] (they might kill plants and livestock to)
Agent orange (its another chemical weapon,[4] it is not an agricultural chemical.)

This is the tip of the iceberg, and a path to a punitive slippery slope. Topic banns should be based on the case evidence and behaviour discussed in a case. Not on what could be or what might be or fears of those who engaged in a battleground that caused the case to happen. AlbinoFerret 01:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

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

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

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

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

Okay, Arbs, any other admins looking on, can someone get across to DrChrissy that they are indeed currently under a topic ban. Aside from already being at AE for blatantly breaking it [5] well after it was abundantly clarified they're now going after an editor here for simply attempting to do what this board is meant to do. Capeo (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

Statement by Wuerzele

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

I attempted to tie up unfinished consensual business from >1 month ago, finalizing which of the 3 photojournalism refs suggested by CFCF to add, in order to replace one that Keilana had removed as 'poor source' and which SageRad had reinserted twice. I had stepped in on 14 November 2015 , ie one month before the arb com decision to mediate between the parties which is contained in this section.

I posted my suggestion on the talkpage 01:10, 16 December 2015(→‎Removal of Daily Mail article: CNN or/and AlJazeera source
King reverted my talk page post immediately 02:24, 16 December 2015 Remove post by topic-banned editor without reading the talksection, as became evident later on.
Sage renamed the section and wrote 'ok', 03:14, 16 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: Sounds good. Let's do it.)
King also reverted Sage after just 1 hour 04:33, 16 December Remove post by topic-banned editor.) arriving at 2RR
Sage restored his comment 11:30, 16 December 2015 Sorry buddy but this is not in the scope of the GMO case. Don't delete other people's comments. That's not ok.)
Sage restored my Talk comment. 11:39, 16 December 2015 ((→‎Including photojournalism in article: Oh look. KoA also deleted another user's comments besides mine. Who put KoA in charge of the world?)
Sage inserted refs 11:56, 16 December 2015 (→‎Further reading: Add photojournalism section to "Further reading" section as per talk page.)here.
ScrapIronIV reverted Sage with antivandalism tool Twinkle [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Orange&diff=next&oldid=695484579%7C 15:59, 16 December 2015 : RV topic banned editor. (TW))].
NE Ent reinserted the CNN ref Revision as of 01:18, 18 December 2015 (photojournalism per talk page discussion).
King reverted NE Ent (=3RR) Revision as of 01:29, 18 December 2015 (Editors were topic banned prior to the recent discussion, so best for us avoid reinserting their edits at this time.) again making a false claim because the "recent discussion" was clearly before the arbcom decision.
King hatted Sage's and my Talk comments 02:01, 18 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: comment) and posts a reprimand at NE ent to "refrain from inserting content by the topic-banned editors that occurred after their topic ban. If you check the article history, the edits have now been removed twice from the article specifying this". Aside from the sentence being ungrammatical (inserting that occurred?) it is again factually wrong as the content was decided upon BEFORE the Arbcom decision
NE Ent posted a comment 02:39, 18 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: Consensus is for adding). Irony no2: NE Ent had checked not only the "article history", but also read the talk page and realized that a group of 4 editors decided to add the ref (even if 2 of them voiced this in an area that KOA considers GMO topic banned, it was 2+1=3 for adding the ref!)unlike KOA. And that edit stands as of now. (KOA never apologized for this)

Irony 3: It never occurred to me that the ARbCom decision would be about all existing agricultural chemicals. Proof: go back to the very first page, it was me that WIDENED the topic from GMO (where I was not even active) to GMO related chemicals, in particular glyphosate and 2,4D which are indispensable for GMO crops, because engineered to resist it.

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

GMO core pages

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

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

I suggest that the following WP articles absolutely be covered as WP GMO articles

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

pages not in the majority about GMO-crops and /or agricultural chemicals

the following pages touch on an aspect of the pages above, but are in the majority not about the arbcom case, so out of the scope.

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

pages unclear

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

Questions

Looie496 accused me on my talk page of violating topicban by posting the above here on this page! He doesn't say why, yet admonishes me to read instructions. is he right, arbcom members, DGG, Guerillero? is he not? and why ? should he not strike his comment ?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Guerillero, Looie496 accused me on my talk page of violating the topic ban by posting here on this page. Is he correct in that ? i would like to know. can you please answer? i read your post which mentions a traveling circus ( ? I dont know what you mean by that) but you did not reply to this question.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
DGG thanks for your comment but i was misunderstood: does my posting here on this page to clarify eh scope violate a topic ban , or does it not ?--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG why did you address only SageRad in this clarification request? It certainly affected me too, as I edited Agent Orange before him and Sage reacted to my post as demonstrated in the section of diffs above.(talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG you just posted a message named "reply" but you didnt reply to this question (and kindly ping me when you address me).--Wuerzele (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG is your clarification request about more than Agent Orange? It looks unclear to me. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG you just replied that your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general. Then why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade thanks for engaging. first can you tell me if my posting here to get clarification on the scope violates the topic ban or not ?
Second, please look at my lists above: what do you think about PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are they part of the arbcom decision? you see what I mean? someone has to decide which articles need to be tagged, so we must be concrete.
lastly, do you think it is ok that only sage rad was informed that there is a scope discussion here? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the the GMO case proceeding? thank you for your time.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th

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

This kind of ambiguity is going to come up time and again, and the arbs should have been a little more careful in drafting the PD's. On the other hand, I don't know why SageRad would push it by editing the article- he should leave everything even tangentially related to the topic area for a while. Minor4th 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just add Monsanto to the topic bans and that should cover it. We don't need to tiptoe around this. Minor4th 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

@DrChrissy: You seem to forget that this is the existing language, and it was intended to allow you to edit about animals. If we make it "organisms", as for the other affected editors, you will be prohibited from editing about GM animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, for what will be the last time, I am reminding you that I am not proposing anything new about your topic ban. It is the existing wording. You have to wait a year before asking ArbCom to consider lifting the topic ban, so there is no point in asking me why the topic ban was imposed. You are digging yourself into a hole, and you need to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by NE Ent (GMO)

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

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

If Arbs do feel an amendment is needed for clarity, I'm going to put on my entomologist/pesticide background hat on for a second. I'd suggest replacing agricultural chemicals with pesticides and related chemicals. The term pesticide covers these specific types (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, etc.) listed in the table. A pesticide includes the active ingredient (e.g., glyphosate) and other major components in the mixture such as surfactants or shelf life extenders (PCBs are one past example[6]). The "non-active" ingredients are why I included related chemicals to reduce definition gaming. Some pesticides contain multiple active ingredients, such as Agent Orange, but mixtures are still a pesticide nonetheless.

Most pesticides are multi-use where some are used for agriculture, urban/home use, backyard, etc. I believe the drafters included the term agricultural chemicals as a broad term for pesticides, or maybe they weren't aware they are used in broader areas than just agriculture that are not always easily separated by use in a topic. If so, using the term pesticides shouldn't change the intended meaning at all. It would also prevent the bans from extending to unneeded topics like fertilizer. I can think of only a few controversial agricultural chemicals that wouldn't be covered by this change, but they aren't the locus of this dispute. I don't believe clarification is needed on companies as "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic. . ."[7] That would mean that since DuPont is a major producer of pesticides, topic banned editors should be staying away from the page altogether with the broadly construed qualifier.

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

Statement by DrChrissy

I am making this statement according to WP:BANEX to clarify the wording-change proposed by User:Tryptofish. Tryptofish has suggested[8] "...with "organisms" changed to "plants" in DrChrissy's case". I would like to remind the community that WP:Banning policy states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." Tryptofish must produce evidence that I have been disruptive on pages relating to genetically modified plants.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by Mrjulesd

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

I think there is a case for disallowing of editing of articles closely related to Monsanto, although there could be endless wiki-lawyering over which articles this applies to. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

On the one hand I wouldn't want to see anyone prevented from taking part in Vietnam era articles. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see editors gaming the system to further their advocacy by going after these articles. Herbicidal warfare, agent orange, the other Rainbow Herbicides and ect would seem to fall under the topic ban. I'd also ask that you consider making it clear that if anyone attempts to game these sanctions that it can lead to a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Semitransgenic

chemicals directly connected with agricultural biotechnology and GM tech are the concern. A more accurate statement would read:

all pages relating to agricultural biotechnology and directly associated chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and other GM technologies broadly construed. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms (1): Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms (1): Arbitrator views and discussion

The topic ban is for all pages that fall in the following categories genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. This is a natural language "and" since we are't writing symbolic logic statements or SQL statements; the topic ban is not for the intersection of the two topics like some are trying to claim.
Further, the traveling circus seems to have moved from Roundup to another Monsanto chemical that is controversial. I do not care how much like (or dislike) Monsanto, Du Pont, or any other multinational corporation; you are on an encyclopedia not a place to right great wrongs that you see in the world. If you can not act like adults around the fringes of your topic ban it will be extended to something very broad or a site ban. This is not the first time that groups of editors have caused issues in a number of closely related topic areas, the American Politics area comes to mind, and the only way that we can deal with this is broad sanctions.
Colleagues, would all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, Monsanto, or pesticides and related chemicals, broadly construed be a better alternative for all of you to nip this at the bud and to prevent a litany of future cases with the same parties? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update based on recommendations above --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  - @Capeo: I do like that wording. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no issue with adding "commercially produced" to the ban wording (though I suspect anyone trying to claim that "water" or "nitrogen" is covered as an agricultural chemical would be laughed out of AE), but yes, the intent is to keep people out of the bickering over the commercial chemicals. Other than that, if we need to broaden it, we will. Being topic banned means to take those subjects off your watchlist, avoid and do not discuss them at all, and leave the area entirely. It does not mean to stand on the sidelines and shout in, nor to keep tiptoeing right along the line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Were I topic banned on something, I would avoid the entire general area, rather than try to find ways to get as close to it as possible without triggering the ban. DGG ( talk ) To elucidate, asking the question is a reasonable exception to the ban, editing almost any of the pages would be covered. I would strongly advise not testing it. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Privatemusings (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by CypherPunkyBrewster at 15:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Privatemusings 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by CypherPunkyBrewster

Note: This is a legitimate alternative account. I will be happy to reveal my main account to arbcom on request.

In the 2007 Privatemusings case, (Final decision --> Principles --> Sockpuppetry) the following language was used:

"Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."

This is referenced by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts --> Editing project space) with the language

"Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project."

I created this account after the gamergate arbcom case. In that case, I did not comment on that case using my main account because so many people who have expressed an opinion on gamergate have received real-world harassment off-wiki. I was hoping to use this account if that ever happened again (and, of course, only in cases where I was unambiguously uninvolved.)

Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?

Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.

Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?

Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?

Basically, I just want clear guidelines on what I can and can not do using this alternative account. I am not disputing any policies or decisions; I just want to know how to follow them.

To User:JzG, who wrote "CypherPunkyBrewster is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial": You are wrong, and you are failing to assume good faith. This alternate account was created in order to edit articles and participate in discussions related to those articles where there is a significant chance of being branded as pro-gamergate, anti-gamergate, global warming denialist, global warming alarmist, pinko liberal, tea-party conservative, or even swivel-eyed loon. I am well aware of the discretionary sanctions associated with American Politics and Climate Change. I do not believe that I have violated the DS using this account, and I have completely stayed away from climate change on my main account for obvious reasons. If you think that I have violated the DS, feel free to report me at AE (I have no problem with identifying my main account to arbcom and asking them to publicly confirm no global warming involvement.)

To User:Rich Farmbrough, who wrote "Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight", because the 2007 Privatemusings case is cited at the sock puppetry page, I strongly suspect that any attempt to start a community discussion on this topic would quickly devolve into multiple comments telling me to go to arbcom, so I did that first. Also, depending on how one answers my questions above, I could very well be forbidden from starting a community discussion on this topic. It would be, after all, a "discussions internal to the project". CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To User:Seraphimblade (regarding the entire comment), That makes perfect sense to me, and I will have no problem following the clarification you posted. Thanks! On reflection, I see the wisdom of using the alternate account only for article editing and dispute resolution directly related to those articles. I will stay away from discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles I am working on with my alternate account. And of course I already knew that the main and alternate account must keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and all the other "don't do that"s listed in the sock puppetry policy. I will note that I made one edit that I now know was not allowed.[9] I apologize for that and assure you that it will not happen again. Again, thanks for the clear explanation. CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To Salvio giuliano, If another case like gamergate ever hits arbcom, I would like to comment as an uninvolved editor (revealing my main account to arbcom so you can verify that I am not involved), but not if it means revealing my real-world identity. Some of those involved in gamergate have done some nasty real-world harassment against those who disagree with them. Let me know if you think a majority of arbcom agrees with you and I will post an RfC at the sock puppet page. I have never made a gamergate edit using either account, but assuming that I had edited gamergate using my alternate account, as I understand it it would be OK for someone to name me as being involved, followed by my revealing my main account to arbcom so you can confirm that the main account has never edited gamergate. So let's say that happens and I end up being blocked (not likely, BTW; my main account is over five years old with over 10,000 edits and no blocks or editing restrictions and I don't intent to abuse this one either). It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? In my particular case I know the rules about block evasion and would cease editing using my main account until the block was lifted on my alternate account, but I doubt that this would be a good solution for the more aggressive editors who end up at arbcom. So how do we handle that situation? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

To GorillaWarfare, is it even allowed for an alternate account like mine to make a clean start while the main account stays the same? I kind of assumed that that wouldn't be allowed. Unrelated question; I do want to give people confidence that I am not violating our sock puppet rules, so if I put a notice on my user page saying that any and all checkusers can look at my account for any reason, would that override the usual checkuser restrictions? Is there any way my waiving my privacy in that way could compromise the privacy of someone else? CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Related question: Again just asking about what this particular arbcom decision does and does not allow, and of course assuming that the other legitimate sock puppet restrictions are obeyed, is an alternate account allowed to ask questions at the teahouse, reference desk, or help desk? I think that we have already established that this is allowed if in support of an article the alt account is working on, but how about generally? Some questions might be of a personal nature. How about answering questions posted by others? I saw a recent rrefdesk question where one of the answers mentioned that the person answering was transgender. That might not be something you want to be published on the internet about yourself. --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I urge the committee not to accept any requests from this account until there is a public declaration of the editor's primary account. BMK (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Guy's comment below, I concur that CPB's edits do indeed seem to be pushing that agenda. I have asked CPB on their talk page to reveal what account they are an alternate of, but if he or she refuses or ignores the request, I strongly urge the committee not to proceed without CPB revealing to the committee what that account is, and an evaluation being made to see if any aspect of WP:SOCK is being violated. Alternate accounts may not be used to avoid scrutiny, and the climate change area is certainly one in which there has been a significant amount of sockpuppety and other disruptions. BMK (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions notice on CPB's talk page. BMK (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So on his talk page - as well as personally attacking me and my motivations - CPB says that he wants to use this account to edit contentious subjects, such as Gamergate, Climate Change, and American Politics. But there is a standard in place for editing Gamergate - since we don't know who CPB is, how is that standard of time/edits to be applied? Certainly the CPB account wouldn't qualify.

In any case, from CPB's description on the talk page, it appears to me that what he wants is a "get out of jail free" card, where his "legitimate" alternate account can raise hell in contentious and disputatious subject areas, and his primary account can merrily edit without suffering any consequences, or scrutiny from other editors. BMK (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Since anything the Arbitrators say here is simply advisory in nature, and since CypherPunkyBrewster has outed his other identity ([10]), perhaps this ought to be closed. BMK (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Blocks are for people, not for accounts. BMK (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I note for the record that admin Swarm has rev del'd ~~or oversighted~~ the self-identification I referred to above, I'm not sure under what theory. BMK (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I also note that the AN/I thread which Guy Macon opened about this issue has been moved by Swarm [11] to Archive 901, and then was rev del'd ~~or oversighted~~ from that archive by him [12]. BMK (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: There is no reason to "rejoice in one's own cleverness" when the master account discloses their identity and then attempts to deny it, instead of simply standing mute. Seeing hyprocrisy such as that brings joy to nobody. BMK (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement Rich Farmbrough (CPB)

This has always seemed to me an invidious limitation of legitimate socks. If someone wants (for whatever reason) to use different accounts for different subject areas, then to suggest that those accounts be banned from "project space" discussion is not useful. Certainly crossover should be minimised. I have always imagined that this was an unintentional broadening of the proscription regarding creation of false impressions of support.

Of course that is a matter for the community, not the committee, though their comments would undoubtedly have some weight.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

Addendum

This is a clarification request about:

A previous ruling
Opinion on policy

Clearly if it constituted trolling and was also deemed not useful, then the Committee would be very likely to speedy close it one way or another - and in the very unlikely event that the trolling nature was obscure, posting evidence to that effect would be legitimate.

However this seems a perfectly good faith question - and the fact that there is difference of opinion, and legitimate hemming and hawing from respected editors indicates that it is one that needs to be taken seriously.

In this context neither attempted outing nor tarring the interlocutor with the brush "climate change denialist" are necessarily useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Salvio - I think NE Ent is perfectly correct. Editing while blocked is of course blockable, and generally leads to block extensions. It would certainly verge on self-outing if a block of the alternate account/extension of block resulted in people putting two and two together. Of course there would still be no need for anyone to, rejoicing in their own cleverness, comment on the identity of the main account. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by JzG

CypherPunkyBrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account apparently created to advance the cause of climate change denial. Given the arbitration cases in that are already (both American Politics and Climate change), it would seem like a really bad idea to let this alternate account edit in project space. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer from NE Ent

If one account gets blocked, the editor simply doesn't use other when the block is in place. NE Ent 19:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

The way I've handled the main account blocked and alt account issue is leaving the alt account unblocked, then if it evades the block on the master's account blocking it for block evasion (without saying more) or asking another admin (a CU when it happened) to block the alt account. That way the two blocks are either separated by time, or, even better, by different blocking admins. If you wanted to block both accounts for the duration of the block the same principle applies, one admin blocks the main account and another blocks the alt account (with a different, but similar block summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

The editor is asking a long string of hypothetical questions. Some of them are brainteasers and not without interest. But the editor has not identified any special hardship that causes them to need relief from the sockpuppet policy. Since there is no valid grievance here there is nothing to adjudicate. My suggestion is that Arbcom should close this request with no action. Changes in policy can be proposed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Privatemusings: Clerk notes

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

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

As Rich Farmbrough says, this is a matter of the sockpuppetry/alternate accounts policy, but it was also brought up in the Privatemusings case. The idea behind it, I think, is quite clear. Some editors, if they, for example, edit articles on sexuality, politics, or other "hot button" areas, may not want those edits to be associated with their main account. Provided that the main and alternate account keep strictly clear of editing in the same area, and the alternate account isn't being used to behave badly or otherwise avoid scrutiny, that is permitted. But the alternate account is not to be used in areas outside of article editing. Article editing, in my view, would generally be composed of the article and article talk spaces, any dispute resolution processes directly related to those articles such as mediation if you're reasonably a party to such a process, and other areas directly related to article content editing such as featured article/good article/DYK candidacies related to articles edited by the alternate account. So at least in my view, it wouldn't be entirely bound to a given namespace. Rather, it is bound to a purpose, content editing. It would not, therefore, include discussions of project policy, requesting sanctions against other editors, or other such internal processes. Nor would it allow general participation in dispute resolution or audited content processes when not related to articles the alternate account is working on. The editor would need to pick a single primary account to use in such internal discussions, and use only that account for them. If you'd prefer that the primary account not be associated with such discussions, your option would be to avoid participating in them.
For your specific hypothetical scenarios, then: In an ArbCom case, the alternate account should be used only if it is a named party. If you'd like to jump in on a case you're not a named party to, use your primary account. (If the alternate account is a named party, it would be wise to inform the Committee privately of the situation.) AN(I) and other administrative boards, generally not (though I personally wouldn't care if you reported blatant vandals to AIV with it.) Content discussion boards like RSN, NPOVN, etc., yes, so long as the discussion there is directly related to the alternate account's edits. So, discussing content yes, discussing editors no. For your third question, "disclosure" in this sense would mean publicly and clearly disclosing what primary account the alternate account is linked to (you can see my public terminal account for what that looks like), not just disclosing that it is an alternate. I think your fourth question is answered by the above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You bring up some additional good points. In the case that an alternate account is engaging in poor or sanctionable behavior, I would see it as entirely justifiable for an administrator to indef the alternate account as a "bad hand" sock. Alternate accounts are not meant to engage in poor behavior without that reflecting on the primary account, and the sockpuppetry policy already forbids that type of misuse. The conduct of the alternate account must be absolutely above reproach. So far as areas like Gamergate where editing restrictions apply, if the alternate account doesn't meet the requirements to edit there and isn't clearly and publicly linked to an account that does, well then, that account can't be used to edit there. Admins need to be able to verify that the editor is eligible to edit there; a vague handwave that "Oh, I have a different account that does meet the requirements" doesn't cut it. Nor is private disclosure and verification in that instance. Even when feasible, that would be too much of a timesink. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation of current policy is as follows:
- Q1: In cases where I have had no prior interactions with anyone named in an arbcom case and had never edited the pages being discussed is using my alternate account to make a statement in an arbcom case a legitimate use of an alternate account?
  No. Participating in "discussions internal to the project" on an alternative account is explicitly prohibited by WP:SOCK, and ArbCom cases qualify.
- Q2: Same question, but for ANI, RS noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, AIAV, COI noticeboard, etc.
  Same as above; these are internal to the project.
- Q3: What, exactly, are undisclosed alternative accounts? Is this account "disclosed" by way of my disclosing that it is an alternative account, or do I have to name my main account?
  No. Publicly disclosed alternative accounts are accounts that are identified by name and clearly linked to the main account. For example, if User:Foo stated clearly that they had registered the account User:Foo(public) for use on unsecured networks, it would not be a breach of policy for them to comment on internal discussions, as this account would be clearly linked to the primary account. Simply stating that an account is an alt is not sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Q4: What, exactly are "discussions internal to the project" and/or "edits to project space"? Are we talking about namespaces here, and if so, which ones?
  I'm hesitant to say concretely that alternate accounts can only edit the Main and article talk namespaces, because there are plenty of exceptions. I think Seraphimblade is correct to instead identify edits that are not directly related to improving article content as inappropriate.

I do think there is an interesting issue here, though. People who have accounts that are clearly traceable to real-world identities may not be comfortable participating in situations like the Gamergate case, where there is a real risk that people will try to retaliate. These people are effectively barred from participating in these discussions, as alternate accounts cannot be used in projectspace discussions even when used to protect privacy. The only real way for a user to get around this is a WP:Clean start, which comes with its own host of problems. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

- - Sorry if that was unclear. You would not be able to "clean start" with an alternative account—you would need to abandon the primary account in this hypothetical. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are essentially the same as Seraphimblade's. One way to allow alternate accounts used for the purposes of protecting privacy to participate in internal discussions would be to allow disclosure to the Arbitration Committee (possibly with some safeguards to prevent abuse of this). However, this would require amending both the sockpuppetry policy and the Privatemusings case. I would be amenable to the latter, but only if there is a community consensus for the former at an RfC or equivalent. Until that happens though, alternate accounts that are not publicly disclosed may not participate in arbitration cases, etc. to which they are not a party and that are unrelated to article content they are working on. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I tend to agree with my colleagues, with one exception: for me, alternative accounts disclosed to ArbCom cannot be considered "undisclosed alternative accounts" for the purposes of WP:SOCK. Then again, this is only my opinion and we are being asked to clarify a policy, rather than one of our decisions, so I don't know how much weight our collective opinions carry here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- If an editor has good reasons to desire to participate in an ArbCom case with an alternative account, he can try sending us an e-mail, explaining those reasons to us and if we're persuaded, we may grant an exception. That doesn't need an RfC.
  It would seem reasonable in that case to block both accounts, but how to do that without revealing my real-world identity? [...] So how do we handle that situation? I'll have to think about this a little more before I can give you an answer... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It is important to understand that principles reflect policy and generally-accepted best practices at the time they were written; principles are not in-and-of-themselves binding if community norms or policies change after the fact. It is not clear to me that any action is required on this matter. L Faraone 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Belatedly getting around to this. I agree that there's nothing here for us to do, although a change in policy might require us to look again at Privatemusings. Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The alternative to allowing such accounts to participate in discussions is that the alt account would be used for the editing, and the individual would really have no proper way to discuss their own edits if challenged, because using their regular account would look like the classic sockpuppettry of two different accounts being used to support each other. The wording needs to be changed, but that's up to the community. I think in the meantime, that we could make explicit exceptions, as Salvio suggested. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Topic ban appeal (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Nadirali at 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Nadirali unblocked

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Nadirali is indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed. […]

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

Nadirali unblocked

Topic ban appeal

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

Statement by Nadirali

As expressed in the title, I am finally here to appeal my topic ban but also with a new proposal. As it is, it's been about a year and a half since I re-joined Wikipedia. Worm That Turned told me to show the arbcom that I can be a productive user in one of my first conversations with him (probably part of gaining the arbcom's trust). In the year and a half since I returned, I have created almost thirty pages (most of which I can guarantee would not exist today had I not returned to create them) with the intention of creating more and made hundreds of edits on various topics. I think it should be more than sufficient enough to earn the trust of the committee. There are a number of articles on Pakistan that need updating and others that need creation and I'm just the man to do it.

I still intend to create and work on articles not related to Pakistan topics, but would like to work on those side by side as well. But if the arbcom is still worried about my edits on these topics I come with the proposal of a restriction of one revert per week on any topics on or related to Pakistan as well as India and Afghanistan (excluding vandalism) for that matter so I can continue creating and working on some of my desired topics without worrying the arbcom. If I can continue for at least a month with this one-revert-per-week restriction without worrying the committee, then the topic ban should be lifted all together. I also offer to stay away from articles sanctioned by the committee, but I'll let the arbcom decide on that.

However, if the committee continues to enforce a complete ban, all I can term it as obstructing a user from contributing in his best ability and therefor obstructing the development of Wikipedia all together. I think this topic ban is ridiculous when going back to it's roots, but I'd rather not get into what happened several years ago. I am here to express that I kept my end of the deal and wish for the committee to give something back, specifically trust, in return.

Looking forward to your responses.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Topic ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Topic ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

Having reviewed your recent contributions, I think a relaxation or removal of these restrictions could be acceptable. L Faraone 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing them. Doug Weller (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the tone of the last paragraph of this appeal, but that aside I'm prepared to agree the relaxation of the restriction to the suggested one revert per article per week in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Thrydulf's suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I will draft a motion --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
~~@Guerillero: Any movement on that motion? Should be fairly straightforward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)~~
- Talk about tunnel vision on my part. Facepalm GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Nadirali

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Nadirali (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

Support

As proposer --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As noted below I would have preferred a relaxation, but I am prepared to support this as a second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Like Thryduulf, I'd rather this be a relaxation rather than an outright repeal, but, not going to argue. Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments: I would rather a relaxation than a suspension here, as discussed above. I'm presently undecided whether this preference is strong enough that I should support or oppose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 12:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 2

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

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Remedy 2

Terminate the remedy

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

In a case brought against me some three and a half years ago, it was found that certain community norms had been broken by me, specifically WP:BOTPOL, WP:5P4 and WP:ARBRFUAT.

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

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

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

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

For these reasons I request the Arbitration Committee to terminate remedy 2.

Addenda:

Please note that I am eligible to request termination of this sanction from 15 January 2013. The sanction, qua sanction, is continuing to impact my good name in the community, notably impeding my recent RfA, and so the time has come to remove it.

Please also note that I have suggested a more nuanced approach to complete termination in the past, which has been dismissed by various committee members, with rather unflattering characterisations.

Responses

Thryduulf I would certainly consider you views valuable. I have met with other members of the committee at various wiki-functions. Whether to recuse must be your decision. I would not find fault either way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

Thryduulf

"editor's future employment prospects" maybe; however they can and maybe should consider the effect on the project - especially if the reasons for maintaining the restriction aren't particularly cogent.

"All automated tasks paused or blocked until..." You may be aware that I offered this as part of a solution in the workshop. (I was under the illusion that a workshop was for co-operating to find a way forward.) And I believe that SmackBot was the only major bot that allowed anyone (including IPs) to stop it - a facility I intended to reintroduce for Helpful Pixie Bot.

Hotcat: really I would doubt that I would use it more than a few times a week at most.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Clarification - I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits. I am probably one of the slowest Huggle users there is - because I tend to look in more depth at anything that could possibly be good-faith. It's simply that these tools are all useful, and most of them can be used by every Wikipdia editor except me. Certainly even an IP is allowed to prepare a table in Libre Office and paste the result on-wiki.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Guerillero You must have a reason for saying that, do you mind if I ask what it is?

Gorilla Warfare It's hard to be specific. Indeed I have very little time to put into large scale projects. But even simple things like:

This list I created on Meta today are forbidden on en:WP.
User:WereSpielChequers has a number of lists that need updating.
There is a lot of work with WP:Women in Red that needs doing.
User:Carrite was looking for better information on editor activity, which I have acquired the data for, but not started coding, partly because I would not be allowed to upload the results.
The correction of the User:Jagged 85 issues has ground to a halt, partly because I had to load my diagnostics onto Meta
It would be nice to be able to use Twinkle, Reflinks and Hotcat
I might even do some anti-vandal work with Huggle or STiki

But the main point is the stigma. This affects not just my standing in the community, but my ability to volunteer for certain roles on-wiki, and even my eligibility for employment off-wiki.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Seraphimblade What lead up to it? A lot of things, that I can address here (or elsewhere) if you wish. However what I prefer to address specifically is the negative "findings of fact" which are putatively the committee's take on "what lead up to it." For example one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive. Similarly I have not infringed on BOTPOL. And I doubt anyone could challenge that I have been collegial - indeed my main thrust on the non-content part of Wikipedia has to be to encourage people to work together - and civil. Indeed I have had two complaints about being too civil.

Moreover I can state categorically that I have every intention of continuing to be collegial, civil, responsive and policy compliant.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
(Currently watching WikiConference USA live.)

Corcelles Your response does not provide any useful feedback. I have explicitly invited feedback from Arbitrators on several occasions over the years, which has given you plenty of opportunity to discuss any issues you think remain unresolved. If, of course, you believe that I am an unredeemable case, then no feedback is to be expected, as it would be a waste of your valuable time. Otherwise a more detailed response would be useful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

AGK I am surprised you are not recusing yourself here All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

Native Foreigner I am always interested in any wisdom about my actions. I reiterate the invitation to share or discuss them, here, on my talk page, by email, by phone/Skype or in person which I made some considerable time ago.

As to looking into the case, I'm afraid it's a bit of a mammoth, but I find the weakness of the supporting evidence to the findings, and particularly the need to go back additional years quite telling. To take one example, I am under sanctions now, partly for making edits in 2010, which someone has deemed were "too fast" to comply with BOTPOL. And yet there is nothing in BOTPOL of 10 November 2010 about any limitation on assisted editing speed. (Later versions specifically exclude speed alone as being an issue.) And the speed wasn't excessive - most editors who do administrative work will have had bursts of comparable speed - for example you edited at 10 edits per minute on 17 July. According to the 2012 committee you should have submitted a BRFA authorisation for that.

Now this is just one part of one finding, and it took quite some research to check the BOTPOL pages for the appropriate dates, check the evidence, come up with a comparator. It is also a nominally objective piece of evidence and a nominally objective policy. For subjective matters like being "civil" and "responsive" the amount of work required to construct a good refutation is much higher. I therefore requested the committee allow me 14 days to put together a response to the proposed findings. This was refused and I never got to defend myself from the very surprising proposed decision, and have been working on-and-off to deal with the problems it has caused ever since.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

DGG Perhaps you would like to give an example? We have a lot of tools in our kit-bag to deal with problems, making them mostly trivial to resolve. There are no negative findings about any automated edits. Indeed finding WP:ARB RF EX EX EX states:

He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation...

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

Salvio giuliano Thank you for your positive response. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Doug Weller Thanks for your thoughtful response. It might be of interest to know that I offered to work with a similar halting system during the workshop phase of the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

DeltaQuad Thanks for your response, it's good to see another positive outlook. It's not really out of the blue I have suggested such steps as most arbs now seem to endorse several times over the years. In fact I emailed this request to the Committee over two months ago, so there was plenty of advance warning!

So perhaps it's time for a motion? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC).

Summary of Arb options for a solution to date

Pause clause = Any query, must halt until resolved, to the satisfaction of an uninvolved admin if required.

Stipulated that anything fully automated is subject to the normal WP:BOTPOL requirements, including BRFA where necessary.

Apologies in advance if I have mis-represented anyone or omitted anyone.

No opinion yet (Gorilla Warfare),

Do nothing AGK, Guerillero
Manual use of HOTCAT (max 10 per hour, <=50% article edits any 24 hrs). May make and maintain lists, if asked by others, subject to WP:BOTREQ. Pause clause. (Thryduulf)^{[queries 1]}
User space and User talk space only. (Courcelles)
User space and User talk space ... still thinking. (Amanda/Delta Quad)
User space and User talk + Jagged85 (non-mainspace), requested tasks (non-mainspace). Pause clause. (Doug Weller)
Relax, unspecified. (DGG)
Allow semi-automation. Automation only to non-mainspace, subject to normal pre-approval. (Seraphimblade)
Lift completely/Parole (Native Foreigner, Salvio, Euryalus)

[Queries:

^ So if I do a HOTCAT and go away for the weekend I'm in breach? If the edits would not require BOTREQ for a "normal" editor, do they require one if I do it?

]

Let me suggest some motions - clearly some fancy wording would be needed:

Remedy 2 remains unchanged.
Remedy 2 is struck.
Remedy 2 is struck with respect to User space and User talk space.
Remedy 2 is struck with respect to non-article pages.
Remedy 2 is struck with respect to automation assisted edits.
Remedy 2 is struck with respect to Anti-vandal tools and built in gadgets.
Remedy 2 is struck with respect to CCI tasks (excluding mainspace)

Clearly 2 is my ideal, but any combination of 3 4 and 5 would allow me to proceed with most of the day-to-day tasks I do far more effectively, and to help other Wikipedians with their projects.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC).

@Euryalus: I am afraid this is typical. I requested a fortnight, or at least a week to respond to the propose decision in this case. I was denied - time was too valuable. However a few months to pass a motion where there is clearly consensus that some relaxation, if not total removal, should be passed seems to be "meh, so what?" Moreover I am castigated for bringing requests for amendment, even though I have successfully had one important finding struck as factually inaccurate. It is hard to express how uninterested I am in this whole process, except as a necessity. If there had been a timely response to this request, even a partial lifting, we might now be half way through a six month period of evaluation whether a further lightening might be acceptable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Carrite

I'm not sure what exactly would prevent Rich from parsing a large data set and posting his results, which he mentions above with regards to analysis of WMF data to draw inferences about the editing population. If anything stands in the way of this, it needs to be set aside, at a minimum. As for the rest, once again ArbCom is looking more than a little stubborn and vindictive here in not allowing RF some sort of path back to full functionality as an editor. Drop his restrictions and restore them by motion if he resumes negative behavior, it seems obvious. I'm very frustrated with the current committee's lack of faith or willingness to take minor risks for the greater good of the project. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers

I can see that Arbcom might see an opportunity here merely to clarify the original excessive limitations and allow Rich to use hotcat and reflinks and to generate reports in his own userspace or ideally Wikipedia space. But really the time for such a clarification was three and a half years ago, surely by now it is time to simply lift that sanction.

As Rich mentioned he has produced some very useful lists Wikipedia:Articles with UK Geocodes but without images being my favourite example. Along with a couple of other editors I've been testing image adding as an exercise for new editors, and we reckon we are ready, we just need this sanction lifted so we can get the report regularly refreshed instead of telling newbies to remove items from the list.

With the loss of toolserver and the problems at labs we have lost many regular reports. Including three areas I've started or been involved in such as Death Anomalies - which would be the next one I'd ask Rich to consider adopting. The lack of these reports is incredibly frustrating, and seriously holds the project back. You have an opportunity to reduce that problem by lifting or at least reducing the restrictions on Rich. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ

It is time to move on, and let the Community of Wikipedians take over, rather than Arbcom never letting go and in the process throwing away the Committee's valuable time, which ought to be invested on real risks and divisive harmful issues within the community.

There is no risk whatsoever to Wikimedia projects if all sanctions are now lifted. This long ago became a incomprehensible and bureaucratic punishment, rather than a sanction that can be claimed to be done to "protect the community", or Rich for that matter.

If members of Arbcom wish to advise the Wikipedia community, they might validly suggest a voluntary restriction like 10 pages per minute. I have no doubt that Rich would subscribe to these suggestions and make a case with the community when he is ready to relax them further. There are plenty of highly active Wikimedians that will help Rich out with advice and reviews of his edits, should they introduce any issues with articles or templates.

Everyone writing here knows that Rich is a valuable contributor who has rare talents to offer our shared mission and he should be supported, encouraged and praised for his astonishing commitment, rare skills and patience during this years long case.

I haven't talked in person to Rich since last year. However we have had several chats about the future of the projects, chapters and the Foundation over the years. Back in 2012 I interviewed him about his experience with Arbcom, this remains unpublished. I expected to write it up once his Arbcom sanctions ended, as I did not want an interview which examined the experience and emotional impact that long punitive cases like this have, to influence the case or later appeals. We had no idea that this would be eating up our time and stopping Rich from contributing in 2015. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IJBall

After three and a half years, it's time to just lift these sanctions. I don't think leaving them in place in any way serves the interest of the project. I doubt very much that Rich is suddenly going to go off into 'La La Land' if these restrictions are lifted. It's time to AGF here and move on. Also, it is reasonable to assume that leaving these sanctions in place will make it impossible for Rich to advance at RfA and be resysopped – thus leaving sanction in place almost seems punitive at this point. Anyway, that's my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jenks24

Adding my support for the sanction to be lifted. Others have said it more eloquently above so I won't try and rehash it. Plus, if I'm honest, I'm still pretty annoyed about the original decision and I'm not sure if writing a few paragraphs criticising the committee would help Rich's case here. Suffice it to say, I think they made the wrong call then and it looks even more wrong three years down the track. Please do the right thing and extend Rich some good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

*cough* I don't browse the ArbCom pages often, but surely this has gone on for an unreasonable amount of time. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

While intuition and gut feeling about something might be legitimate on Wikipedia; in an Arbitration case and with the arbs as with the rest of the community those feelings must be supported by specific diffs of actions which clearly indicate a user cannot be trusted or has not functioned appropriately under a restriction. 31/2 years is along time, and I don't see any specific diffs from that time period pointing to poor editing behaviour or to behaviours which would indicate a restriction is necessary. Arbitrators are held to the same standards we all are and should support allegations with substantive proof for their positions. Arbitrators are not judges or juries; they are the neutral third party in disputes. Here the parties. the members of the community who have concerns and Rich have spoken so the arbs then, given the definitions of their role must indicate why this is not sufficient to undue a restrictions. In my opinion assuming a position on 3 1/2 years of editing with out anything specific or substantive to support that position is unfair and punitive neither which are appropriate.

Per Thryduulf:

The community is the encyclopedia. They, community and encyclopedia, as I think you are implying are not mutually exclusive except in some instances. Your comment brought up for me an conern I have when I see the statement, "this is an encyclpedia first." It is not an encyclpedia first, it is first a collaboratibe project the goal of which is to create an encyclopedia. Unless the individuals are treated fairly the communithy will eventually collapse and so of course will the encyclopedia. I have great respect for Thryduulf's consistent, deeply thoughtful comments. Thank you. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)) Statement by {other-editor}

Statement by Sladen

Some of Rich statements are extremely encouraging: "one suggested that I was "not responsive". I do not here challenge that claim, I simply point out that since that date I have been responsive." and reassuring: "I am not looking to any of the half-dozen tools I mention to perform masses of edits.". These are countered by argumentation: "There are no negative findings about any automated edits."—Findings of fact are hopefully neutral; and rationale that are not obviously for the benefit of the encyclopedia: "eligibility for employment off-wiki" and "notably impeding my recent RfA".

The block has had a positive effect on Rich's contributions and it is extremely pleasing that Rich has built a new niche after the boundaries were made clear—but editors have long memories of the (past) unparalleled disruption caused by self-invented-up AWB tasks, so it's unlikely to be able to find a route that's going to please everyone the first time around. We can see the clearly divided opinions, so something down the middle is probably the least unpalatable to all.

It is extremely easy to simply say "no", but perhaps Doug et al's suggestions of limited parole in own User space and performing tasks requested by others (ie. not dreamt-up) in non-article space, are a plausible solution. For the proponents this gives Rich Farmbrough a chance to prove himself, and for the doubters this can be seen as WP:ROPE. Enforcement likely needs to stay at WP:AE with incrementing draconian blocks, because this is the only remedy has worked effectively in effecting behavioural change, with everything else has resulted in endless discussion ("dramaz"). For AE to be effective any new boundaries require equally clear-cut edges so that evaluation can be quantifiable and enforcement can be emotionless—Rich should know where the edges are without the need to feel or push.

Yes, I have [past tense] been massively inconvenienced by Rich + bots for several years, half-a-decade ago. I've been watching this and I'm even willing to argue for some level of rehabilitation. Even I'm amazed by that. Support has its limits through; and I would invite Rich to make a clear statement about whether he wishes to go the bot route (here) or the admin route (RfA)—I don't think any combination of trying to do both is either tenable or feasible. Such an undertaking might well be sufficient for even the most resolute doubters to come around. —Sladen (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

The only lingering damage from Rich's automated editing that I'm aware of is that which is part of the history-merge backlog. It's unfortunately a catch-22 that Rich can't repair these without the admin tools. Can anyone with a long memory identify any other issues caused by Rich's automated edits which have not yet been repaired? If yes, I'd ask him to fix those first before granting this request. If no, then I agree that by now it is time to simply lift the sanction. "Probation" can simply be requiring him to promptly fix any damage he creates, and to make limited "trial runs" of any new major repetitive automated edits, then stop and wait to ensure that there is no negative reaction to it, so that if there is, the repair of such damage will not be exceedingly difficult or time-consuming. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, Fram's statement below is just devastating. I couldn't bring myself to read through to the end of their critique on your Arbcom candidate page, after I saw this. The timing of this is particularly bad, given the recent bad publicity caused by the revelation of mass-redirect creation by another editor (who named himself after a Star Trek character). Unfortunately, as you can only tag these for deletion, others will need to clean up this mess. I'm sorry, but after seeing this, I cannot support any relaxation of restrictions beyond allowing you to make automated edits in your own userspace, where others can make QA checks before moving your work to another namespace. It's sad to see such talent going to waste – User:Rich Farmbrough/Redirect tool seems very clever, with its core and inner core. I wish that talent could be channeled to more productive uses. You need to stop focusing on quantity and pay more attention to details to achieve more quality edits. I know this won't be easy for you, but please try (I perhaps have the opposite problem: in the past I've taken heat for missing project deadlines, and didn't like to consider a coding project finished until it was bug-free and perfect). Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

It's been over 3 years now. IMHO, the restriction should be repealed & Rich given a chance to prove himself. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck

Rich's sanctions were made 3.5 years ago. They were criticized as ill-defined back then, and 3.5 years on they are more ill-defined than they were, because Wikipedia editing tools have moved on. I would like to see the sanction lifted altogether, but I understand the "risk" that our honorable Arbitrators think they're taking on this manner. Even so, I think Remedy 2 desperately needs to be rewritten in a way that is tool-independent and objectively enforceable - "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated" has never been properly enforceable and has generated so much adverse wiki-lawyering over the years. As a compromise, I propose limiting the scope of Rich's sanctions to reader-facing namespaces only (article, template, category, portal; excluding all talk pages); and redefining the sanction in terms of edit rate, e.g. max 1 edit per minute, or 200 edits per 24 hours. Der yck C. 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MichaelMaggs

You can tell when a sanction has become punitive rather than protective in the mind of an arbitrator when the response to an amendment request is simply "no". That's it. No reasons, no discussion, apparently no consideration. This sanction should be lifted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

I have added a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Rich Farmbrough/Questions#Question from User:Fram which contains some information relevant to this amendment request, particularly the part about the User:Rich Farmbrough/Redirect tool (an automatic redirect creator made between June and August 2015) and the apparent test runs of it in the mainspace, resulting in huge numbers of often useless (newly invented) redirects. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Three+ years is more than enough already, and these restrictions were excessive to begin with. At bare minimum, most of the specifics asked for should be granted. I looked over Fram's election questions, and RichF's answers appear to be adequate. The "smoking gun" redirect tool is no smoking gun; it's not a bot or other automation tool, despite the name, just a rather simplistic template that helps reduce some typing (which is, pretty much, what templates are for). The community is supposed to forgive and assume the good faith that a second chance is warranted (absent total WP:JERK behavior or other WP:COMPETENCE problems). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

Inam really surprised that a good editor like Rich is burdened by sanctions 3.5 years later, yet an Admin who created massive amounts of crap gets off loosing tools he was barely using. Lift the restructions outright. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Rich Farmbrough: Clerk notes

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

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm considering whether to recuse on this, given extensive interaction with Rich IRL at wikimeets and the like. Rich, if you have a strong opinion either way let me know and I'll respect that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have decided I do not need to recuse here. I do not think that an editor's future employment prospects are something that we can consider (cf Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Motion Carried re images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times) as our remit is to act in the interests of the encyclopaedia and the wider project rather than the interests of individual editors (where these are mutually exclusive). In contrast perhaps to previous committees I'm tempted to allow a modification to the restriction. As an initial proposal for discussion I would suggest allowing:
  1. the manual use of WP:HOTCAT at a rate not exceeding a rate of 10 pages edited using hotcat in any 60 minute period. Your hotcat edits should not exceed 50% of your total article namespace edits in any 24 hour period.
  2. the use of automated tools to generate project-space or userspace lists and to maintain those lists if necessary, where these have been asked for by other Wikimedians and have permission granted at WP:BOTREQ.
  These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached.
I would not, at this stage, be inclined to allow the use of any automated tools that make any edits to content namespaces (other than hotcat). I do not think that these would lead to the problems that lead to these restrictions in the first place, but would allow Rich to demonstrate he can use automation responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: I intend to try and move this request forward and get an actual outcome, however the Eric Corbett, Lightbreather and Gender gap issues have rather stolen the Committee's time at present so I can't say exactly when that will be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC) resigning to fix the ping Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
As we are both candidates in the ongoing elections, I do not intend to take any further part in this request. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to remove this sanction --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: What kind of bot-assisted edits would you intend to make, should this sanction be removed? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: What do you understand as the issues that led up to the sanction being placed, and what steps would you take to prevent similar situations from occurring again? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think I could support a relaxation of the restriction, as I do see the point that Rich's overall style of interaction really has improved. I think I'd want to see how that works out before supporting a parole leading toward eventual lifting. I think the restrictions to non-mainspace for automated tasks are wise, at least initially, and certainly only to preapproved tasks (and any tests necessary prior to approval). For semiautomation, like Huggle and the like, I think we could allow normal use of that, provided that such tools are not used for any unsupervised, fully automated editing in mainspace and Rich is in fact pressing the button for each such edit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I will not support removing or loosening this sanction. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would support one and only one relaxation; that being to Rich's own userspace and user talk space. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I too would not allow this request. AGK [•] 09:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about lifting such sanctions. That being said I do somewhat concur with the view that occasionally risks must be taken. The action which Rich took were indubitably problematic and I think to some degree he may not fully understand what was problematic about them. I feel, personally, like it may not be prudent. However, we're quite far down the line and to take a risk (or even to do something as minor as allowing bot edits in non content workspaces so long as the bot is reviewed, or perhaps implementing a somewhat more strict mentor or approval process). As my term continues I am growing less and less enthusiastic with the notion of grand packages of restrictions to allow problem editors to stay, although this is primarily within the realm of civility. Nonetheless I think this needs discussion past the point of "I have issues trusting this individual." Don't get me wrong, I have concerns about lifting the restriction myself, but it's been 3+ years and some of the originally identified poor behaviors seem to have changed for the better. The general community support for removing them also bears considering. The individual certainly seems to have more trust with the community than with the members of arbcom, and why exactly this is I am not sure, but it has convinced me I should look more into the case to see if I am missing anything from either side. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be for lifting it. There wouldn't be a lack of scrutiny to its editing. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The problems that can be created by any automated editing can be so difficult to resolve, that I'm not prepared to take the risk. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reconsidering, I thin a modified trial of some sort would be warranted. Doug Weller's suggestions seems one reasonable approach, and I would support it. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)1
Consider other arb's comments, I think there should be some way of relaxing the restriction that would be safe enough. I would not remove it entirely. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I support a parole; alternatively, if there is no consensus for that, I also support a relaxation of the restriction. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I support gradual relaxation, with the first stage his own userspace and talkpage, work on User:Jagged 85 if that doesn't involved directly editing articles, and specific requests from users such as User:WereSpielChequers to do non-article space work (which other editors could then move into article spaceif required). Where appropriate obviously he'd need permission granted at WP:BOTREQ. I don't see any particular risks in such a relaxation and it appears that other editors and indeed the project could benefit from it. I'd include Thryduulf's requirement that "These would all be subject to the requirement that in the event of any complaints or queries raised about your automated edits by another editor, all automated tasks must be paused or halted at least until the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, or to the satisfaction of an uninvolved administrator if agreement cannot be reached." Rich should be given a chance to show that he can use his skills responsibly. Doug Weller (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't see completely dropping this measure out of the blue, though I do see the community that wishes we'd move on. So that said, a gradual relaxation or something of the sort of things mentioned above is definitely in order. I would start with the userspace first and see where that goes though. I'll ponder some thoughts over the next steps. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Support lifting the restriction entirely without prejudice to reimposing it via a successful ARCA request or similar, if problems recur. I've read through the original case and would have voted the same way as the majority In imposing the restriction in the first place. But three years later, am willing to AGF and see how it goes. For avoidance of doubt, also support any gradual lifting of the restriction as proposed above, if these seem likely to get a majority of supports here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've never actually seen a tumbleweed, but the last few weeks at this ARCA request is a fair place to look for one. Rich Farmbrough, as this has died on the vine I might suggest it be withdrawn as no consensus without prejudice to refiling it in 2016. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: Motion

Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case shall not apply in Rich Farmbrough's user space, his user talk space, or any subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports. Subject to the normal bot policy Rich Farmbrough may use automation in these exempted areas.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

In the interests of getting something done before the 2016 Committee takes over. I think this will have some support, though it might need some wordsmithing. Courcelles (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable first step. I'd rather not lift the restriction entirely, so let's try this and go from there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I support this for the same reasons as GorrilaWarfare, and as the election is over I see no conflict in my expressing that support here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see what harm this could possibly do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly what I wanted, but this will do. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

I don't think that this restriction should be lifted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by DrChrissy at 14:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.[13]

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

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

Information about amendment request

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.[14]

Delete "...genetically modified plants and..."

Statement by DrChrissy

I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban.[15] I am requesting the amendment deletes the inclusion of "genetically modified plants and". I am requesting this amendment because there is a total absence of evidence that I have been disruptive in this topic area. I respectfully quote the WP:banning policy as "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." (my highlighting). Below, I provide evidence that I have not been disruptive in this topic area, in fact, I have not made a single content edit about GM-plants in my history of editing WP.

I have reviewed all the submissions relating to myself presented during the evidence phase of the GMO case. There was not a single diff provided by any party which related to me editing or discussing GM-plants.

I have also reviewed all my edits for the year of 2015. This review showed that I have not made a single edit of article content relating to GM-plants. In the last 12 months, I have edited only two articles about GMOs which contain sections on GM-plants, i.e. Genetically modified food and Genetically modified organism.

I made a handful of edits (6) on the Genetically modified food article ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.

I made 13 edits to Genetically modified organism. The vast majority of these related to animals and were often simple editorial changes such as typos, links, redundant words. I made one edit potentially tangentially related to GM-plants - I reformatted a reference title to be lowercase rather than uppercase.[22] I reverted only a single edit here[23] and although my revert was itself reverted, I did not engage in any behaviour that might be considered disruptive.

Prior to the GMO case, I was heavily involved in editing Glyphosate and I accept the ArbCom's decision to topic ban me from this as a remedy. However, I think there has been an inadvertent "topic-creep" which has led to the unnecessary inclusion of GM-plants in my ban. I have not been disruptive in the slightest in the topic area of GM-plants. My overall concern here is that some editors believe that because my topic ban includes plants, general GMO articles such as Genetically modified organism are included in my ban. I would be very grateful for a clarification by ArbCom that if this amendment is approved, my topic ban does not include these general GMO articles. I respectfully await your decision on my request for an amendment.

I would also like to note that I have posted an (almost) identical appeal to Jimbo's Talk page. This was in no way an attempt to avoid or subvert ArbCom's decision or thinking. I noted that appeals to his talk page are only allowed within 7 days of the original ArbCom decision, so I posted with 24 hours to spare. I am not expecting Jimbo to make any comment until after ArbCom have considered this matter.

@Thryduulf: please could you indicate the diff or diffs that led you to the conclusion I have been disruptive in editing the topic of genetically modified plants. My thanks in advance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, I do not see how someone can be banned from a topic they have not edited! It is bizarre and totally against why TB's are imposed! I might as well have been banned from Modernist architechture because I have some very strong ideas about this and might be disruptive there! The only interpretation of my TB of GM-plants is that it is punitive (reminiscent of your blocking). I do not understand your motivation here. It was your suggestion that my topic ban be limited to GM-Plants, which I thanked you for, but then you decided and posted that I should not edit Genetically modified organisms because GM-plants are mentioned in it. You argue that my GM-Plants TB should exist because I edited aggressively on Glyphosate. Glyphosate is not a GM-plant, but I suspect you are arguing that because it mentions GM-Plants, it is therefore related. Using this logic, a quick search reveals that Laboratory mouse Sheep and Zebrafish discuss genetic modification and therefore I am TB from these. Again using this twisted logic, there are 5,137 articles containing "genetically modified" and therefore all these 5,137 articles are now under DS and 1RR.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish, based on your recent posting,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=696229974} where you state I should be banned on "GM anything else", where is the evidence to support your suggestion that I should be banned from GM-bacteria, GM-protozoans, GM-Chromista and GM-Fungi. I have not ever edited in these areas.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish. This is the worrying edit.[[24]] By your blurring my TB from GMO-plants to the entire GMO article, you opened the door to any Gotchya-player out there... Even one of the arbitrators has warned me only about editing sections of pages. Your approach to broadening the scope of topic bans and its obvious extrapolation by game-players to other sanctions (the DS and 1RR on GMO's) is really going to come back and bite WP on the arse. You heard it here first.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I know you follow my edits closely...very closely. I imagine that of all the people involved in the GMO case, you would be the one most informed regarding any diffs that might have provided the slightest evidence that I was disruptive in the topic area of GM-Plants. Can you provide these please, to support your statement below?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

Thryduulf is right. DrChrissy, as your Wiki-friend, it breaks my heart to see what you are doing here. As I see it, the issue really isn't about "plants", per se. It grows out of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). You were topic banned from that overall topic. Subjects like glyphosate (where you edited very aggressively in the last days leading up to the official imposition of the topic ban, even after it was unambiguously clear that the proposed topic ban was certain to pass, as though you were trying to get your bit in before the "deadline"), are certainly chemicals, but they are also tied in to GMO plants, and the topic ban is intended to keep not just you but the other two editors completely away from the conflicts. That's the way things are, and I hope that you can reconcile to that. The reason that it says "plants", rather than "organisms", is not to say that you have a particular problem with plants. The reason was to carve out a privilege for you, to edit about GM animals, like the GM livestock page that you have helpfully started. You need to understand it as an exemption for animals, not as a restriction for plants. If you keep signaling to the Arbs that you do not understand that, they are likely to separate you from the animal pages as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the answers of "no" from the Committee are really more important than anything that I can say here, but I guess that I ought to clarify. In retrospect, my wording was unclear. When I said it "grows out of" GMOs, that does not mean that you were banned from all GMOs. I meant that it was motivated by your editing in the topic area. My point is that you are not banned from editing about GM animals, but you are banned from editing about GM anything else. If you do not like the answers you are now getting from ArbCom about the extent of your topic ban, please take it up with them, not me, because I did not impose it and cannot modify it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that you "should" be banned from GM anything else. I said that you "were" banned from it. And, again, I did not ban you, so you should direct those questions to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, the only reason that I'm continuing to reply to you is because I really want to be helpful to you, although we are well past the point where your best course of action would be to drop this. My comment that you linked to, about the GMO page, was advice. I am obviously not an Arb, and my saying that there carries no weight in defining the boundaries of your topic ban. It was advice. As for your worries about gotcha enforcement, AE is very different than ANI, in that frivolous accusations are much more likely to be swatted away. You need not be worried about frivolous accusations hurting you at AE, but you should worry about getting too close to the boundaries of the topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The behaviour that got DrChrissy sanctioned is precisely the behaviour that got him topic-banned from acupuncture and related topics. And the statement above makes it clear that he has learned nothing from these two bans. In both cases every challenge is based on the belief that the ban is wrong, and DrChrissy was right all along. And that was, basically, the issue that led tot he sanctions. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I don't follow your edits at all, other than on pages I am already watching. It really isn't all about you, you know. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Commenting here because DrChrissy wrote about his case on Jimbo's page. My opinion is as follows. I think that DrChrissy should stick to the GMO topic ban, which means that everything related to it in a reasonable way is off topic to him. I would have had a problem with a topic ban for him if it were even more broadly construed, e.g. a broadly construed topic ban on biology. Count Iblis (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

No. Spend some time editing productively in a completely unrelated topic area for a few months to demonstrate that you can be a net benefit to the encyclopaedia first. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as wise. DrChrissy, please find another area to edit in for a while, perhaps one not near so controversial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Follow the advice given by my colleagues first. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The topic ban was worded this way for a reason, and ten days is hardly long enough to demonstrate that loosening the topic ban would be wise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Either way this is an appeal, decline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by JzG at 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
wuerzele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

SageRad

Statement by JzG

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

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

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

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

Addendum: It's also pretty clear that Monsanto is core to the dispute, so edits like [25] might be more problematic even though they do not actually relate to GMOs or agricultural chemicals, other than in the involvement of the one company which, more than any other, acts as a focal point for the righteous anger of the anti-GMO and anti-pesticide lobby.

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

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

Statement by SageRad

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

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

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

SageRad (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ScrapIronIV

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

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

Statement by Looie496

I urge ArbCom not to fall into the futility of trying to micromanage remedies. The remedy is stated as precisely as it needs to be. And JzG should leave efforts to help SageRad to other editors. Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will further note that the statement by Wuerzele below massively violates his/her topic ban. I have informed him/her of this and urged that the statement be removed. Looie496 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

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

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

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

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

These are chemicals made by Monsanto, are they under the ban?

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (in lubricant for electric motors, might be on a farm)
saccharin (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
aspartame (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
polystyrene (you can grow plants in a Styrofoam cup)
How about Chemical weapons[27] (they might kill plants and livestock to)
Agent orange (its another chemical weapon,[28] it is not an agricultural chemical.)

This is the tip of the iceberg, and a path to a punitive slippery slope. Topic banns should be based on the case evidence and behaviour discussed in a case. Not on what could be or what might be or fears of those who engaged in a battleground that caused the case to happen. AlbinoFerret 01:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

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

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

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

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

Okay, Arbs, any other admins looking on, can someone get across to DrChrissy that they are indeed currently under a topic ban. Aside from already being at AE for blatantly breaking it [29] well after it was abundantly clarified they're now going after an editor here for simply attempting to do what this board is meant to do. Capeo (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

Statement by Wuerzele

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

I attempted to tie up unfinished consensual business from >1 month ago, finalizing which of the 3 photojournalism refs suggested by CFCF to add, in order to replace one that Keilana had removed as 'poor source' and which SageRad had reinserted twice. I had stepped in on 14 November 2015 , ie one month before the arb com decision to mediate between the parties which is contained in this section.

I posted my suggestion on the talkpage 01:10, 16 December 2015(→‎Removal of Daily Mail article: CNN or/and AlJazeera source
King reverted my talk page post immediately 02:24, 16 December 2015 Remove post by topic-banned editor without reading the talksection, as became evident later on.
Sage renamed the section and wrote 'ok', 03:14, 16 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: Sounds good. Let's do it.)
King also reverted Sage after just 1 hour 04:33, 16 December Remove post by topic-banned editor.) arriving at 2RR
Sage restored his comment 11:30, 16 December 2015 Sorry buddy but this is not in the scope of the GMO case. Don't delete other people's comments. That's not ok.)
Sage restored my Talk comment. 11:39, 16 December 2015 ((→‎Including photojournalism in article: Oh look. KoA also deleted another user's comments besides mine. Who put KoA in charge of the world?)
Sage inserted refs 11:56, 16 December 2015 (→‎Further reading: Add photojournalism section to "Further reading" section as per talk page.)here.
ScrapIronIV reverted Sage with antivandalism tool Twinkle [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Orange&diff=next&oldid=695484579%7C 15:59, 16 December 2015 : RV topic banned editor. (TW))].
NE Ent reinserted the CNN ref Revision as of 01:18, 18 December 2015 (photojournalism per talk page discussion).
King reverted NE Ent (=3RR) Revision as of 01:29, 18 December 2015 (Editors were topic banned prior to the recent discussion, so best for us avoid reinserting their edits at this time.) again making a false claim because the "recent discussion" was clearly before the arbcom decision.
King hatted Sage's and my Talk comments 02:01, 18 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: comment) and posts a reprimand at NE ent to "refrain from inserting content by the topic-banned editors that occurred after their topic ban. If you check the article history, the edits have now been removed twice from the article specifying this". Aside from the sentence being ungrammatical (inserting that occurred?) it is again factually wrong as the content was decided upon BEFORE the Arbcom decision
NE Ent posted a comment 02:39, 18 December 2015 (→‎Including photojournalism in article: Consensus is for adding). Irony no2: NE Ent had checked not only the "article history", but also read the talk page and realized that a group of 4 editors decided to add the ref (even if 2 of them voiced this in an area that KOA considers GMO topic banned, it was 2+1=3 for adding the ref!)unlike KOA. And that edit stands as of now. (KOA never apologized for this)

Irony 3: It never occurred to me that the ARbCom decision would be about all existing agricultural chemicals. Proof: go back to the very first page, it was me that WIDENED the topic from GMO (where I was not even active) to GMO related chemicals, in particular glyphosate and 2,4D which are indispensable for GMO crops, because engineered to resist it.

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

GMO core pages

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

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

I suggest that the following WP articles absolutely be covered as WP GMO articles

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

pages not in the majority about GMO-crops and /or agricultural chemicals

the following pages touch on an aspect of the pages above, but are in the majority not about the arbcom case, so out of the scope.

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

pages unclear

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

Questions

Looie496 accused me on my talk page of violating topicban by posting the above here on this page! He doesn't say why, yet admonishes me to read instructions. is he right, arbcom members, DGG, Guerillero? is he not? and why ? should he not strike his comment ?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Guerillero, Looie496 accused me on my talk page of violating the topic ban by posting here on this page. Is he correct in that ? i would like to know. can you please answer? i read your post which mentions a traveling circus ( ? I dont know what you mean by that) but you did not reply to this question.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
DGG thanks for your comment but i was misunderstood: does my posting here on this page to clarify eh scope violate a topic ban , or does it not ?--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG why did you address only SageRad in this clarification request? It certainly affected me too, as I edited Agent Orange before him and Sage reacted to my post as demonstrated in the section of diffs above.(talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG you just posted a message named "reply" but you didnt reply to this question (and kindly ping me when you address me).--Wuerzele (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG is your clarification request about more than Agent Orange? It looks unclear to me. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG you just replied that your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general. Then why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade thanks for engaging. first can you tell me if my posting here to get clarification on the scope violates the topic ban or not ?
Second, please look at my lists above: what do you think about PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are they part of the arbcom decision? you see what I mean? someone has to decide which articles need to be tagged, so we must be concrete.
lastly, do you think it is ok that only sage rad was informed that there is a scope discussion here? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the the GMO case proceeding? thank you for your time.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th

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

This kind of ambiguity is going to come up time and again, and the arbs should have been a little more careful in drafting the PD's. On the other hand, I don't know why SageRad would push it by editing the article- he should leave everything even tangentially related to the topic area for a while. Minor4th 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just add Monsanto to the topic bans and that should cover it. We don't need to tiptoe around this. Minor4th 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

@DrChrissy: You seem to forget that this is the existing language, and it was intended to allow you to edit about animals. If we make it "organisms", as for the other affected editors, you will be prohibited from editing about GM animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, for what will be the last time, I am reminding you that I am not proposing anything new about your topic ban. It is the existing wording. You have to wait a year before asking ArbCom to consider lifting the topic ban, so there is no point in asking me why the topic ban was imposed. You are digging yourself into a hole, and you need to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by NE Ent (GMO)

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

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

Guerillero, it's called being old. NE Ent 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

If Arbs do feel an amendment is needed for clarity, I'm going to put on my entomologist/pesticide background hat on for a second. I'd suggest replacing agricultural chemicals with pesticides and related chemicals. The term pesticide covers these specific types (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, etc.) listed in the table. A pesticide includes the active ingredient (e.g., glyphosate) and other major components in the mixture such as surfactants or shelf life extenders (PCBs are one past example[30]). The "non-active" ingredients are why I included related chemicals to reduce definition gaming. Some pesticides contain multiple active ingredients, such as Agent Orange, but mixtures are still a pesticide nonetheless.

Most pesticides are multi-use where some are used for agriculture, urban/home use, backyard, etc. I believe the drafters included the term agricultural chemicals as a broad term for pesticides, or maybe they weren't aware they are used in broader areas than just agriculture that are not always easily separated by use in a topic. If so, using the term pesticides shouldn't change the intended meaning at all. It would also prevent the bans from extending to unneeded topics like fertilizer. I can think of only a few controversial agricultural chemicals that wouldn't be covered by this change, but they aren't the locus of this dispute. I don't believe clarification is needed on companies as "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic. . ."[31] That would mean that since DuPont is a major producer of pesticides, topic banned editors should be staying away from the page altogether with the broadly construed qualifier.

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

Statement by DrChrissy

I am making this statement according to WP:BANEX to clarify the wording-change proposed by User:Tryptofish. Tryptofish has suggested[32] "...with "organisms" changed to "plants" in DrChrissy's case". I would like to remind the community that WP:Banning policy states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." Tryptofish must produce evidence that I have been disruptive on pages relating to genetically modified plants.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Statement by Mrjulesd

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

I think there is a case for disallowing of editing of articles closely related to Monsanto, although there could be endless wiki-lawyering over which articles this applies to. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

On the one hand I wouldn't want to see anyone prevented from taking part in Vietnam era articles. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see editors gaming the system to further their advocacy by going after these articles. Herbicidal warfare, agent orange, the other Rainbow Herbicides and ect would seem to fall under the topic ban. I'd also ask that you consider making it clear that if anyone attempts to game these sanctions that it can lead to a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: for the sake of clarity, when you say that an individual should ask for clarification on the scope of their topic ban if they are genuinely unsure, you do mean go somewhere such as AE and not here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Semitransgenic

chemicals directly connected with agricultural biotechnology and GM tech are the concern. A more accurate statement would read:

all pages relating to agricultural biotechnology and directly associated chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and other GM technologies broadly construed. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero, honestly, the intention is not to shrink the scope of the ban, but to find more exacting language such that we avoid overreach. The arbitration was about GM technologies, very specific agricultural chemicals are included in this, broadening the reach of the arbitration PD such that it restricts the free editing of articles that are not directly associated with GM technologies is not an outcome that serves Wikipedia's aims. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Zero0000 at 01:16, 2 December 2015 (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:

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

Statement by Mz7

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

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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (PIA3)

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

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

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

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

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

I suggest the following, which is explicitly allowed by the remedy. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. Let the emphasis of the enforcement be on reverts rather than semi-protection, edit filters or blocks. Use semi-protection sparingly and temporarily, in direct response to disruption. Zero0000's proposal about involved admins applying semi-protection (ideally temporarily) seems good to me. The emphasis on blocks makes the most sense, is most consistent and least harmful. It is trivial to undo any bad edits by IPs, inexperienced editors etc. In my experience, just mentioning the magic word WP:ARBPIA3 is enough to "win" any content dispute (the recent flap involving Huldra is an exception rather than the rule; she didn't say the magic word). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

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

I thought we had asked the WMF about automated enforcement mechanisms? DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There are two questions here:
1. Can involved administrators semi-protect pages in this topic area?
  - I do not think this topic area should be treated any differently than any other with regards to WP:INVOLVED, so no (except as per Mz7). Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Can the restrictions be enforced automatically?
  - This is not a matter for ArbCom as far as I am concerned. If it is possible (I don't know) then as long as all relevant policies and guidelines are followed then it may be used subject to community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If it gets the thumbs up from BAG, one could use an admin bot to semi-protect all of the pages in the topic area. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the clarification suggested by Thryduulf in this section, I agree that involved admins should not get involved in any aspect of enforcement, including this. I would like to see a way of enforcing numerical limits that did not rely on individual actions;any way that works is OK with me. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no issues with an administrator semi-protecting a page that falls within these boundaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] So if I do a HOTCAT and go away for the weekend I'm in breach? If the edits would not require BOTREQ for a "normal" editor, do they require one if I do it?

[queries 1]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4