Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 19 January 2016 (→‎Motion: Genetically modified organisms (DS): Enacting motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

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

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1) none (orig. case) 2 December 2015
Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) Motion (orig. case) 17 December 2015
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) none (orig. case) 31 December 2015
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (3) none (orig. case) 12 January 2016

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1)

Initiated by Zero0000 at 01:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mdann52: According to WP:CASCADE, cascading semi-protection is currently not available to administrators, as it would effectively allow non-administrators to semi-protect pages. Even if it were possible, by my understanding of cascade, you would have to transclude every page you want to semi-protect onto one page, which would be rather cumbersome. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I am disappointed, but not surprised that my common sense and consistent proposal isn't attracting any interest. It has been months since the remedy was passed. The sky hasn't fallen by relying on reverts so far. Nobody has a clue about how to implement the remedy in a consistent way using something more drastic like lots of semiprotection or edit filters. For instance, a ton of articles come under ARBPIA which don't have the template on their talk pages, so template based edit filters wouldn't work. Perhaps the committee should stop chasing chimeras. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mdann52

If we are going to do this, it may make sense to create a page (eg WP:Palestine-Israel articles 3), place that under cascading semi-protection, then allow editors to add articles to it in this topic area as needed. I'd note we do also have Special:AbuseFilter/698, although this will not work effectively on larger scale applications - there just aren't the resources available for it to run! Mdann52 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: ah, my bad - I'm aware you can set it up in the site config, but I see why you wouldn't want to. Thanks for correcting me on the other point too. Personally, I don't believe now there is anyway we can centrally enforce this reliably in that case. Mdann52 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill Lokshin and Doug Weller: While an edit filter is possible, it would require every page to be manually loaded in, and with limited resources to run the filter, it's unlikely to run well enough for this purpose. Mdann52 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Harry Mitchell

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

Statement by MusikAnimal

Indeed, this is basically a repeat of what I've written below... we already have a filter that disallows unqualified users to edit a explicit set of articles, which an edit filter manager can add to easily. However there has been long discussion ([1][2][3][4][5]) of a template/filter-based solution. You would add {{pp-30-500}} to any page and an edit filter would apply the 30/500 editing restriction to that page. An additional filter ensures only admins can add/remove it. See {{User:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500}}. Users would be able to request an article be put under 30/500 at WP:RFPP. So in effect we have a new form of protection until we can get WMF to create what we need. The filters need to make this work are ready to implemented, but I haven't done so yet as I also felt broader input was needed — MusikAnimal talk 01:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: I am confident the two filters needed to make a template-based solution won't have a noticeable effect on performance. We have numerous other filters that are less restrictive and with much more complex regular expressions. With Special:AbuseFilter/698 we are already halfway there. This sounds expensive, but performance is greatly improved by restricting the filter to the article/talk space, to users with < 500 edits, and then checking for the presence of the pp-30-500 template. We could do one better and require admins add it to the very top of the article, so the regex won't need to scan the whole page — MusikAnimal talk 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Other editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (1): Clerk notes

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

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

  • I thought we had asked the WMF about automated enforcement mechanisms? DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I have no issues with an administrator semi-protecting a page that falls within these boundaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend semiprotecting all articles as the ruling effectively does this anyway. Yes some articles will be 'gamed' by accounts but that can be policed much more easily of all articles semiprotected. Admin actions should be done by uninvolved admins though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liberal use of semiprotection on pages that unregistered editors are not permitted to edit because of an ArbCom ruling seems logical. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semiprotection can be superseded by the 500/30 solution as discussed below. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned below, an automated, edit filter-based mechanism of enforcement is the best option here. Given that semi-protection does not actually enforce the specific restriction in question, I don't see it as an appropriate first resort. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doug Weller and Mdann52: MusikAnimal mentions a dynamic, template-based edit filter implementation in his statement below. If I understand what's being proposed correctly, there would be no need to pre-define a list of articles, and consequently no performance issue with running the filter, even for a large article set. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an edit filter will work, I support that as a solution. Semi-protection isn't sufficient. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly as Kirill has mentioned. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad and Kirill Lokshin:, User:Mdann52 points out the flaw here, which had struck me also but I assumed I didn't understand how it would work. If Mdann52 is correct, we need to think again. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that MusikAnimal has answered that adequately. If he is wrong, and it does not work efficiently enough, only then we will need to reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1)

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

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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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)[reply]

Addendum: It's also pretty clear that Monsanto is core to the dispute, so edits like [6] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • The suggestion by Minor4th to explicitly include Monsanto in the banned topic areas has obvious merit. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

On seeing the motions presented...

The ArbCom case took months, a huge amount of work and time, and it was on a specific scope: agricultural chemicals and GMOs. That was the decision, and that's what i've abided by. If you want to topic ban me from any other topics, then have another ArbCom case, in which i can also speak and defend myself through the whole process, with the knowledge of what the new scope includes.

The scope of this case was clear, and i've been 100% willing to abide by it. I have not edited on any agricultural chemical or any topic that focuses to any non-background level on GMOs since the topic ban was enacted. That's easy enough. I'm even done editing on Agent Orange if it pleases the court, even though that is not an agricultural chemical (though one component of the mixture is a currently used agricultural chemical, so there is this bit of potentially construed overlap).

Anyway, i think the current scope is very clear, and that if the scope is to be significantly expanded then it would need another arbitration process. You can't have a process that bans a person from editing on, say, nuclear power, and then after the fact add that "We also meant you can't edit about geothermal power" without giving that person a fair chance to be part of the process on that new topic. Well you could, but then it would be a very clear top-down dictatorial process, and not what we hope for here at Wikipedia i thought. SageRad (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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★pIronIV 20:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will also point out that JzG's bad behaviour in this area is continuing from the time of the case [7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[8] (they might kill plants and livestock to)
  • Agent orange (its another chemical weapon,[9] 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)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, and Gamaliel: Since Kingofaces43 has gone down the slippery slope I wrote about in my last post here, I think its a good idea to point out the problems with it. Kingofaces43 points out that Sagerad has edited DuPont.[10] But looking at the edits themselves, a removal of unsourced material about charges at a hardware store,[11] and a chemical used to process Teflon [12] I see no intersection with GMO's or agriculture. The chemical companies, like DuPont make hundreds if not thousands of chemicals and other things that are not agricultural or GMO. Widening the ban to include these chemicals would be purely punitive and not preventive because no evidence of a problem exists now or in the case. In effect trying to stop a problem before it happens. I urge you to consider this before closing the section. On the other hand Jytdog asks for amendment to allow editing some GMO's.[13] I think this should be denied. It is clearly within the bounds of GMO's and he was a major person in this case with demonstrated issues during the case. It is way to soon to start relaxing bans. I also think if this area is open to him, it should be open to all the banned editors. That is just inviting a shift of location for a battle to happen. AlbinoFerret 08:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of specifying exactly what articles should be avoided, because, while it is true that some articles have irrelevant sections, equally, others not anticipated have sections that will be relevant, of where sections could be added that would be relevant. We should therefore be talking about topics,or edits, not articles. However, there have been at various times arb enforcement actions that gave seemed disproportionate, and we should be reluctant to give unlimited discretion there. I do not consider a scheme that leaves the details to whatever admin comes along and makers it exceptionally difficult to change them to be acceptable, but that is what we have for lack of any practical suggestions for anything better. So in effect I see no alternative to our laying down broad restrictions, and looking extremely unfavorably on attempts to test the limits or argue about the boundaries. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG But is Teflon, Styrofoam, chemical weapons with no agricultural uses, etc really testing boundaries? Or is the addition of these to a ban a bad reaction on the part of editors commenting here that helped cause the problem in the first place and a possible attempt to punish those they disagree with by pushing for the additions? Bans are supposed to be preventative, what past bad behaviour in these topics (Teflon, Styrofoam, chemical weapons with no agricultural uses) are you trying to prevent with these bans that has been proven to have happened? AlbinoFerret 10:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there seems no better way to do it. If enforcement were reasonable and actually did use discretion, there would not be a problem. But to the extent it is not, then topic bans are often going to similarly unfair because in many cases there are no clear boundaries. What does this leave us to do , between the alternatives of admonishments and outright banning? DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The better way is to leave it as it is. GMO, agricultural chemicals, and biographies of people linked to these topics. Block anyone violating the bans in place now, give the bans in place time to work before widening them. The current bans covers very wide area as it is, and it targets the areas that were proven in the case to be problematic. Adding an ever larger areas is a slope to catch people who some have disagreements with isnt an answer and you will probably soon see another request to widen it more if this one is given. Look at the editors commenting asking to increase the scope, mainly those have had bad dealings with the people they want to see the bans widened on. AlbinoFerret 10:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I think that all the banned editors should understand that even if a article is not specifically about the banned topics, if it has sections/paragraphs/claims that deal with those subjects they should stay away. Its what I suggested in my opening comment here. If any article, not just the chemical companies, has sections that deal with GMO's, agricultural chemicals, and biographies of people linked to these topics, they should be off limits to them. Blocks that increase in time per violation should happen as is spelled out Enforcement of restrictions in the closed case. I do hope that the banned editors dont stray into those areas, but a block would imho place greater stress on keeping away from the topics than widening the bans. AlbinoFerret 18:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [14] 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)[reply]

Somehow, even after the all the evidence and how long this case went on for, it seems folks are still missing the heart of the matter and that's the industry as much as the products. The core of the disputes where claims of pro-industry shilling and that's why it got so heated. It's just going to spread to Agent Orange, PCBs, anything related to Monsanto and other major agchem producers. Might as well cut them off at the pass. Capeo (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

  1. Bt cotton
  2. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
  3. Enlist Weed Control System‎‎
  4. Genetically modified bird
  5. Genetically modified crops
  6. Genetically modified fish
  7. Genetically modified food
  8. Genetically modified food controversies
  9. Genetically modified insect
  10. Genetically modified maize
  11. Genetically modified organism
  12. Genetically modified soybean
  13. Genetically modified tomato
  14. Gilles-Éric Séralini
  15. Glyphosate
  16. Golden rice
  17. March Against Monsanto
  18. Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
  19. Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
  20. Séralini affair‎‎
  21. Syngenta
  22. Vani Hari
  23. Kevin Folta

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

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. Monsanto- it produces GMO's yes, but in the majority ?
  6. Monsanto legal cases: most are not about GMO's, but about PCB's,
  7. 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.
  8. Organic farming - not using GMO crops is one aspect but certainly NOT teh majority of the topic
  9. Polychlorinated biphenyl‎- no GMO-agr chemical content
  10. precautionary principle

pages unclear

  1. 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)[reply]

Questions

  • Looie496 accused me on my talk page of violating topic ban by posting the above here on this page. He doesn't say why, yet admonishes me to read instructions asks for me to revert and threatens arb com enforcement: "Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is a clear and unambiguous violation of your topic ban. I urge you to remove it. If you are unsure of the breadth of the ban, I urge you to read the sections at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. You have also violated the topic ban on at least two other occasions since it was imposed. If you leave the statement in place, I will make a request that the topic ban be enforced..." I want to know : 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)[reply]
  • Guerillero , on 21 Dec you wrote "You are breaking your restriction if you are doing more than engaging in good faith clarification" this is a conditional sentence but no answer to the question I asked. I have been engaging in good faith clarification on this page, so I know that I have not broken any restrictions. have I or have I not? Looie496 accused me, by not being clear do you support his accusation? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerillero, i read your post which mentions a 'traveling circus'. what do you mean by that? you did not reply to this question.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerillero, my question what do you mean by 'traveling circus' is unanswered. you also wrote "if you cant act like adults". evidence? what are you referring to? Did you address me with this? if so where I have acted "not as an adult" It sounds like sarcasm to me. please be clear here. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG thanks for your comment but i was misunderstood: does my posting here on this page to clarify the scope violate a topic ban as , or does it not ?--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG the above question remains unanswered.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • JzG is your clarification request about more than Agent Orange? It looks unclear to me. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG you just replied that your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG since your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general please reply why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Seraphimblade thanks for engaging. first can you tell me if my posting here to get clarification on the scope violates the topic ban as implied on my talk page or not ?
  2. Seraphimblade, second, please look at my list of pages above: do you think PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are 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.
  3. Seraphimblade, lastly, do you think it is ok, that only Sagerad was informed that there is a scope discussion here? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the GMO case proceeding? thank you for your time.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I cant see you answered my questions.

DGG Doug Weller, thryduulf, kelapstick, NativeForeigner, Drmies, Kirill Lokshin, Keilana and whoever else is an active arbitrator (?), that has not yet opined here, would you please answer the above 3 questions? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the above 3 questions since drmies pointed out he is not clear which 3 questions I am referring to:

  1. Does my posting here to get clarification on the scope violate the topic ban as implied on my talk page or not ? (I am sorry but the diff that mies says is not helping clarity is needed and encouraged by teh guidelines for this page.
  2. do you think PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are part of the arbcom decision? someone has to decide which articles need to be tagged for WP: DS , so we must be concrete.
  3. do you all think it is procedurally wise and Wp wise ok, that only Sagerad was informed that there is a scope of GMO topic discussion here, that clearly goes beyond Agent orange, the originally (malformed) request ? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the GMO case proceeding?--Wuerzele (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I agree with your concerns about how the wording ends up being overly broad, and one can see just above that I have attempted to offer what I think is more useful wording. However, I was told in no uncertain words that the broad wording is a feature, not a bug, and ArbCom is making it absolutely clear that their intention is to make the topic bans and DS very broad. So, unless anyone on ArbCom now wants to say otherwise, yes, if the page subject is in a recipe for layer cake, it is forbidden by the topic ban. And apparently, it is even subject to 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: I know that you instructed me in no uncertain terms that the proposed broader language is a feature, not a bug, but I think that it is a stretch to consider Agent Orange to be an agricultural chemical, unless the purpose of the agriculture is to have barren fields. (Yes, I know it's an herbicide after a fashion, but it's a defoliant used as a military weapon.) And, per the issues that WhatamIdoing has raised, I still think that it's a bug, not a feature, to extend DS and 1RR to a topic description that will leave administrators at AE trying to figure out whether food preservatives should or should not be considered a covered topic. Do we really want a naive editor hauled to AE over making 2 reverts at what they perceive as a food page? In contrast, I can see some rationale for making broader bans for the small number of editors who already have topic bans, but it really seems misguided to me to make it so broad for all editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 () 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 () 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)[reply]

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

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[15]). 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. . ."[16] 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)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, FYI, on your question of demarcation, I had a suggestion above to cut the term agricultural chemicals and use the phrase pesticides and related chemicals. I don't expect that to change the current articles that DS and bans actually apply to, but it's more concise and shouldn't be quite so open to potential gaming. Guerillero suggested that in the arb discussion below, but it looks like it either got lost in the discussion or just didn't get traction with arbs. I'm not going to push for my change further unless the wording becomes a problem in the future, but it's there if anyone wants more background on what an "agricultural chemical" should be defined as in this instance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic bans Arbs (courtesy ping for @Kirill Lokshin, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, and Gamaliel: since this has been stale for awhile) have mentioned not expanding the new language to the topic bans (namely relating to associated companies) and letting that language be until editors move into areas not covered by the current language and cause issues there. In the case of SageRad, they are continuing edits on topics such as DuPont, a major agricultural chemical company. The response to the warning about them being on the edge of their topic ban is telling in that the flared temper is continuing, and some discussion on another editor's talk page gives some background on what others not involved in GMO articles at least are thinking.
I'm not going to pursue this at enforcement right now personally, but this is an example of an area/editor that would be affected by changing the topic ban wording that's worth consideration. It may not be sufficient to change votes (and that's fine), but I figured it's something recent you should be made aware of in the context of the decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please see my response to AlbinoFerret, above. The abbreviated version is that there is no way of doing this exactly. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrChrissy

I am making this statement according to WP:BANEX to clarify the wording-change proposed by User:Tryptofish. Tryptofish has suggested[17] "...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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • In the section Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans) it is stated each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants..." This is incorrect.DrChrissy (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments that TBs should include those pages which contain sections on GMO's are unclear. Are we talking about an article such as Laboratory mouse which has a section titled "Mutant and transgenic strains"? Or, are we talking about articles such as Mouse which has one sentence on knockout mice? It is entirely possible that I would make edits to Laboratory mouse without even realising there was a section on transgenics. I would of course not edit such a section if I saw it, but I should be allowed to edit the remainder of the article whilst adhering to my TB. Whilst I am here, is there a genetically modified elephant in the room? We still have not clarified what "GMO" and "broadly construed" mean when considered together. It could be argued that artificial selection and domestication are genetic modification...now how big a topic is that for DS?DrChrissy (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

It's rare that I need clarification of an ArbCom resolution, but this one throws me off. I didn't realize that Wuerzele was involved in the GMO case, and yesterday I asked him to help me with Benzaldehyde, better known to the non-chemists as the active ingredient in almond extract. A few of us have been talking about our sourcing guidelines as applied to toxicology information for many months, and I thought it would make a good case study for a common, GRAS-certified, food-safe molecule. (We need a few divergent examples to build a guideline that hits the sweet spot of being both stringent and realistic: common vs rare, old vs new, food vs poison, etc.)

Problem: This chemical, in both its synthetic and natural forms, is used as a bee repellent, particularly by beekeepers. So does that make the whole article fall under the topic ban? Or maybe only the section that says it is used by some beekeepers during honey collection? Or maybe none of it? I'm pretty sure that none of you meant for "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" to include any of the typical ingredients for layer cake – and please note every single object for sale in your grocery store was "commercially produced", so this is still a "commercially produced chemical" – but I find that I'm completely uncertain how to proceed at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jytdog: My problem is that I can't figure out what's supposed to be covered by these topic bans! Is organic flour an "industrially produced food"? Is pure organic cane sugar a "commercially produced agricultural chemical"? (It's a [single] "chemical", it's "commercially produced", and "agriculture" is definitely involved!)
If they said "stuff covered in the agrochemical article", then I could say, with reasonable certainty, that none of the ingredients in a cake are included in the topic ban. But right now, I'm feeling like this is admin lottery: the first nine will say that food isn't an agricultural chemical, but the tenth will say that it is (or, more cynically, it's covered by the ban if he disagrees with the particular edit), and AE is structured to let the most aggressive admin win.
The only thing that's clear from their comments is that several ArbCom members don't quite understand that everything – literally every single thing that you can touch – is "chemicals". Your food is chemicals; your clothes are chemicals; computer is chemicals; everything is chemicals. So unless they intend to topic ban these people from every single subject that (a) directly or indirectly relates to any physical substance whatsoever (anything that contains one or more atoms) and (b) has any connection whatsoever, no matter how trivial that connection, to food, then it would be appropriate for them to explain what is actually meant to be covered. I want solid information, rather than a change to the resolution. Even an unofficial list of several examples of things that are/aren't meant to be covered would be helpful to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

Just want to note that in my view the new statement of the scope is almost perfect. I would ask arbcom to tweak it to clarify that it is about industrial food production and the resulting food. That is what the anti-GMO movement, which has a very strong online presence (and hence constantly shows up in WP) is worked up about - so the scope should cover any GMOs related to food, the associated chemicals, and the companies that make them (primarily Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer (via Bayer Cropscience), and DuPont Pioneer). The broadening to include all agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides etc), even when not partnered with a GMO, are appropriate to include as well as the anti-GMO folk are concerned about their presence in food (and many are pro-organic as well... I have debated whether to ask arbcom to include organic food, organic farming etc in the ban, but at this point I am not).

I want to note that in my view the scope should not include Biopharmaceuticals or industrial enzymes (but it should include recombinant enzymes used in food production like chymosin).

The heart of the GMO controversy is about food and food production. I never once (!) heard an anti-GMO advocate talk about the evils of insulin (which is manufactured in genetically modified E coli cells that are GMOs).Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing I hear you. The arbs will do what they will do. When I wrote above, "industrial food production and the resulting food", i really meant "conventional industrial food production and the resulting food". There is a whole nexus there of intensive chemical use in food production and processing, GMOs, corporate consolidation, IP law, monoculture, and fossil-fuel dependent equipment use, various parts of which upset some people viscerally. (although organic food and production are getting more popular are production has been somewhat industrialized, they are still a tiny proportion by weight and by money of the ag and food markets - the line between "conventional" and "alternative" is still very clear today - source for data on the relative market sizes)
About the demarcation - as I wrote above in my view people tend to emotionally focus most on "contamination" of conventionally produced food with "chemicals" and genetic modification. The relevant chemicals in this case are agrochemicals - I think that is a pretty clearly defined field, namely chemicals used in agricultural production. I think you would have to twist pretty hard to consider flour or other ingredients in a cake to be "agriculture chemicals". (I have not been that involved in articles about chemicals used in food processing ... but have a look at Flour#Bleached_flour which I never looked at before today - do you see the chemophobia that has colored that section? This is the kind of thing that happens in WP, that came to a head in this arbcom case about agricultural production and the resulting food. (along with a lot of grudges, which does confuse things I know))
About organic food and food production per se -- from time to time in the organic suite of articles (which i no longer watch as I consider it part of my ban, broadly construed) advocates would show up pretty regularly and either directly write nasty things about conventionally produced food/agriculture or more indirectly, write about how much "better" organic food/agriculture is (see for example The Non-GMO Project) - that is why (in my view) it is part of this whole mess and why I have considered asking arbcom to formally include it. In my view organic sugar (your example) would only be relevant if folks want to rip on conventional sugar or say how organic sugar is "better."
I don't know if any of that is helpful to you or anyone else. Demarcation is hard. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish Agent Orange was a blend of two chemicals, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The Agent Orange article got more lively in the last year or so b/c Dow has developed GM crops that are resistant to 2,4-D (see here) and the anti-GMO crowd has been running around screaming about agent orange being used in the US on food crops (like this external link). In my view Agent Orange is well within the scope of the original topic ban that applies to me. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question to the arbs on the scope of the current motion which names "GMOs" - above I wrote that biopharmaceuticals are produced using GMOs (see for example the ZMapp article which I worked on quite a bit during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa). That kind of stuff is altogether out of the scope of the agricultural dispute and the lines between ag and biopharmaceutical are very clear to me. But perhaps to others the lines are not so clear. Does Arbcom intend that I not work on stuff like that? If so it would be a shame but I will abide by whatever you all say. But please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has kind of dried up. To explain the "clear line" thing that I see a bit more.... Biopharmaceuticals are produced using GMOs that are cells. Those GMO cells are created in labs and then transferred to production facilities with big steel chambers where the cells are grown in batches. The cells make proteins that are purified and then sold as drugs under prescriptions. All that is very controlled, etc. Contrast that to a genetically modified seed that is sold to farmers who plant the GM seeds out there in their fields, harvest the crop (which is GM), sell it processors, who turn it into flour, oil etc, which then enters the food supply. Or a genetically modified papaya tree - the fruit is GM and people eat the fruit (no processing) or the new GM salmon, where again people eat the GM thing itself. All of that happens "out here" in the world where people live and work and eat. It is the latter - the use of GMOs in agriculture / food production - that upsets people and is controversial. To complicate things a bit (there is always grey, right?) academics and the biotech industry explored producing drugs in GM field crops - planted out in fields - away back in the 80s and 90s but those efforts were abandoned as being too scary for the public and for everybody. Pharming, as it is called, is still being done, but it is all either in greenhouses or in plant cells grown in vats, in order to keep things in a controlled environment. I hope that clarifies the use of GMOs in ag vs biotherapeutics. It is really a line between stuff that happens out in the public sphere vs stuff that happens in controlled environments. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to AlbinoFerret's comment above responding to what I have written. I'll re-iterate that there has been no controversy in Wikipedia (and hardly any outside wikipedia) with regard to the use of GMOs in biopharmaceuticals. It is not part of the scope of the case. Of course it may well be that others may widen their sphere of editing in pursuit of me and will begin disrupting those otherwise peaceful articles; this is what raised the pitch of disputes in the ag GMO articles and led to the arbcom case, and it continued in that case. Anyway, I don't have any more to say on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and in fact i withdraw my request to clarify. leave it broad. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

@Wuerzele: I am no longer an arbitrator (my term ended on 31 December, and only cases carry over), so I can't give you definitive answers, but as you have asked me to opine my thoughts are

  1. A good-faith request for clarification of the scope of a topic ban, made at an appropriate venue, is not a breach of that topic ban (see WP:BANEX). I see no reason not to assume good faith of this request and ARCA is the correct place to seek clarification of an arbcom-imposed topic ban.
  2. The pages concerned are that those that are broadly related to the topics listed in your ban. An article like Glyphosate is clearly related and so off-limits to you. Articles like Lime and Ammonia are mostly not related so you can edit that, but not any parts of the article that deal with its use as an agricultural chemical. As for what to tag, a good rule of thumb is that if more than about 2/3rds of the article is covered by the topic ban, it should probably be tagged, unless there is a consensus of editors who are not topic banned that it should not be. Similarly, if there is a consensus of editors who are not topic banned that an article not covered above should be tagged, then it should be tagged. It is not the job of Arbcom to micromange things like this.
  3. If anybody thinks that an editor should be notified of an ongoing discussion but has not been, then they should notify that editor themselves unless (a) one or both parties is under a restriction that the notification would breach; (b) the editor in question has asked not to be notified about such matters; or (c) the editor in question has asked the person notifying not to interact with them.
    Unless notifications were not made by the person raising or broadening the discussion in a deliberate attempt to conceal then I really don't think it is anything to get hung up about - just notify whomever wasn't or ask someone else to if you cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

Just an FYI as a few arbs have stated opposition to altering the topic bans in proposal 2 based on 'no evidence of issues elsewhere' I have opened an AE request here which may be of relevance. Specifically SageRad's POV regarding GMO companies (Monsanto) and pretty much stating on a vocal pro-science BLP that it is a 'biased' etc. (This is SageRad specific and unrelated to the other two editors)

Statement by Opabinia regalis

[ Commenting here as a regular editor, since I participated in this case before I was sentenced elected... ]

I'd like to add another support for Tryptofish's suggested wording, or similar: all pages related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or pesticides and related chemicals, broadly construed. I might even go narrower and say "GMOs as used in agricultural biotechnology" - Jytdog does have a point that biopharmaceuticals are uncontroversially manufactured using GMOs, and have not been part of this dispute; indeed, every article related to modern molecular biology is probably based on sources involving GMOs (though no one uses that term, it technically fits). Ag bio is really the core of the dispute that gave rise to this case.

The current suggested wording, "commercially produced agricultural chemicals", has a plausible reading that is extremely broad. One of the issues that has come up in this topic area is editing by people whose knowledge base in the field is weak or patchy or restricted to particular subtopics; asking the presumably non-expert uninvolved admins enforcing these topic bans to make finely parsed judgments about scope is just asking for inconsistency. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I agree with Seraphimblade. NativeForeigner Talk 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doug's wording, and Seraphimblade's logic. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doug Weller, is the "broadly construed" left out by design? I prefer narrow formulations and broad constructions. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies Well spotted, it was a copy/paste error, it was obviously meant to mirror the original while modifying the scope of the sanctions. Fixed now. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jytdog I think "broadly construed" covers it. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wuerzele, you asked a half a dozen questions, I think. If you want my opinion, I think your post with all those diffs and commentary, and your proposed lists of what should and should not be covered by WP:ARBGMO, does not serve to clarify what we're talking about here. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (DS)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

Enacted Miniapolis 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Support[reply]

  1. As proposer. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 14:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. did some wordsmithing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I cannot say that I find the original wording very helpful and did not, in the original case, see why the broad topic of "agricultural chemicals", commercially produced or otherwise, had to be included to further the goal of preventing disruption (and not preventing editors from editing)--but obviously I wasn't there, so I'll abstain now. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I took no part in this case due to travelling, so I'll choose to stay out of it right now. (This is quite explicitly not a recusal, and not an indication I'll never talk part in matters regarding this case.) Courcelles (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

AlbinoFerret Thinking about this a bit more, "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and commercially produced agricultural chemicals broadly construed" might be sufficient. It would still cover any part of a company's article that dealt with gmos or agricultural chemicals. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans)

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Jytdog's topic ban, SageRad's topic ban, and Wuerzele's topic ban which currently states that each user "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" is replaced with each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months from the date the case closed."
Support
  1. We should standardize across the board --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kirill Lokshin, DGG, Doug Weller, and Kelapstick: Isn't the whole reason for this ARCA thread because SageRad and Wuerzele moved to Agent Orange which is in a gray area, I think a very dark gray but still gray, of our topic bans? (Discussion in question) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    there's no evidence of improper editing from them there. Nor are the issues involved really similar. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In hindsight, I struggle to see how a topic ban on AgChem and GM-anything, can not include the associated companies (i.e. Monsanto, to pick the low hanging fruit for an example). Anyone who uses any sort of social media knows how divisive this topic is, and the epicenter is almost always the "corporations". The matter of Agent Orange is absolutely a gray area, however it is not an agricultural chemical in my opinion, quite the opposite. The link between Agent Orange and Monsanto as the manufacturer is easy to see. If one could edit Agent Orange without talking about Monsanto, as the company that created it, that would be nice. Initially I would not have considered the addition of the photojournalism external links to be a violation of the topic ban extension posted above, I would consider this to be (note since the topic ban has not yet been extended, there is no sanctionable violation at this time). Notwithstanding my previous statement, I dislike the skirting of topic bans by getting as close to the topic as one can without actually crossing the edge. I personally would appreciate it if when someone is topic banned, they just moved on to another corner of Wikipedia. There is a lot to write about. So in summary, yes extend the ban as Guerillero describes, other products produced by the companies as described falls under the broadly interpreted clause (consequently Agent Orange, and any other such products). Wuerzele in response to your questions, please see the comment by Thryduulf. I was in the process of writing up answers, but they ended up near identical to his response, so I feel it is best not to duplicate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. These editors appear to be complying with the existing restrictions and not getting involved in conflict on adjacent topics. Consequently, I see no reason to further restrict them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Kiril. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Until there's an obvious problem I see no need to revise our earlier decision. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I enjoy consistency, if there is no disruption, I don't see the need to expand the restriction. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - Moving to support with extended rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Really, per DGG and Kirill. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill. Presumably any admin can apply DS to expand the topic ban in this way if needed for these editors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I like consistency in the sanctions, Gamaliel is quite right that the topic bans can be expanded using DS to explicitly include these areas is appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. As per my comments on the above motion. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2)

Initiated by When Other Legends Are Forgotten at 04:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by When Other Legends Are Forgotten

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

A further clarification is required with regards to IPs ability to edit talk pages of articles subject to the 30/500 restriction, as it seems that some administrators are of the opinion that they are allowed to edit such pages (see [19])

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

Statement by MusikAnimal

  • I don't think the 30/500 restriction should be left to personal opinion. It may sometimes be that the subject itself is not directly associated to Arab-Israeli conflict, rather limited to a particular section, or even a few lines of text. At any rate I definitely don't think it's fair to unqualified users to give no indication that they shouldn't be editing.
    Currently there is an edit filter that disallows edits from users who do not meet the 30/500 qualification. When this was set up I was given an explicit set of articles to target, that has been added to since then. I believe the editing restriction should be exclusively enforced by these means. It seems silly to allow any given editor to enforce it manually based on their own interpretation (not to say When Other Legends Are Forgotten's opinion is wrong).
    There has been talk of introducing a new page protection system powered by a template (documentation to come) and two separate edit filters. Lengthy discussion can be found here and here. If we proceed with this route, it will be clear to editors the page is protected, as it will have a padlock icon. The decision to impose the editing restriction will be left to admins at their discretion, and users could request this protection at WP:RFPP (have to talk to Cyberpower678 about the bot, but one step at a time). Any admin can add the enforcing template to a page and the edit filter will then protect that page under the 30/500 restriction. An additional edit filter will ensure only admins can add and remove the padlock template. I believe this new system will alleviate confusion on what articles are under the editing restriction, as the process will be very formal. Having authored the template and offering to author the new filters, I am actually ready to move forward with this approach pending consensus to do so. Pinging SpacemanSpiff and NeilN (maybe this isn't the best place to discuss)
    Hopefully we can adopt the new system soon. Until then, I believe the single edit filter we have now is the best course. If there are any outstanding articles that fall under the editing restriction but are not currently enforced, please let edit filter managers know via the filter noticeboard.
  • @When Other Legends Are Forgotten: (pings don't actually work here since there's no timestamp =P): I don't think getting admin attention will be that much of an issue, as you'll be able to request protection at WP:RFPP just as you do any type of protection (we can even add it to Twinkle). E.g. anyone can add {{pp-protected}} to an article, but it won't actually be protected until an admin comes along and does it. Similarly the same is true for the 30/500 restriction. I realize this is a bit different because with semi it's at admin discretion whether or not it should be protected, whereas if you created a new page that's unambiguously about the Arab-Israeli conflict, no one is going to argue it qualifies for the 500/30 arbitration remedy -- and by all means, revert as necessary in that case if the protection is not yet in place. You might as well request an admin to add the padlock template, otherwise it's purely up to the page watchers to enforce the restriction, and only those page watchers who know the restriction even exists. Admin intervention also ensures we don't get bogus claims that a page is eligible for 30/500 (again, not referring to you). E.g. one could add it to the talk page and start reverting away, until someone comes by and stops them.
    Another idea is to make sure all pages with the 30/500 template are also semi'd (as no anons meet 30/500). That way we can utilize some technical magic to make the {{ARBPIA}} template add a category if the corresponding subject page is not semi'd. This would give us a list of pages that probably also need to have the 500/30 enforcing template added to them. Hell, we could even have a bot find all pages with {{ARBPIA}} on the talk page and no {{pp-30-500}} template on the subject page. I don't want to get too carried away with technical matters, and further backlog my list of to-dos, but the template approach to enforcing the 500/30 restriction is at the top of that list -- and I really think it is the best solution, which means we will require admin intervention to qualify an article for 30/500 but in a way that's more formal and conducive to a stable editing environment — MusikAnimal talk 06:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zero0000: If by "tag" you mean the new {{pp-30-500}} which automatically enforces the editing restriction, the addition of it will absolutely have to be left to admins (they can be involved, assuming there's no question it applies to that article). This is a powerful editing restriction, much moreso than semi, pending-changes, or even PC2. We can not let just anyone add it, we need admins to verify it is truly needed on that article or else it's usage is subject to abuse. Again, getting admin attention is as simple as making an RFPP request. These are processed quickly.
    Now, if an article is clearly subject to the arbitration remedy, anyone can of course enforce the 30/500 restriction manually, but they should at least add {{ARBPIA}} to the talk page so people are aware this is a thing, and also request 30-500 protection assuming they are aware it exists. There might also be articles where only a portion of it is subject to 30/500 restriction. In such a case we obviously wouldn't protect it with {{pp-30-500}}, and enforement would have to be left to page watchers.
    Again mind you there is an edit filter already doing this job, just doesn't go off of a template admins can add, which is the better solution as it won't require edit filter managers to update which articles are protected. This edit filter was put in place as a result of this ArbCom case, and it's usage was challenged and upheld here and here. The filter-enforced disallowing of edits is favourable over letting editors do the job manually, as it presents a friendly edit notice telling the user why they can't edit, as opposed to bitey page watchers reverting with the summary "you can't edit here". All in all, if we are to keep the 30/500 editing restriction, I see no reason why we shouldn't do in a way consistent with other page protections, especially given this one is the more powerful of protections.
  • Regarding talk pages: I'm with Zero, Kelapstick and Drmies in that there should be no automatic disallowing of users not meeting 30/500 from editing talk pages. This is the only venue they have to contribute. As such protection should be done no different than as we would with any other page – only protect once repeated disruption has been observed, as a preventive measure. We should start with semi, and if disruption continues, admins will be able to add {{pp-30-500}} to enforce the 30/500 editing restriction.
    I also agree with Xaosflux that edit notices (and the {{ARBPIA}} on the talk page) should be required. The issue is unqualified editors still see the Edit button, and may spend some time making sizable contributions before edit filters disallows the edit, or someone reverts them. It's only fair for them to be given prior notice — MusikAnimal talk 21:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kirill Lokshin and Opabinia regalis: This template/filter based solution is ready to go, I just wanted to make sure there was consensus to implement it. This is a whole new form of protection, in line with any other level of protection. With it's usage comes responsibility, and a strict protocol might be needed. I think it should only be used when a page is unambiguously qualifies for 30/500 protection, in that the subject itself falls under the restriction – not just a section of the article or a paragraph therein. I also don't think it should be used on talk pages, and that clearly is subject to debate. Note that I can implement it to only work on article pages. What do you think? — MusikAnimal talk 00:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

Statement by xaosflux

Personally I abhor that a new "class" of editor has been created by decree of ArbCom. That being said, as it has been decided to ban all new editors from editing certain articles - I think it needs to be abundantly clear to the editors that they are under such a topic ban and why. I think at a minimum edit notices should be required on any page that is considered in scope of this ban. While the decision only says that this ban "may" be enforced, I would never enforce it for any good faith edit - however the sanction appears to support allowing anyone else to enforce it even for good faith editing. — xaosflux Talk 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2): Clerk notes

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

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

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

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (3)

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 14:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Sir Joseph

I put in an AE against someone but........... but I did have a question for clarification. The most recent decision of the ARBPIA specified that any editor may revert an IP editor or < 500 poster without regard for the content of the post.

1)If the IP is adding correct information, and another editor leaves it in, does it then still get to be reverted, and if it does, does it get to be reverted hours later? For example, an IP editor adds some content, I, or someone else looks at it and realizes it to be a good edit so it's left in. Is it still considered revertable or is it now part of the article? Does it make sense that it can be reverted 5 hours later, even if the article was edited by another editor in the meanwhile?

2)If the IP is adding/removing information and the non-IP is just reverting without looking since IP-IP-IP says we can, what can a non-IP editor do to not run into 1RR rules when he wants to keep that information in?

I understand that someone might not want to get involved, but there are issues when you revert blindly without looking at the content. I've seen it several times already and most recently yesterday/today which is what made me post this clarification request. There certainly has to be a time limit on the IP reversion, or at the very least once another editor has edited the page after the IP editor, then that IP editor's edits should not be considered revertible.

@Serialjoepsycho, so you're OK with someone reverting an IP edit's content indefinitely? At a certain point, the edit becomes part of the article and should no longer become an "IP edit subject to unlimited revert." If another editor edited the page and hours passed by, then that edit should not be allowed to be blindly reverted. You say it's not broke, but I disagree. When you blindly revert content from an encyclopedia without looking at content, that obviously is damaging to the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SJP, it first says "ALL anonymous IP edits and then registered 500/30. Of course what is not an anonymous IP? Does that then open it up to a known IP editor who doesn't want to register for whatever reason? That's another headache. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

This is a very simple matter. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is (though not called) a topic ban. WP:BANREVERT already covers it. If it's not broke don't fix it. It's not broke.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have a problem with someone reverting an IP edit's content indefinitely? Absolutely. But then that's not actually what we are talking about. We are talking about someone reverting a topic banned editor, that is IP editors and all other editors with under 500 edits who are topic banned from editing ARBPIA articles. Anyone who is not topic banned is free to reinsert this material. Now this person may also be reverted, but we have talk pages. They can go to those talk pages and give a coherent justification for those changes. If they fail to get a consensus they can open an RFC or some other form of dispute resolution and seek a consensus. There is nothing new with WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 other than how these editors get released from the topic ban. Reverting banned users is not new. It's certainly not a broken system because you couldn't settle a content dispute at AE. That is actually intended.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill Lokshin:, I question the actual clarity. Reading it myself I took it to apply to IP editors under 500 edits and registered editors under 500 edits. If this is intended to entirely block all IP editors it might be apt to change the language. Probably something to the effect of All anonymous IP editors or accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited.... Specifically changing the conjunction and to or.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved TransporterMan

If the Committee is taking the position, which appears that it may be, that BANREVERT is not applicable in this situation the Committee would be well-advised to be careful not to create or inadvertently or intentionally imply any obligation to restore the reverted material which could cause either the reverting editor, regular maintainers, or other editors to be subject to criticism or sanctions if they fail to do it. That's just another opening for the kind of drama which this restriction and exception to BANREVERT is intended to avoid. (If words such as "should be restored" are used, it should be made clear that "should" in that case means, "it would be a good thing for the encyclopedia if they were restored, but no one is required to do so.") Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (3): Clerk notes

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

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

  • WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is quite clear: any IP edit to the affected pages may be reverted on sight, regardless of how much time has elapsed or whether there have been subsequent edits. If another editor wishes to re-instate the same content, they may do so using their own account, subject to the various other restrictions in place (such as the general 1RR)—but this must be done with an explicit new edit, and not by merely choosing not to revert the original one.

    (The extra work involved here is one of the reasons why I think we need to use an edit filter approach that disallows the original edits in the first place, rather than forcing other editors to revert them by hand.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, in the case of a valid edit by an IP, the edit can (probably should) be reverted, and reinstated by a permitted editor, who then takes ownership of the addition. I was thinking that a null edit could be completed where the edit was accepted by a +500/30 editor, however that would just get too complicated. As Kirill states, in this case, not taking action cannot be seen as an acceptance, it is would be too difficult to track. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no issue with a null edit being used as long as it explicitly defines the content the IP has added (such as a space added either side). However as Kelapstick says it could (and probably will get complicated) so reverting and re-adding (with a link to the +500/30 IP or account edit) would seem like the best idea. I agree that technical enforcement would be beneficial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=700599328"