Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wvbailey (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 30 March 2016 (→Statement by User:Charles Matthews: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  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
127128129130131132

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

Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 05 Jun 2025 19 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Carl Hewitt none (orig. case) 19 March 2016
Amendment request: Infoboxes none (orig. case) 21 March 2016
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms none (orig. case) 25 March 2016
Clarification request: Oversight blocks none none 27 March 2016

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Carl Hewitt

Initiated by Prof. Carl Hewitt at 03:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Carl Hewitt arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. [1]
  2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
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
Information about amendment request
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt

Edit talk pages of articles to make suggestions for improvement and participate in discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning articles for which I have contributed to talk pages.Carl (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Opabinia regalis brought to my attention that there is a severe privacy and security hole in Wikipedia. If an editor forgets to log in (or Wikipedia logs them out) then Wikipedia publishes the IP address used for their edit (wherever they happen to be) subjecting the address to potential targeted cyber attacks. When this happens, it is necessary to shut out access to the Internet until a new IP address can be acquired on another IP address block.Carl (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBM

I would like to encourage Arbcom to discuss amendments to the original arbitration remedy that make article improvement and maintenance more straightforward. The persistent editing of particular articles and talk pages by numerous logged-out IP addresses, together with an inability of Dr. Hewitt to edit under a logged-in account because of an indefinite block [2], make article maintenance challenging. In particular, editors cannot assume that the IP edits are by Dr. Hewitt, nor can they assume that the edits are not by Dr. Hewitt, which makes communication challenging. If Dr. Hewitt were permitted to edit from a logged-in account verified by Arbcom to be controlled by him, it might facilitate article improvement by making it clear who is proposing particular edits. Unfortunately, the continued presence of tendentious IP edits even on the recent Village Pump thread suggests that longer-term semiprotection may still be necessary on the affected articles [3] [4] [5]. I think Arbcom may be able to strike a balance that, at least, allows us to clearly separate edits by Dr. Hewitt from edits by IP addresses. (I will be traveling from March 21 to March 25, and my responses my be delayed.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

@Callanecc, CarlHewitt was blocked for abusively using socks - primarily to get around his Arbcom-mandated topic ban on autobigraphical editing. That would generally be seen as an arbcom-enforcement action even if it is not directly listed as such, rather than a normal admin action. Are you saying that because it was a block for socking, its not an Arb-enforcement? The cause was his socking to get round his arbcom-restrictions. If those restrictions didnt exist, he wouldnt have socked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MuZemike

I believe I have not made any error back in 2009 with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive#Report date October 21 2009, 01:29 (UTC) (when I was an SPI clerk, issuing the blocks based on the CheckUser's findings); the blocks were found to be in violation of the ArbCom remedy back in 2006 (and modified a year later in 2007 to specifically address the situations brought up in the various sock puppet cases).

That being said, if the current ArbCom wishes to amend the request given more modern circumstances, I have no opinion (nor any opposition) on it, provided WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:COI continue to be strictly followed. However, historically that has been more easily said than done, including the talk page usage. --MuZemike 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ruud Koot

(Disclaimer: I was one of the filing parties in the original ArbCom case.)

I think it would be preferable to have Hewitt edit under a single account instead of a multitude of accounts and IP addresses. However:

  1. Hewitt would have to do so voluntarily, as enforcing this is not really possible.
  2. Formally he is still under an ArbCom restriction against autobiographical editing and has been blocked multiple times violating this restriction and for sockpuppeteering.
  3. Over the past decade I've seen little change in his behaviour. I.e., he is still exclusively interested in autobiographical editing, not in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
  4. Over the years Hewitt has been continuing to disrupt the talk pages of several articles, which has been mostly handled by semi-protection. This would no longer be effective once his account would become autoconfirmed. I'm not really sure how long this single account would last, for this reason.

Given the amount of time that has passed since the original case, I think it would be useful if the ArbCom at least said something on this matter. —Ruud 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, students have reported that Ruud has not been a neutral party in these matters in how he has behaved over the past decade.
Consequently, consideration should be given to the question as to whether he should recuse himself.
PS. I hate to bring this up since it is rehashing old stuff that should be put behind us. So I suggest that everyone just stop.
It looks like there are at least 4 challenges:
  1. The article Carl Hewitt is very obsolete.
  2. The article Actor model is lacking some critical references.
  3. There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness. Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging.
  4. The article Logic programming is missing a critical reference.
Since I am an active participant in the above academic discussions, it is not clear how I can most constructively contribute to Wikipedia. However, the above articles are currently inadequate.
It would be greatly beneficial if editors who have not been previously involved could help organize discussions to prevent falling back into previous dysfunctional patterns. For example, User:Charles Matthews was strongly involved in the Wikipedia-related newspaper attack on me.
It would be highly desirable to attract more academic experts to contribute to Wikipedia in the highly technical subjects of these articles. However, because of some unfortunate experiences on Wikipedia, it is very difficult to persuade academics to contribute. Perhaps the best fallback is to report ongoing controversies as fairly as possible relying on academic publications.
I am not looking to have my views or contributions unduly or unfairly represented. Carl (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved)

I'm opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion of 500/30 restrictions on those articles. All or almost all of the IP disruption they've seen has come from Prof. Hewitt and/or his associates. If the sanctions on Prof. Hewitt are relaxed and that disruption continues/resumes, then relaxing the sanctions has failed in its purpose, so in that situation the sanctions should be put back in place. Many high quality contributions to those articles (and math articles in general) have come from other IP's. And while the drastic 500/30 remedy might have been justified in extraordinarily inflamed disputes like Gamergate, it shouldn't be resorted to for comparatively minor stuff like this.

I'm dubious towards Prof. Hewitt's appeal for various reasons including some of the content issues he mentions in his statement, but as everyone says, it's been a long time, so I'll stay neutral. Trovatore, Arthur Rubin, or Wvbailey might have something to say or know of some others to invite. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved?) Arthur Rubin

I don't know if this requires ArbCom action, but there are both ArbCom and community bans on Carl's (and his students') edits. I'm not sure the community ban could be removed without modifying the ArbCom ban. As for the ban, I would be in favor of Carl (or his students) being allowed to make suggestions on relevant article talk pages, but not be allowed to edit articles, make personal attacks (even if they think them justified), or repeatedly argue any points. I think this could be formalized, but I'm not sure, as Carl and his students have repeatedly violated the existing ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I could be considered "involved", although almost all of my dispute with Carl was acting as an Admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Charles Matthews

I was involved in the original case, and was approached to comment here.

I think it should be recognised that in all related matter there is a basic issue with Wikipedia:Third-party sources: it should be applied rigorously to all material in Wikipedia associated with Professor Hewitt's work. I quite realise that page is an essay, not a guideline. The formulation that sources should be "entirely independent of the subject being covered" is key, however.

What we have seen in the past has been an undermining of the encyclopedic principle that we cover academic matters by compiling reference material. ArbCom should support the efforts of those who wish to see this general area of computer science covered neutrally, with no undue emphasis on one school of thought.

My opinions here are strongly held. I'd be happy to comment privately to ArbCom on my grounds for believing this area of editing is worth their close attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Wvbailey

Per Carl Hewitt's statement above, to quote: "There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness. Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging." I see no evidence that Hewitt understands the principle that an article is no place to push one's POV, and a talk page is not the place for discussions of an "ongoing academic controversy" and self-advertising (e.g. announcing papers etc, see Archive 9 of the article) but rather for concrete suggestions, and discussions of those suggestions, about how to improve the article. BillWvbailey (talk)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes

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

Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It looks to me that User:CarlHewitt is blocked from editing for sockpuppetry not as an arbitration enforcement action or by the Committee but normal administrative enforcement. If that's the case then the block needs to appealed on User talk:CarlHewitt, or if access to that account has been lost, on User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt - see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. I am not willing to consider amending the case until Professor Hewitt has returned to active editing using an account. Given that the block is not under the control of ArbCom (it wasn't arbitration enforcement or a Committee decision) I'd rather let the community handle this first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a sense yes Only in death does duty end. They weren't actually blocked as an arb enforcement action. But I see your point regarding the reason for the block. My concern here is that this block can be overturned by any admin so it's not exactly within our jurisdiction. Likewise (historically) ArbCom will generally only overturn arb enforcement actions when there are serious process issues involved (rather than standard appeals). I'd be more willing to see this go to another venue (AE/AN/user talk page) to appeal the block and continue with the current sanctions, plus any other sanctions admins dealing with the unblock see fit. However given the historical changes both to practice and terminology I'm willing (if my colleagues would like to) handle this here with amendments to the case and a possible unblock (but I'd like MuZemike's opinion as the blocking admin too). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to treat this as effectively an AE appeal, assuming my colleagues agree. To me the key question, regardless of paperwork matters, is whether others in the topic area agree that this is the best path forward to minimize disruption, so I would like to see further feedback about that. If so, I'd suggest restrictions along the lines of: 1) restricted to a single account only (I don't much care which one); 2) absolutely no editing logged out; 3) restricted to editing only article talk pages, user talk pages, his own userspace, and project discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prof. Carl Hewitt, I noticed this IP edit - whether this is you or an associate or simply a passerby, it's important to point out that the approach being proposed here specifies no editing logged out. It would be helpful if you could clarify if you would accept and abide by that restriction. (Also, please make your comments in your own section here, even if they are responses to others.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has gone on long enough, time to try something different. There is a lot of bad behavior in the history of the article, but talk pages should be a space for the subjects of articles to address article content, just like we allow any corporation in the world to request changes to their articles on talk pages. I endorse Opabinia regalis' suggestions, with two additional restrictions:

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review#Remedies


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
Information about amendment request
  • Suspend all remedies concerning Andy (Pigsonthewing), original and after review, as no longer needed to prevent "disruption".


Statement by Gerda Arendt

Today is Bach's birthday. Three years ago I suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, as some may still remember. I believe that the personal restrictions and remedies for Andy (Pigsonthewing) don't serve a purpose. He has not commented in any recent infobox discussion (and there have not been many). The suspension could happen immediately or on parole.

We remember with thanks Viva-Verdi, who added infoboxes to all operas by Giuseppe Verdi - one of the areas of conflict in the 2013 infoboxes case -, before he died a year ago. Long live his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I voted, I chose candidates who I thought would make arbitration simpler. I thank the committee for not accepting any full case in 2016, but finding other solutions. It wasn't Andy who wants the sanctions lifted, - he may have forgotten about them. I think they serve no purpose, and will try to explain in a simple example. Andy created an article on a classical composer which is now a featured article. I conclude that there is no infobox conflict. If there is no conflict, we - the members of the community - don't need to keep one person restricted. Can we keep this simple, for a change? I like the approach of DGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Francis: As not every arbitrator checks background and history of a discussion, a few diffs. When Pierre Boulez died, I added a short infobox holding what was so far hidden as Persondata but is deprecated, after the model of Beethoven where it was added per community consensus. I call such a short thing PDbox because the term infobox is so hated, - Brianboulton called it identibox when he added one to a FA in 2013. It was expanded by Giantsnowman. It was reverted by Jerome Kohl. I went to the talk page, header: Persondata accessible. - Back to our context: none of it is relevant to this clarification, because Andy appeared in none of these discussions, as I said in the opening. - Imagine for a moment that the little box had stayed in place, without any following discussion: too good to be true? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 please present that reason: kindly give one example of an edit by Andy in an infobox discussion of the past three years that would have warranted "ban ... from further participation in that discussion". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pigsonthewing

  • @GorillaWarfare: Since you ask: it would beggar belief for anyone to suggest I would want, or would ever have wanted, otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis: Re: "the answer may be "I want them removed entirely"; my comment, above, applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Andy can be maddeningly persistent on the tiniest of things, but this restriction has outlived its usefulness. His work as Wikipedia-In-Residence makes tiptoeing round the infobox issue an obvious problem. I'd support replacement with some kind of restriction that allows him to add and edit infoboxes, but not to argue about them. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Collect's point I think addresses the core problem here, pace Rschen. Jbhunley also nails it. Andy has boundless energy, a remarkable commitment to the project, and exhibits good humour and good faith. He is, in short, a thoroughly decent bloke as well as being a prolific editor and ambassador for the project. However, he gets bees in his bonnet, as I think he would probably acknowledge. That's the source of all the problems. Most of what he does is uncontroversial and good, the problems occur only when something he sees as obvious - almost always in metadata curation, not content - is disputed or questioned by others. A restriction on argument will solve the problem, a restriction on any addition or discussion of infoboxen is more than is required given that in most cases proposals for or addition of infoboxes are simply not controversial. Most people actually don't care overmuch one way or the other. Obviously a targeted rampage of infobox additions would be a problem, but if Andy is editing an article - an eventuality that is always, IMO, a good thing for the project, given his attention to sources - I really don't see why adding an infobox would be an intolerable act. And if it's reverted then fine, he needs to walk away, and we can watch and help make sure he does that. Obviously if any of his long-term adversaries were to stalk him reverting additions then we'd pick that up as well. He has friends who will give him counsel, I really do think we should reduce the restrictions For Great Justice. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

Sanctions should have an expiry date. I haven't seen anything that indicates Andy cannot operate without sanctions. Lifting the sanctions then, is a next logical step. As well, we cannot conflate an editing/discussion style with sanctionable behavior. One is a emotional response to something we don't like; while a sanction is specifically a perceived transgression of our policies and guidelines. They are very different and should be dealt with as such. If we started sanctioning editors because we don't like their discussion style, we could become very short of editors in a hurry. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • If possible could arbs outline why they decline the case. We should be aiding editors to become fully operational again. Unless they are given feed back on their behavior they can't know how they are perceived or how to improve.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • I just don't understand restrictions of any kind based on behavior. We don't have a single diff here indicating behavior that transgresses our policy and guidelines. I do see that Andy deals on an ongoing basis with comments from others that are not particularly pleasant and he may response in a terse way. Terseness or being blunt is not sanctionable behavior. If he is limited because of perceived behavior we open the door further for what we have now-derailing of discussion and focus on behavior. Because we have an editor here does not mean he has to be sanctioned. What we seem to miss is that when an editor edits every day, and is prolific, we are bound to see a range of behaviors. As long as those behaviors are not transgressions we should not be considering sanctions. I find terse, straight-to-the point cmts non-offensive. There are editors roaming the halls of Wikipedia whose behavior is so toxic, dishonest, lacking integrity, abusive, it has driven editors away and limited the input of others, and yet we tolerate that behavior. We all, per Gamalie, in the recent Sign Post need to be kind and sometimes a kind reminder is the best way forward for editors, and for those dealing with complaints. Andy's terse cmts are small potatoes and should be treated as such in my opinion. Is there anyone commenting here whose behavior is always perceived as ideal? I doubt it. We're all human and all that means.( Littleolive oil (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

Time for these restrictions to go; they should expire, and the reality is that we have an editor who has extensive experience and knowledge being subjected to a set of rules suitable for 5 year olds. I favor the proposal. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Given this discussion on Wikidata, where Pigsonthewing had his property creation rights revoked a few days ago, I do not see a good reason why the sanctions should be lifted, specifically the one about disrupting discussions. --Rschen7754 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

If I had to pick a specific problem with Andy Mabbett, it would be that he doesn't do a great job of explaining himself, particularly when he thinks he's right. But that's hardly crime of the century, is it? Drop his restriction back to parole, infoboxes are not the product of Satan's rear end and do serve a legitimate purpose in the right context. Then again, I find WikiData as exciting as watching grass grow, so don't take my view as gospel or anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

Based on their need to respond to nearly every comment which is counter to their view in this [6] VPP discussion about the religion= infobox parameter I can see how they could rapidly become disruptive in an infobox discussion. Because of that remedy 4.3.2 should stay in place. Remedy 4.3.1, the wholesale inability to add infoboxes, should be relaxed or removed but 4.3.2 is needed to rapidly curtail disruption which may occur as a result. JbhTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The terse statement from Andy seems more than sufficient to accept that he would like restrictions in this area lifted. I have no idea what could be more "substantive" than his clear statement, alas. I suggest he is cognizant of the desirability of avoiding confrontations regarding actual existence of infoboxen (Wagnerian declension of the word), but all ArbCom needs do is by motion state "the restrictions are lifted, but all involved shall be cognizant and edit regarding infoboxes in accord with such cognizance." Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re infoboxes)

The arbitration committee's handling of the infoboxes saga has to date been a case study in how not to resolve a dispute. The problem is not and has never been infoboxes themselves, it has been the behaviour of those with a grudge against them and the behaviour of a few supporters in reaction to that. The way forward at this point is to remove all restrictions on Andy's creating and editing infoboxes - they have long passed any usefulness they ever had. If you feel the need for a staged withdrawal of restrictions, then a 0 or 1 revert limit for infoboxes would be fine by me.

Others have mentioned his more general behaviour here and on Wikidata (note: I am a participant in the ongoing dispute there). I would suggest that the best way forward with this would be to craft a parole-type restriction that applies only to Andy's contribution to discussions and apply that across the project, replacing all the other existing restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Francis Schonken

Please bear with me on a few points:

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Infobox (8 February 2016 – 13 March 2016, thus far):
    1. I found this discussion quite disheartening, at least exhausting, especially near the end. A problem seems to be that for some editors it appears difficult to accept or understand that if particular single-editor-oriented remedies of the infoboxes ArbCom case are lifted that the general ones, like "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" remain in effect, whatever side you're on. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that respect is particularly persistent, so I'm a bit concerned the ArbCom may give a wrong signal here. The OP's formulation here: "Suspend all remedies concerning Andy..." (emphasis added) kind of confirms that fear... Literally, what the OP is asking is that Andy would be the only Wikipedia editor not subject to the general remedies of the infobox ArbCom case, unless the OP is already implying that those general remedies are not applicable to Andy. Clearly the OP thinks that if there are particular single-editor-oriented remedies in an ArbCom case, that the editors thus named need not concern themselves with the general remedies, applicable to all editors. That's what the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Infobox discussion was about for a large part.
    2. One contributor to the discussion implied infoboxes are "being voted down" more often lately (diff 1). I wouldn't know, I don't follow these issues that close. Seems like this amendment request might serve in getting more weight in discussions on individual infoboxes. I don't want to say that is a good thing or a bad thing: maybe some balance needs to be restored. The point is: we'll have plenty more editor time going to discussions about infoboxes, instead of using that time to write an encyclopedia.
  • Frivolously bringing up infoboxes in other discussions:
    1. Diff 2, getting a clear reply infoboxes are unrelated to the issue being discussed: diff 3
    2. Still not letting infoboxes go in another discussion on the same aspect of the same article.

Despite the commendable optimism by others in this section, I'd still rather try to find ways the OP would be less enabled to discuss infobox matters ad infinitum. Andy's discussion style is clear from their comments above: Andy doesn't discuss, they just posit "The Truth". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I would generally encourage these kinds of requests be filed by the person affected by the remedy, but in lieu of that, I'll at least wait to opine until Pigsonthewing leaves a statement here indicating he would actually like these remedies lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline absent a substantive statement from the editor in question. Personally, I won't take any step involving the bizarrely apoplectic infobox wars without being extremely thorough. While I am impressed by the statements of support by numerous other editors, I think a statement from the editor himself is required before we can consider any modification, however minor or appropriate it may or may not be. Strike my vote if a statement is posted. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm puzzled that in only a few hours I've already received two objections to the idea that someone seeking having their sanctions removed should make a substantive statement about why they should be lifted and what they would do following their removal. This is standard procedure. Requests and appeals accompanied without such statements are routinely rejected by the community and the Committee. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect I'll be in the minority on this one, but I'd be willing to revise these. We do, however, need some further input from Pigsonthewing; what would be useful is a clear statement of how, specifically, he would like to see the restrictions modified - the answer may be "I want them removed entirely", but let's try to find something that might actually get consensus in favor. From the comments above it sounds like we could consider modifying remedy 1.1 to allow adding an infobox but restrict reverting if it is removed, or to allow adding an infobox when it arises specifically in the course of WiR/outreach activities. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively support The simplest thing would just be a trial, making it clear that the sanction will be reimposed if problems resume. I would have been willing to consider this whether or not the individual sanctioned had asked for it; there are imaginable situations where a person might not want their sanctions changed or even brought up again for discussion, but the actual request here does not seem to fall in that category. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to consider revising the restriction (whether Opabinia's suggestion or suspending it for a while), however before doing that I'd like some further input from Pigsonthewing about what where he sees this going (removing it entirely doesn't look like it'll get consensus) and that he is cognisant of the past issues and how he intends to avoid them (which may be where a compromise restriction comes from). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with removing 1.1 and 3. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 1.1 can go (which renders 3 meaningless, of course), but that remedy 2.1 should stay. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

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

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

First of all, I want to sincerely thank David Tornheim for the way he has worked with me on developing proposals for the RfC. That said, his objections just below indicate exactly why ArbCom cannot pretend that the GMO case solved our problems and the community can now deal with it ourselves. I was very clear from the start that the RfC would be based on the one about Jerusalem: [7] (preceded by [8]). That's about as clear as can be about ArbCom supervision, and it was a direct reply to David. And David's citing of sources here is a textbook example of what will go off the rails in a traditional unsupervised RfC (which no doubt would suit some POV-pushers just fine). I agree that the science can change in fewer than three years. That's why the consensus could still be changed – but only with prior approval by ArbCom, just like Jerusalem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel: It isn't novel, and I would not have suggested it if it were. ArbCom did it before, with a 3-year binding consensus, as my links above about the Jerusalem dispute show. This would not create new policy in any way, and ArbCom would not decide anything about page content. You would be leaving that to the community. Please look at my link to the last time the community tried a conventional RfC: link. It spun out into badgering and filibustering, and resulted in no consensus. It would be a mistake to do the same thing again and expect a different result. Please look at the administrator's closing statement at the most recent AE to arise from the GMO case: [9]. He is telling you that, despite a spate of AE cases ([10], [11], [12], [13]), "[t]his seems something for arbcom to sort out. There is a sense that GMO is still not settling...". Your colleagues left a lot on the table after GMO-1. Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel: I see what you are getting at, and you are right to insist that we resort to this approach only under extraordinary circumstances. Let me, first, invite you to follow the link I just gave to the most recent AE, and open up the collapsed discussion, particularly to read what editors said about a possible blanket topic ban aka "nuclear option". And look at what the various administrators said in the "result" subsection there. It will give you a good feeling for how the community regards this situation, post-GMO decision, as one of the most intractable problems in years. Second, look at my link just above to the previous community RfC. To the extent that you can stomach reading through it, you will find that there was no consensus – but that was because the discussion was overtaken by badgering and filibustering. Third, please skim through the post-decision discussions at NORN and Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3. Even after subtracting the two editors who were shortly later topic banned at AE, you will still see others claim that the previous "no consensus" was a "consensus against" content they don't like – whether or not there is a "clear consensus" depends upon which editor you ask. You should believe what the administrators at the last AE are telling you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Spartaz hits the nail on the head in suggesting the RfC "as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided." (But ArbCom doing nothing now would be the worst possible outcome.) And since Gamaliel asked me for suggested (unpleasant) reading, it occurs to me to point out how some AE administrators have also commented on "enablers" as part of the problem, and one can see how the dispute was "enabled" shortly after the case at this ANI thread, opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the most recent comments, I have no objection to MedCom providing structure for the proposed RfC. However, I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding, and the community including AE will be unable to adjudicate the disputes that will then ensue. Also, it is false to say that I am asking ArbCom to determine content. ArbCom would merely be ordering that a community consensus about content be protected against extraordinary disruption. I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: (For some reason, the ping didn't reach me, but I'm watchlisting.) Thanks for your very helpful ideas. First, please let me clarify that ArbCom has already done this with the Jerusalem RfC I linked to above, so this would not be a precedent. I would be very happy with you doing what I described as "supervisor" (within MedCom or not) and subject to DS (up to the Arbs). You can see at Talk:Genetically modified crops that editors have already created four proposals for an RfC, so any mediation should take up from there, rather than restart at the beginning. Traditionally, MedCom has treated mediation as a sort of safe space for conduct and has explicitly prohibited citing conduct during mediation as evidence before ArbCom. I think that won't work here. If AE is willing to be firm about enforcing the need for a genuine new consensus before change, even in the face of editors trying to game that, then that could be a workable alternative to a three-year binding period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be agreeable to having three experienced, uninvolved members of the community determine the consensus at the end of whatever process we use? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I agree it's about admin enforcement rather than a limitation of RfC, and I would welcome both you and The Wordsmith helping with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

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

I am strongly opposed to making the content of the RfC fixed for three years. GMO's are fairly recent and regulation of them is still developing and constantly changing, varying widely by country.[1] Only recently 16 countries informed the E.U. of their desire to opt-out of accepting the E.U.'s GMO approvals [14]. Despite the large number of studies very little is known about long term effects on health. [2][15], [16]. [17]. A major review article cited 150 times according to Google Scholar by toxicologist Jose Domingo (2011) stated "more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public." [3] Our duty is to report the state of the art, and it could easily change. If this were about something as stable and accepted as Netwon's laws of motion or Maxwell's Equations, or the alphabet, fixing the content for greater than 1 year would unlikely present any foreseeable problems. The fact that GMO's are so new and evolving is why there are disagreements. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Aircorn

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

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

There may be more, but at least it gives an idea of the current scope. I guess if this goes ahead it would be binding on appropriate new articles (for example Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms). AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David. We need some time limit otherwise things will just degenerate straight after the RFC finishes. Maybe there should be some caveat for reassessment if major new information presents itself, but as any new study would have to go through the normal scientific processes (which can take a long time) before it leads to a change in consensus three years seems reasonable. A version of the current statement has been in the article for longer than three years anyway. Also the use of ARBcom was discussed previously (see Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_2#Potential RFC) AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While in theory we should be able to hold a normal rfc and resolve this issue the problem is that we have two strongly entrenched "sides" that are both sure they are right. Any discussion on this issue tends to devolve into editors from each side debating the same points with the same conviction at each other. The recent NOR noticeboard discussion is a prime example of this, but it tends to move from noticeboard to noticeboard and article to article. Even here discussion is turning to rehashing old points that have been hashed to death. This tends to drive the neutrals away and I fear the same thing will happen if we run our own RFC. This will put all the hard work done by Tryptofish and others getting this proposal polished to waste. If an Arbcom run rfc keeps a lid on proceedings and encourages outside input then it is a very good thing. I do believe that resolving the scientific consensus issue will make editing GMOs a lot easier and surely it is better than the blanket ban that was getting decent support at AE. It still remains an option (along with a second case) if this fails. Tryptofish has already done most of the legwork in getting the proposals up and running, we can even probably all agree on the advertising, wording and design of the rfc, but we do need some oversight to stop it being derailed with long threaded discussions and most importantly the closing and enforcement of it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Tryptofish has done a great job trying to organize this RfC and has been upfront from the start that we'd ask for ArbCom's help in implementing it from the start.[18]. No one involved can act surprised about this.

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

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

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

Statement by Petrarchan47

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

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

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

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

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

These are my initial comments, I'll probably have a few more. petrarchan47คุก 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Spartaz

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

Statement by Alanscottwalker

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

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

Statement by Laser brain

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by The Wordsmith

@Gamaliel: has requested my presence here, so I will weigh in. I've seen this same sort of intractable dispute many times before, and each time the established processes were insufficient. However, I am not under any circumstances comfortable with giving Arbcom the power to establish consensus on content issues. That is not what Jimbo created them for, and I've been here long enough to know that this sort of precedent isn't one we want to set. Instead, I do have an alternative. As a member of MedCom and former Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, I have a long history of resolving content disputes. If all major parties find me acceptable, I would be willing to help facilitate an RFC run under the MedCom umbrella, which was specifically created by Jimbo to resolve content disputes. I believe that I could keep reasonable standards of conduct and come to a consensus, which if necessary could be considered precedent at future AE incidents. As far as I know this is a novel approach, but it makes more sense than having arbitrators decide content issues. If any major parties believe I could not act fairly, I'm sure another mediator would be willing to step up.The WordsmithTalk to me 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish::If you believe editors would not accept MedCom oversight, I can offer to step in personally under my own authority as uninvolved Administrator to supervise an RFC. As per your concerns about enforcement, I would direct you to the Discretionary Sanctions procedure, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"(emphasis mine). It would seem that any uninvolved Administrator can impose a restriction on the topic area along the lines of "Consensus has shown that X is the best way to phrase Y. Don't reword Y without a new consensus.". Discretionary sanctions are not limited to blocks and topic bans; they can be restrictions on edits including imposing restrictions on a piece of an article (or multiple articles) when that one piece is what's being warred over. There are ways to work with existing policy to resolve this without giving Arbcom the power to decide what is and is not consensus and override WP:CCC. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish::I would be perfectly happy with an established group of admins (preferably AE admins who have some familiarity and mediation experience) collaborating to sort out this complex issue. @Alanscottwalker:: You are correct, MedCab was more flexible and more suited to this sort of issue than MedCom, and it is currently defunct. However, if there is interest from the community and Arbitrators believe it would help, I see no reason why I, as a former MedCab Coordinator, couldn't bring it out of mothballs (at least temporarily unless it generates more people willing to participate). There was never a formal binding decision to close it, there was just some discussion and then it was done. Being informal, we could just start it up again without having to jump through hoops. I'm willing to help resolve this issue, by any means necessary short of a new Arbcom case. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Clarification request: Oversight blocks

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

Case or decision affected
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=542990142#Oversight-related_blocks

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [19]


Statement by NE Ent

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

Gorilla Warfare, your point is well taken, but perhaps reflects a poor assumption / phrasing on my part rather than the essence of the question; by design "Oversight" is easy to contact, as indicated by the prominent on the Oversight page; the question is does the committee want be involved with Oversight block discussions from the get go, or should the first step be contacting the oversight functionaries team? NE Ent 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually an issue with the wording of that 2010 [20] Gorilla Warfare linked, the phrasing the "block has been made in error" falsely implies unblocking means the intial block was an error -- to the contrary, unblocking simply means a block is no longer necessary to protect the encyclopedia, not that the initial block was incorrect. My $0.0002 is that Courcelle's position is preferable, but either solution is workable, as long it is clear what the policy is. NE Ent 21:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis, the problem is that, per the 2010 arbcom motion , arbcom consent is not required to unblock (only input from an oversighter); so when an oversighter posts "appeals must be directed to arbcom" it looks like a power-grab. NE Ent 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have been blocked for abuse of editing privileges regarding information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

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

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

Statement by Snowolf

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

Statement by Thryduulf (re oversight block appeals)

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

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

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

Statement by NativeForeigner

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

Statement by Harry Mitchell

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

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

Statement by Avraham

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

Statement by Kingsindian

Thanks to NE Ent for opening this ARCA request. Hopefully the matter will get clarified somewhat. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC) A further comment. I don't really see why it should be an ArbCom block versus an oversight block. If it is an urgent case, there can be a temporary block put by oversight, but a proper ArbCom case should be opened if it is to be an ArbCom block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by Lankiveil

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

Oversight blocks: Clerk notes

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

Oversight blocks: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I wonder if this was codified this way because there is not a way for non-oversighters to email the entire oversight team. People can submit oversight tickets, which are handled by individual oversighters on OTRS, but the oversight-l mailing list does not accept external mails. Although oversight blocks can be overturned with the consent of a single oversighter, they tend to be issues where feedback from multiple oversighters is valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That contact link would more accurately be labeled as "contact a member of the oversight team"—once an individual oversighter sees a ticket, they generally handle it and no other oversighter winds up seeing it. The OTRS interface really isn't conducive to group discussion. I realize this probably sounds nitpicky, but as I said above, I feel these types of unblock requests are best handled by a group of people and not a single person. Though I think the oversight team would be a fine group to handle these discussions, it is difficult for an outside party to contact the entire group. I think the potential ways of handling oversight-block appeals are as follows (in no order of preference):
      1. Direct appeals to ArbCom
      2. Direct appeals to the oversight team by instructing blocked users to send an email to the standard oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), with the expectation that any oversighter seeing such a request will begin a discussion on the internal oversight-l mailing list to reach a group decision
      3. Direct appeals to the oversight team, opening up the oversight-l email list to outside senders
      4. Direct appeals to the oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), where any appeal will be handled by an individual oversighter
      5. Direct appeals to the oversight team via the functionaries-en email list (whose members include all current arbitrators, some former arbitrators, users with CheckUser permission, and users with Oversight permission on the English Wikipedia)
    • Before making any decisions, I'd like to get input on this from any non-ArbCom oversighters who have an opinion one way or another. I'll send an email to the oversight list so they're aware of the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a point of clarification, there are two oversight email addresses. oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org (or Special:EmailUser/Oversight) is an OTRS queue, where emails (usually suppression requests) open tickets that are handled by individual oversighters. oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org is a standard mailman mailing list for internal discussion among oversighters; emails from non-oversighters are automatically rejected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice that the initial decision regarding checkuser blocks directs all checkuserblock appeals to ArbCom: Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted. Our motion on oversight blocks was not as clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NE Ent: Agreed with your point about the "block made in error" wording, though I'm not sure it's something we need to formally reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NE Ent: Blocks with the instructions "appeal only to ArbCom" are already within policy as written, though, in that same 2010 statement: The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified. In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block. Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the arbitration committee mailing list before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it satisfy you to add "and this statement" to the OversightBlock template, to clarify that we recognize sometimes issues should go only to the ArbCom? Regardless of whether we decide to clarify the language such that the appeals can go to oversighters (be it the team or individuals), I don't see taking away the ability for blocking admins/functionaries to limit appeals to ArbCom when there are circumstances such as those described in the 2010 statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you to all the oversighters/functionaries who've weighed in. It seems like directing appeals first to the functionaries-en list is the preferred way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said this before, but I think the first line of appeal for CU/OS blocks should be via email to the functionaries-en list, so there is a second line of appeal to the committee itself. Courcelles (talk)
  • Open to hearing more comments, but on first look I don't see a problem with the effective status quo that appeals can either be directed to oversighters or to arbcom. (I did recently correct an error in the {{OversightBlock}} template that made the wording inconsistent, but directing appeals to arbcom has always been an available option.) I do agree with GW that the "appeal to oversighters" option should be refined so that the appeal is handled by the group rather than a single individual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To recap: In 2010, the committee passed a motion formally establishing the concept of "checkuser blocks", including some guidance on when to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2013, this was extended to include "oversight blocks". Immediately thereafter, the {{OversightBlock}} template was created for this purpose, which has from the first edit provided an option to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2015, BASC was disbanded with the provision that arbcom would continue to hear appeals of checkuser and oversight blocks. At least 12 currently active blocks, some going back to 2014, have the "appeal directly to arbcom" version of the {{OversightBlock}} template in the most recent version of the user's talk page. The idea that it is a new "power grab" to direct OS blocks to arbcom is not supported by the evidence. No objections to adding a link to the 2010 motion to the template, and as long as we're here we might as well sort out how to appeal to "oversighters" collectively as opposed to individually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is that appeals of OS blocks should go to the OS who placed the block, the Oversight team (probably by opening up OS-l to external mail) or to ArbCom. The issue with having appeals directed to functionaries-en is that CU data can't be directly discussed as there are non-CUs on the list, likewise suppressed information can't be discussed there as there are non-OSers on the list. It's also worth noting that CUs or OSers (as can all admins) can direct that individual blocks only be appealed to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HJ Mitchell, Guerillero, and Courcelles: The access to nonpublic information policy states that information (ie suppressed information and CU data) can only be disclosed to "other community members with the same access rights, or who otherwise are permitted to access the same information, ...". I'd want positive confirmation from the WMF that they consider users who formerly had access to be tools to be "permitted to access the same information" before encouraging it to be discussed on functionaries-l (I definitely don't feel it would meet that requirement). This is especially the case given that the policy also requires that, "When a community member's access to a certain tool is revoked, for any reason, that member must destroy all nonpublic information that they have as a result of that tool", as that seems to indicate that if you can't access the information yourself you shouldn't have access to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: I agree it's possible, but if it were my appeal being considered I'd like the people discussing to be able to talk about it directly rather than stepping around what I actually said. For example, there could be a situation (with an OS block) where the people discussing it would need to say something like "I took User:Example's comment (tenth word to twenty second word) to mean blah [and not mentioned anything here from the suppressed edit or which would give away its contents] not blah as you suggested" or if, for example, User:Example posted a link and brief synopsis of the linked webpage (such as a blog which outs another editor) the people discussing it couldn't link to the blog, might run into problems quoting from the blog and couldn't refer to or link to other pages on the blog (content of suppressed edit). That makes handling an appeal very difficult. We'd also need to consider who would have a 'vote' in appeals (should users without OS access be able to vote or comment even though they can't know the full story?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Callanecc is correct in saying that appeals to the Functionaries mailing list would not be appropriate. I'd prefer the first appeal to be to the blocking Admin. I also would like to hear from more Oversighters before supporting opening up that list. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with courcelles and disagree with Callan. Functionaries-l is the perfect place for appeals --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The simplest procedure is for requests to go first to the functionaries list, either directly or via a n individual functionary. As suggested, with the provision that it can be specified in a block that appeals go directly to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=712681459"