Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke		16 September 2024	4/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Acupuncture	none	none	13 March 2020
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms	none	(orig. case)	16 March 2020

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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).

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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
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.

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:

Clarification request: Acupuncture

Initiated by TomStar81 at 02:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture

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

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by TomStar81

In lei of the fact that the ongoing 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak is causing many people to come forward with homemade remdies, "miracle" cures, alleged vaccinations, etc, (two simple examples: [1] [2]) when the scientific consensus has unilaterally been that no such cure or vaccine for the virus exists ([3]), I seek to clarify whether - in this very specific case - the ruling made in the acupuncture case may be reasonably construed to apply to our article on the virus pandemic. I ask for this clarification as it becomes increasingly clear that this issue is dominating news stories in an attempt to preemptively arm discretionary sanctions for the article should those who come here seeking to add such fringe information to the article, and to get clarification whether in specific cases of this nature the acupuncture case may be construed as extended to untested and/or unproven cures, remedies, vaccinations, etc for outbreaks of diseases.

Statement by Roxy

Could the request either state what the difference between Complementary and Alternative medicine actually is, or drop the word 'complementary'. This would be in line with reality. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response GW, but nevertheless if Arbcom is going to rule on the *subjects*, they should define them in future, or ... Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Katie and Bradv just a heads up that these DS don't include only pseudoscience:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.[4]

It's pretty explicit about including WP:FRINGE science, which doesn't always have to be full on pseudoscience. This wouldn't be the first time the nuance of DS were glossed over focusing on the case name (I've done it too), so just making sure you had that info on hand with respect to your comments so far. WP:FRINGE/PS covers rough distinctions (it can be nebulous in some areas), but the take home is that there is a spectrum within fringe science rather than it being entirely synonymous with pseudoscience. Basically, if fringe stuff is a problem in the coronavirus articles, any admin should be free to use the DS for that unless we significantly change our fringe guideline. Just making sure the nuance of the DS weren't lost in the other nuances you two were trying to bring in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Sorry again for over-correcting. I think there is consensus for General Sanctions, and that, informally, such a thing is already in effect. Not to be repetitive, but ensuring MEDRS standards remains key. That said, I believe this time correctly, I've just topic banned someone from the COVID-19 topic area citing ARBCAM. El_C 19:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

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

Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

• At a glance I would say either this or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which while it hasn't been cited in a while, appears to still have DS authorized. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That was my understanding as well. This is pseudoscience or fringe science, hence it's covered already. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed that this appears to already be covered by discretionary sanctions. DS are already authorized for any edit[s] about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Acupuncture) and for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted (Pseudoscience). The ruling in the Acupuncture case applies to any kind of complementary and alternative medicine, not just acupuncture-related topics. @Roxy the dog:, my understanding is that "complementary medicine" is specifically when alternative medicine is used alongside science-based medicine, as explained in the Alternative medicine article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Just noting my agreement with Bradv, that COVID-19 in general does not fall under the Acupuncture or Pseudoscience DS areas; only edits or sections that related to alternative medicine or fringe science. If DS are desired for the entire topic area, I agree that a new authorization (such as the one currently proposed at AN) would be needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Agree as well. I cannot think of any cases that would not fall under either "pseudoscience and fringe science" or "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" already. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that with the now enacted community general sanctions this request can be closed. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, discretionary sanctions cannot be applied to coronavirus articles simply because someone might add pseudoscientific information – there must be evidence of disruption of that nature. If we need extra administrator tools to deal with general disruption of articles related to the ongoing pandemic, we might want to consider temporarily authorizing discretionary sanctions specifically for the coronavirus topic area. – bradv🍁 19:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  Noting here for the record that general sanctions have now been authorized for all content related to COVID-19, broadly construed. I believe that resolves the issues raised in this request. – bradv🍁 22:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• We've had some list discussion about having the community address this, and I think that's the best course. General sanctions can be authorized by consensus. Like Bradv, I don't see that we can use the Acupuncture or Pseudoscience cases in the coronavirus articles because those articles aren't pseudoscientific in nature. Try to get general sanctions authorized at AN first, and if that fails, then we can have a look at authorizing discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Katie^talk 17:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• As noted, this has been addressed via the community-adopted general sanctions. I believe this request can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by David Tornheim at 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification TonyBallioni
• diff of notification Seraphimblade

Information about amendment request

• David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Remove restriction

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMOs imposed by Seraphimblade in July 2016—almost four years ago. I have not made any edits in the area since then.

In April 2019, I appealed this topic ban, and it was reduced by TonyBallioni to a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed.

I have not edited articles related to glyphosate or GMOs since then. I would like to have this restriction removed.

After four years, this restriction appears to be more punitive than WP:PREVENTATIVE. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare::

Can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area?

I mentioned this in my previous appeal last year, where I said, "If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources." I also commented on the fact that the science has fallen out of date, where a nearly 20-year-old report has been superseded.

I have a Bachelor of Science from University of Cincinnati and Master of Science from University of Southern California, and can bring a science background and knowledge of proper review of scientific literature to articles. I edit under my own name.

(a) understands the reason for their ban * * * (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward

I explained that in my response to Seraphimblade in my previous appeal. In particular, I said that I will focus on content, not editor.

At the time of my 2016 topic ban, I had only made about 3,000 edits; now I have made over 12,000 edits. I am far more familiar with the policies and guidelines around casting aspersions and civility, and I now understand the importance of collaborative editing and how to resolve conflicts when there is disagreement.

I am now far more familiar with sourcing requirements than in 2016.

(b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas

I believe my edit-history speaks for itself. I provided a number of examples of areas I was involved in, in my appeal of 2019 in the initial post. Since then, I have continued to work on vandalism reversion and created articles on the John Robinson Circus and Tillie (elephant).

I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope.

(1) I wanted to demonstrate continued restraint. Often, editors who have been blocked or topic-banned immediately return to their past behaviors as soon as the ban is lifted.

(2) Shortly after the reduction in my topic-ban, I sought clarification on the scope of the topic ban. I was puzzled by the responses and simply stayed away.

(3) That almost any edit in GMO might be construed as related to glyphosate was a big deterrent.

I value my reputation on Wikipedia. Editing under my real name, my reputation at Wikipedia reflects on me personally and directly. In four years of the topic ban, I have learned from my mistakes.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

No real thoughts on this. I’m happy with whatever the arbs decide. My standard comment is that a sanction working should not be taken as evidence that it isn’t needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I was rather apprehensive about narrowing the original sanction's scope, but it appears that doing so hasn't had any negative consequences. I suppose this could be tried, with a clear understanding that if the problems occur again, the topic ban will be put right back in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

As someone who spent a lot of time trying to curate the GMO topic and deal with the disruption David Tornheim and other editors caused, I'm going to ask arbs to carefully read the comments (especially admins) from both David's original topic ban AE, and the appeal, especially in the context of how frustrated the community was with what David was constantly stirring up in this topic. A lot of David's actions outlined there more or less forced us to need a DS-enforced RfC on the scientific consensus for genetically modified food safety. There (and before) David frequently engaged in denialism on the consensus, and in the real-world, that is generally treated similarly to climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, etc.[5][6] Such WP:PSCI policy violations generally require a significant demonstrated change in subject matter competence for sanctions to be not needed.

Even at that AE appeal less than a year ago, the topic ban reduction was pretty tepid among admins, and part of the expectation was that David could use it demonstrate they could edit appropriately in the broader GMO area. Instead, they haven't edited the area at all. That's somewhat akin (though not exactly the same) to the problem of an editor being topic banned, "retiring" for the length of it, then appealing it saying that haven't caused problems since. In the real world, fringe proponents have shifted the goal posts away from GMO safety to glyphosate to make that the new point flash pan controversy filled with fringe theories us agricultural/science editors have spent a lot of effort separating from actual science. That David wants to directly jump into this new controversy without any other GMO edits is a serious red flag. Contrary to their last appeal's comment I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms..., the kind of stuff they engaged in went well beyond being a newbie and shows disregard for what they actually were banned for. My specific comments at the appeal have more background on that.

Prior to the ban, David's main area of disruption was primarily in GMOs with serious WP:FRINGE and WP:ADVOCACY issues, which is documented pretty well at their original AE ban and the previous sanctions listed there. Part of the behavior issues that the topic ban was meant to handle was to keep David away from science curators in the topic such as myself in lieu of a one-way interaction ban. That has to do with a specific GMO principle we passed at arbcom on aspersions (e.g., the Monsanto shill gambit). There's a lot of other history behind that principle, but a major reason for David's ban was hounding editors and disrupting content discussion with that gambit and encouraging others as you can read about in their original AE ban that led to two others getting sanctioned at well. See David's Monsanto must be pleased thread for another example of what we had to deal with until admins finally stepped in.

If anything else, it still looks like the WP:PREVENTATIVE ban is still working, and David hasn't given us any reason to think otherwise given how serious their behavior issues were before the topic ban (most comments at the last appeal were very generic that struck me as a mix between empty and incomplete apologies). As I asked at the last appeal, why would David be so interested in coming back into a topic they were so dead set against the science on? Their last appeal really didn't address the problems they caused at all, and this appeal has even less. We really need a good reason given past behavior to let David into controversial areas on this subject beyond it's been awhile and the topic seems calmer now. If anything, that's because the sanction was working correctly. I might have different opinions on more periphery GMO editors that were banned/sanctioned (13+ at last count), but David was one of the core editors in this subject that led to the original GMO case and problems afterwards.

Obviously I've had to deal with a lot from David in the past I've tried to distill down into something manageable, but if you boil this all down into one line, if David still can't even directly address the serious behavior that led to their ban, then the appeal should be denied. They haven't said or done anything different since the last appeal, glyphosate is still controversial, and this appeal seems to be significantly lacking for establishing what would be considered low-risk upon return. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare: Seeing David's most recent response, I'm concerned they especially skirt around one of the core issues. They say they have a science background, yet outright denied the scientific consensus and significantly disrupted the topic as part of it. The "updating" the science thing goes back to WP:TE type issues that came up in the GMO RfC I mentioned above. An issue there wasn't not using scientific sources, but cherrypicking low quality fringe articles and taking up community time pushing that. What David has said on having a science background doesn't differentiate them from before their topic ban, but I realize it's not easy for arbs either since you need to somehow assess subject matter competence changes to address the fringe advocacy history, especially with no edit history in the unbanned areas. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assess if the POV problems wouldn't come back.

On the old rejected change they do mention, the science hasn't really changed in that area significantly (I'll stay out of those weeds), so David's comment is already a red flag for me. It may seem minor at first glance, but those kind of edits using attribution or middling language to lessen the apparent weight of a source were a common problem back before the ban (normally something from the from a secondary source like the EPA wouldn't even need attribution). In reality though, that entire section was already since updated over the years looking for more current sources. Editors still decided to use the source in question (ref 80) along with a more current one in part because nothing was really superseded. This isn't exactly an area lacking attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Side note

• Just a slight aside, but I also wanted to update arbs on the general status of the GMO/pesticide topic. Back at the original 2015 case, only a few editors were actually sanctioned just because of the sheer number of problems to sort through. Slowly over time, other disruptive editors were topic-banned (or some interaction bans) as I mentioned with the 13+ sanctions above. However, that left a lot of fatigue on the few editors who did remain trying to handle the tough content while also juggling with problematic behavior from editors and not wanting to run to AE each time giving the appearance of policing the topic. It wasn't until recently that things mostly settled down in 2018 and a flareup that took up a chunk of 2019. That's largely why I'm so cautious from a WP:STEWARDSHIP perspective now.

In general, agricultural topics don't attract as many subject matter experts, but in the real-world, the subject does attract a lot of WP:FRINGE stuff that finds it way to the encyclopedia when you get people coming in with advocacy issues. The volume of that may be higher in things like climate change or alt med, but there are also more editors to handle that in those topics. We've lost some good editors in part because of how long it took to really tamp down on behavior issues here, so I would ask arbs to consider for future GMO/pesticide discussions what their risk tolerance for an editor in the subject should be. I know I'd like to go from maintenance to fleshing out mode in the subject again now that it's been in a relative lull for a few months, but being stuck with new or old behavior problems has often put a stop to that for me. Those of us left in the subject have had a lot on our plates, and while the DS have helped take some unnecessary burden off them, I think I can speak for a lot of us that we shouldn't be handed something that has a decent risk of stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This seems like a bad idea to me - the anti-GMO brigade are hammering hard at Monsanto right now after the capricious court award. Guy (help!) 22:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Katie^talk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• David Tornheim, can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area? Typically when topic bans are lifted we would want to see that the appellant (a) understands the reason for their ban, (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas, and (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward. You claim in your request that you haven't made any edits in the GMO topic area since that ban was lifted, so why does it need to be lifted further? How would doing so benefit the project? – bradv🍁 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• David Tornheim Like Bradv, I'd like to hear what kind of editing you plan to do if the ban is lifted. I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope; normally that would be a good path towards demonstrating that the remaining restriction is unnecessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---