Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 2 July 2020 (→‎Motion: Genetically modified organisms: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms Motion (orig. case) 16 March 2020
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles none (orig. case) 18 June 2020
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none none 22 June 2020

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms

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

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
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Re: Motion

@Bradv: @SoWhy: Thank you for the motion and vote of confidence, and for an opportunity to clarify why I did not edit in the GMO area and have not done so in the nearly three months since I opened this appeal.
@Joe Roe: I appreciate your saying I am a "productive and sensible editor".
I am confused as to why there was some expectation that I could only get the remainder of my ban lifted only if I successfully edited in the ambiguous area that includes GMOs but does not include anything related to glyphosate broadly-construed.
A reasonable person might argue that glyphosate broadly-construed includes anything related to GMOs. Our article Genetically modified organism says:

The majority of GM crops have been modified to be resistant to selected herbicides, usually a glyphosate or glufosinate based one…in the USA 93% of soybeans and most of the GM maize grown is glyphosate tolerant.

Because of the strong connection between glyphosate/Round-Up and herbicide-resistant GMO crops, the top Google search results for GMO (top 4), genetically modified organism (top 6), Google Scholar genetically modified organism (top 5), GMO Wikipedia (top 5) all mention either glyphosate, Round Up and/or herbicide-resistant GMOs.
Because glyphosate and the corporations that make it are so interconnected to GMO herbicide-resistant crops, I sought clarification on April 26, 2019 about the scope of the revised topic ban. However, the two of the admins who enacted the lessened restriction both gave responses that felt frosty to me:

  • I’m a little confused about what you wish to clarify, though, because it's fairly clear. Vanamonde93
  • I’m not sure what’s confusing here....If you think an edit may be related to [glyphosate], don’t make it. Pretty simple. Put another way: if a reasonable informed third-party thinks that an edit is related to glyphosate, you shouldn’t be making it. TonyBallioni

It appeared the two admins saw it as a problem that I was even asking for clarification about what was and was not okay to edit. It is not obvious to me what the scope is, which is why I asked.
If you received these replies, would you venture into the topic area and risk being accused or perceived of deliberately attempting to skirt the revised topic ban’s ambiguous boundaries?
In an abundance of caution and to avoid further annoying anyone, I took their advice:

(1) I did not ask further for clarification here at WP: ARCA or anywhere else.
(2) I did not edit anything remotely related to glyphosate, i.e. anything involving GMOs, pesticides, companies that make these products, etc.

I thought this approach a prudent and simple choice demonstrating patience and restraint that was being asked of me.
I edit under my own name and prefer not to have this restriction associated with me or my account, when I have not edited in the area in years. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


To the arbs: Thank you for your votes in support of lifting my restriction. I really appreciate it, and I will make every effort to heed your advice. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1][2] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Just a reminder since this is still open that group battleground behavior was an issue at David's original ban where Jusdafax was also sanctioned. Jusdafax's Unless one assumes bad faith comment is just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes. That case partly shows why those of us science editors actually in the subject are so cautious about this all.
Otherwise Nosebagbear's comments are a fairly even-handed read of the situation. There are plenty of GMOs that don't deal with glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

On motion

On the other end of the spectrum in terms of WP:FRINGE though, which has been an already established issue with David, is that glyphosate has been treated as a sort of pervasive boogeyman in the subject by fringe proponents, similar to what we see with moving goalposts on vaccines "causing" autism pseudoscience. One of the issues in this subject is fringe proponents blaming all perceived ills on a topic of the day, namely glyphosate lately.[3]. When I see someone making an argument that glyphosate is so pervasive in the subject that it cannot be approached without needing to address glyphosate, that does throw up a red flag about continued POV mentality issues even after all this time of being banned.
I understand arbs are not going to be up to speed on all the fringe stuff that happens in this subject (apologies for my section length in trying to help with that over these months), just as how they may not immediately see red flags in the nuts and bolts of a climate change denial case, but those comments should add more concern, not less. I've said more than enough about the history with David previously, but this bit on what the subject matter actually entails did need to be brought up. As Capeo alluded to, such seemingly innocuous language can instead be major red flags to us subject editors who've dealt with it first-hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nosebagbear, (and current commenting arbs Joe, SoWhy, Newyorkbrad, and Bradv) it's definitely the latter in this case on your comment speaking as a public sector agricultural scientist (i.e., no COI, etc.) since you ask . I mentioned all the GMO subjects above they could have edited, but I neglected to say the DS/topic bans don't cover just GMOs. They also cover pesticides, and many pesticides have nothing to do with GMO (or glyphosate) at all outside of a select few. I'll just link Pesticide#Definition as a start to that rabbit hole. Even giving the incorrect idea that someone couldn't edit after their GMO & pesticide ban without hitting on glyphosate a generous buffer for the sake of argument, I'd guess that at least 75% of articles would have no conflict with the glyphosate ban. We just cannot misrepresent the topic by saying that glyphosate is so pervasive, and I linked above how that mentality gets into WP:PSCI territory. Even Arbs cannot override that policy and endorse such a viewpoint without running into problems with that. That's just the inherent nature of the subject though.
The approach you do mention though is pretty much what was suggested at the last AE. Why the ban should be lifted without them following that advice with ample opportunity to do so is what concerns me given their previous focus on glyphosate. Let them demonstrate it in topics within the old ban they have nothing to do with glyphosate. Even I can't argue against that, and it shouldn't be difficult for David considering how much they used to edit in the subject (and should know better than to make the claim they did). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax and WP:ASPERSIONS

Sigh, I wasn't going to post here further, but since Jusdafax pinged me twice I'll briefly respond to the hounding (I don't like my section length, but it could be worse for being an active editor in the subject of a 3+ month ArbCom request). In short, Jusdafax had a warning logged in the AE sanction log for casting aspersions (a principle from the original GMO case) for their battleground needling in GMO topics in association with David's original AE case.[4]. It's an enforcement action regardless of how you try to split it, shouldn't be a red herring from why the warning happened, WP:SANCTION is clear to look at the logs, and it does seem like hounding to me when they try to paint such a small detail into "hostility", "locking down the topic", etc. against their warning.

I won't entertain the rest they mention here since that's been dismissed as misrepresentations of me previously and the aspersions principle is supposed to protect against repeated mischaracterizations that need a wall of text each time to debunk. That and this request is about David's ban. That kind of throwing shade is just getting needlessly tiring, so I would seriously welcome any advice from arbs/admins on stopping the harassment without reinforcing their lock down a subject narrative by needing to go to AE for help for continued sniping. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @Jusdafax: A formal logged warning is indeed a sanction. Wikilawyering quibbles over the precise terminology used to describe a thing that definitely happened is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, so you should probably stop that about now. Guy (help!) 08:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

It's a bit sad to see this stall. I thought the appeal had merit and deserved a bit more consideration. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a rather simple request. We are approaching 2 months since the filing. Hopefully this can be handled soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

While there might not be a benefit to immediately become a hyper-active editor in a field that an editor was recently Tbanned in, not editing in any of it (but still planning to) is almost as problematic.

Certainly we could deduce that the editor is more patient than they were, which is a plus. But we can't tell that their editing has become any better, whether they can handle dispute in their controversial field and so on. Thus, I'd like to advise the following:

  1. David Tornheim's appeal to be declined
  2. A recommendation/request be made to Tornheim to get at least some activity in the now open bits of their original TBAN to show it as a viable field for them
  3. A shorter timescale than ARBCOM refused appeals are often suggested with to be given. I can't see any reason why 3 months of helpful contribution by Tornheim, after his lack of issues thus far, wouldn't be sufficient, so make that the timescale before a permitted re-appeal (rather than 6 months etc etc)

Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement update post-proposal

  • Slightly oddly here, I'm going to have to say the above statement is somewhat conditional, and conditional on knowledge I don't have. If editors with a firmer knowledge of the sphere agree that it's hard to talk about GMOs without tripping a glyphosphate TBAN, then by all means this should be removed as the editor righly played it safe. If they could have edited GMO articles a bit more then I feel my above, hopefully moderate, suggestion still holds up. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

I am in agreement with Seraphimblade and Mr Ernie that David Tornheim’s restriction should be lifted. Four years really is a long time on Wikipedia.

DT’s statement here is direct. His answers to the questions are reasonable, regarding his not editing in the GMO field since he was partially unbanned in 2019: the conditions appeared to him to be open to interpretation.

A look at his User page and his last 500 edits, all made this year, show a diverse ongoing commitment to the project. Unless one assumes bad faith, I believe there is no good reason not to lift the remainder of the topic ban. Jusdafax (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update, May 12, 2020 - I agree with Capeo that this now nearly two-month-old request is indeed "really not fair to David," who shows exemplary patience with the long-lasting process here. However, Capeo provides no diffs regarding DT's editing, and argues that DT should essentially be permanently topic banned, despite the fact that "David has been prolifically and constructively contributing." I would ask, what else exactly does David Tornheim have to do? DT has repeatedly proved his worth to Wikipedia in the nearly four years since he got his only block. Give the guy some credit, assume good faith, and let's move on. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, June 15, 2020 - I am encouraged by the motion, the several additional favorable comments and by David Tornheim's further clarification yesterday, which is clear and precise, with appropriate diffs and reasoning. He exhibits both outstanding patience and prudence during this several month's-long process. A request for adminship lasts a week. His request here has now dragged on for almost a quarter of a year. I submit David Tornheim has more than passed the test, and I salute him and those supporting the end to his years of sanctions. Jusdafax (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding erroneous statements here and elsewhere by Kingofaces43

I can seldom focus on the walls of text Kingofaces43 posts. Few others here share his views. However, I notice that Kingofaces43 incorrectly states, in his mass of words on this page, that "Jusdafax was also sanctioned." As my log shows I have never been sanctioned with either topic ban or block. It is true I got an official warning, my one and only, I believe, but a warning is not a WP:SANCTION.

Since it's difficult to believe that Kingofaces43 does not understand the difference between a warning and a sanction, I have to conclude that Kingofaces43's comment regarding my being "sanctioned" is designed to damage my credibility. He has a documented history of doing this. Some examples: Kingofaces43 has misrepresented others on GMO topics in just the past few weeks, and this recent GMO thread on User:Levivich's Talk page makes for interesting reading, starting with Kingofaces43's inappropriate GMO templating of Levivich, and Levivch's strenuous objections.

In May, 2019, King was informally admonished by Administrator Vanamonde93 for this misrepresentation termed "patently untrue", again on October 29, 2019 for the same behavior "You've repeated that erroneous statement here." and the next day again calling King's statement "a misrepresentation."

So, right in front of ArbCom, Kingofaces43 escalates with claims that I have been sanctioned while he accuses me of "just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes." My diffs show an ongoing pattern from Kingofaces43 of false assertions made with impunity. These are not aspersions I am making, these are stated facts with diffs.

The relevance here: I'm extremely concerned about David Tornheim's way forward on GMO's/glyphosate editing per Kingofaces43's open, unrelenting hostility towards editors he disagrees with. King's statement regarding this pending end to David's sanctions as "…stirring up the subject again and ending back up at AE/Arbcom," I take as a threat, and an attempt by Kingofaces43 to lock down a subject he claims special rights to as a steward and curator. As the committee prepares to close this request, I suggest King's behavior be noted per the above, and he be formally warned.

Again, I heartily thank the committee for their deliberations regarding David Tornheim, which have now reached an appropriate and nearly unanimous conclusion. Jusdafax (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I haven’t been around for quite a while now, but I’ve still checked my watchlist with some regularity. This ARCA has been open for way too long and it’s really not fair to David. Decide one way or the other. My opinion, as someone who took part in the whole GMO blowout, is to maintain the status quo. I haven’t done a deep dive, but it seems that David has been prolifically and constructively contributing outside the GMO suite for some time, while avoiding the parts of it he’s not technically TBed from. That’s a good thing. What gives me pause is his contention that he wants the update these articles with “the most recent science.” Much of the conflict regarding David arose from selectively reading sources and insisting on primary and/or discredited sources. I’m not seeing much benefit to opening that door again. Capeo (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Four years is a long time for a t-ban. This editor has a single block dating back to 2016, so it isn't like the project has had to deal with a relentlessly disruptive editor. I recall a recent ArbCom case request wherein some of the arbs declined it because the episodes that prompted the filing are now stale - and they were only a year old. Continuing a t-ban that has since become a very narrow segment of the original t-ban seems rather counterproductive. David has responded positively to feedback, he comes across as sincere, and he has diligently honored his t-ban while it was in force, which to me indicates restraint and willingness to do the right thing. We aren't doing the encyclopedia any favors by continuing this narrowly scoped t-ban without any indication or evidence that removing it will present a risk of disruption to the topic area. Atsme Talk 📧 02:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

This request seems to be stalled. One plus of letting DT back into GMO content is that his work there will be carefully watched, unlike the backwaters of editing Venezuelan topics, where he has been editing and where there are far fewer eyes and knowledgeable editors. If problems surface at GMO again, a more permanent solution can be sought, more quickly.

Otherwise, all these topic bans accomplish is to unleash problem editors on other content areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 26 June 2020 (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.

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. Katietalk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Upon reading David's replies and the comments by others, I am agreeing with Jusdafax that lifting the ban after four years might be beneficial to the project. I also think David is sufficiently warned that any return to old behavior will swiftly result in sanctions again. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry this has sat for so long. I was going to go on about how busy I've been but it really is inexcusable for a simple request to sit for this long. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Genetically modified organisms

David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Proposed. This has been open for quite a while now, and it wouldn't be fair to archive it without considering a motion. With regard to my question above, the assertion that all GMO topics may be related to glyphosate is a compelling explanation for why David Tornheim hasn't taken advantage of the reduced topic ban. – bradv🍁 02:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to some of the comments above I'll clarify my comment a bit further. I am by no means claiming that all GMO topics are related to glyphosate, as I am not qualified to make such a determination. However, the assertion that some admins may consider the entire topic area to be related to "glyphosate, broadly construed" is a reasonable explanation for why David Tornheim might be cautious about editing in this area, and why he has thus far avoided it. Additionally, looking at this from the other perspective, the topic ban has been in place for 4 years and no one has presented a compelling argument here for why this particular editor continues to pose a risk. The concerns I expressed in my original comment above have been answered. – bradv🍁 16:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment above and bradv. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was on the fence here, because I really would have liked to see some editing in the topic area when we loosened the restrictions last time. However, I also can respect wishing to leave a wide berth around one's restrictions, which is often wise. Let's give this a shot, and if disruption occurs the sanctions can always be reimposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is a well referenced area. if problems occur then it can be dealt with readily Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support, which is why it's taken me this long to cast a vote, but four-plus years is a long time. Although I can see the counterarguments, I'm persuaded that we shouldn't hold it against an editor that he's stayed far away from the edges of his topic-ban, when that ordinarily is just what we counsel topic-banned editors to do. I urge David Tornheim to show the same caution if he now returns to editing on GMOs and related issues: start with less controversial aspects, use the best sources, avoid reverts, and engage in civil discussion where needed. If problems recur, discretionary sanctions remain available against this as against any other editor; I sincerely hope that will not prove necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With the understanding that if there are further problems in this area, the ban will be rapidly re-instanted and it will be extremely difficult to appeal it again,and there could be further sanctions. I say this in the sincere hope that it won't come to that and there will be no such problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. With apologies for the long delay, and thanks to the additional comments that have helped me understand this topic area. David, the narrowing of your TBAN from GMOs to glyphosate was really your opportunity to show that you can contribute to this topic without the problems from before reoccurring. I've seen you around at AfD and the Teahouse many times, so I know you're a productive and sensible editor, but contributing to contentious and fringe topics has its own set of challenges. If you can do some editing on GMOs and come back in a few months, I'm sure I could support this, but absent that evidence I think it's better to be safe than sorry. – Joe (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Given the time that's elapsed since this discussion began, I'm going to wait another couple of days for community input on the new proposed motion before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Zero0000 at 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Zero0000

In accordance with the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages of ARBPIA articles under certain conditions. However, "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.". My question is: Is a formal move proposal, as made using the {{requested move}} template, an example of "other internal project discussions"?

My opinion is that a move proposal is very similar to an RfC and so should be treated the same.

Thanks for your time. Zerotalk 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Bradv: I think your interpretation of "content" is narrower than intended. The very fact that the rules for talk space editing, AfDs, etc, are called "exceptions" proves that "content" is intended to include them. I believe that "content" just means "all content" in the ordinary English sense and it isn't a specific reference to article space. Zerotalk 04:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is nothing to stop non-ECs from discussing the topic of an on-going RfC on the talk page; they are only prohibited from taking part in the RfC itself. I believe this is important because of the number of new accounts or IPs that come out of nowhere just to "vote" in RfCs. I expect that a large fraction are socks, people editing while logged out, or people responding to off-wiki canvassing. Zerotalk 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

The question came up here, I thought RM is not allowed and at first @El C: thought it was OK and then decided it wasn't. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not allowed (in practice, it is similar to an RFC).Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I see RMs as being very similar to RfCs in nature, so my feeling is that if RfCs are disallowed, RMs should be as well. The question of how to title an article is, after all, an "internal project discussion". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Can I Log In

I've been following this clarification request since the beginning, and it seems like bradv pointed out interesting information that the 500/30 restriction applies to editing content only. So as worded, non-500/30 users may participate in "other internal project discussions".

Now let's look at WP:ARBPIA3, finding of fact No. 3

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. (Kingsindian's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that was from ~4.5 years ago, but when you consider this to be a long-term problem, it's likely that the problem persist.

So with this underlying fact and intention/principle, I think that the 500/30 restriction does apply to RM as well as other internal project or vote-like discussions in any ArbCom/community areas of conflict. Sockpuppetry is small, but when discovered, is huge. 01:00, 1 July 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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My understanding of that clause is that "other internal discussions" refers to discussions that take place in locations other than the talk page of an article. Requested move discussions, as with other talk page discussions, can be managed by the methods listed in paragraph b, but only when disruption occurs. – bradv🍁 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, my understanding is that non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages and other discussions, "provided they are not disruptive". They are only prohibited from editing the articles themselves. So they can contribute to RMs and RfCs, but if they are disruptive they can be banned from the talk page, but not from other internal discussions. – bradv🍁 16:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose there's another interpretation of the General Sanctions that says that non-edit-confirmed editors are prohibited from participating in "other internal discussions". Perhaps someone can clarify the intent of the word "exception" in paragraph B-1, as I might be confused. – bradv🍁 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up, having read this more carefully:
    ARBPIA General Sanctions, as currently worded, only applies the 500/30 prohibition to "editing content". There is an exception (extension?) to apply that rule to talk pages in the case of disruption, but that clause does not apply to "internal project discussions".
    As worded, this restriction does not prohibit new editors from participating in RMs, RfC, AfDs, or any other internal discussions, as they are not "editing content". If that was not the intent of the motion, it should be reworded. – bradv🍁 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little split on this one, given that they are very similar to RfCs. As to Bradv's point about discussions happening away from the talk page, RfCs fairly often happen on the articles' talk pages and my understanding is that non-30/500 users are not allowed to participate then either (though please correct me if I'm wrong—my particular editing interests do not take me into the area of Palestine-Israel articles very often). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I agree with Bradv's interpretation of "editing content"—I don't think "content" is meant to refer to "article content", but rather is just a vague term to refer to any editing. I agree with my other colleagues that RMs would seem to be prohibited, as are RfCs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the prohibition applies here, they're similar both to RfCCs, and AfDs; a title move in this area can be very consequential, and tend to be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
  • In the interests of a conservative reading to avoid disruption and the problems with the topic area, I'd agree that the prohibition would apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where bradv is coming from and I agree that interpreting that exception it seems to be limited to discussions that are about more than just a single page even with the "RfCs" wedged in there. Moves can be controversial, yes, but so can changes in content. It makes no sense to say "You are allowed to argue for the change of everything but the name is off limits". Consequently, I would argue that the "RfCs" reverse-exception currently does not cover RfCs that are limited to the page in question and are held on the talk page because those RfCs do not fit the "internal discussions" definition (unlike AFDs, WikiProjects etc.). To take another example: WP:DAILYMAILRFC was an "internal discussion" because it was about whether to qualify a newspaper as a reliable source. The RfC held at Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 5#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits was not an "internal discussion" because it was only about what to include in this specific article. Regards SoWhy 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me a Requested Move is short hand for Request for Comment on a Move. Seems fairly obvious that the rules should be the same WormTT(talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see how an RM discussion isn't an "internal project discussion." If that's the only question here that would be my answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

Initiated by Shashank5988 at 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. AE Appeal of Mar4d


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
  • Appeal's result should be overturned


Statement by Shashank5988

As WP:ARE comes under the jurisdiction of Arbcom and Arbcom has the authority to overturn and/or modify any of the enforcement made on WP:ARE, I am bringing to your attention a case related to a topic ban appeal by User:Mar4d at the above-mentioned board, in which the evidence of a number of violations was not taken into consideration while granting the appeal.

It is important at the outset that I clarify that there are no issues with the closing admin's closure, as he merely carried out the agreement amongst administrators.[5]

However the problems, which are major in nature, pertain to the way the appeal was handled, which I deem to be not in consonance with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I shall enumerate them below:

  • To begin with, the very first sentence of the user's appeal was not borne out by facts. It read, and I quote: "I would like to humbly appeal for lifting a topic ban restriction which dates back to May 2018. The restriction in question was applied collectively amongst at least nine other editors at the time, with the option to appeal in 6 months' time, which I did not choose to exercise until now."[6] (emphasis mine) The veracity of this statement was never tested or questioned and the user was taken at his words despite there was a glaring prevarication in what he stated because Mar4d was amongst the users who had collectively appealed their sanctions to Arbcom on WP:ARCA,[7] and was notified of the subsequent rejection thereof.[8] This revelation was never made in the appeal and the user thereby committed open perfidy; the failure of the admins to see through this betrayed a lack of due diligence on their part.
  • Several instances of unambiguous topic ban violations, misrepresentation of sources while adding text to articles committed by the user were bought to the attention at AE, none of which were addressed by the admins who took part in evaluating the appeal.
Recent topic ban violations and source misrepresentation as presented on AE
Note that the topic ban concerns "conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed" and "any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block".[12] WP:BROADLY is very clear in this topic ban from the beginning.
  • The very first comment under the section devoted to the "uninvolved admins" was made by RegentsPark, an involved party who commented in the aforesaid section in disregard of WP:INVOLVED, and even when the same was pointed out to them they didn't pay any heed to it and nearly all other admins who commented based their views on Regentspark's comment.[13][14]

The fact that the user deliberately omitted any mention of past appeals, and in fact denying having appealed in the past at all, coupled with a series of topic ban infringements, among other issues, and the failure of administrators to address these issues before granting the appeal makes this case ripe enough to be considered by the Arbcom. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

@JzG: Please take a look at the closure of the said appeal dating to June 2018, of which Shashank5988 gives the impression that I was substantially involved in. Of all the editors who received the TBAN, I was the only user who didn't lodge a single statement there or verbally challenge the sanction. I could have easily chosen to get involved, but that's besides the point. Shashank5988 only got one part right, I did indeed add my name to the "List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request", and even that was a procedural edit and because the filer had left a message on my talk a week earlier. That was my only edit to the "appeal". Shashank5988's claim that I "committed open perfidy" is laughable at best. Mar4d (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RegentsPark, El C, Black Kite, Bishonen, TonyBallioni, JzG, Vanamonde93 etc.: In my ten plus years of editing, I have had virtually zero direct interaction with this user (Shashank5988) across a single article, discussion, you name it, anywhere. That hasn't stopped Shashank5988 from appearing first at an ARBIPA-infested ANI thread in December 2018 to oppose me, then at my recent arbitration enforcement appeal out of nowhere, and if that wasn't enough, this fresh ARCA despite the admin who closed my AE advising them otherwise. Given this won't be the first or last time I've been frivolously hounded (to wit), I just don't understand why can't we topic ban this user already for wasting everyone's time? I hope I haven't committed blasphemy by suggesting so. I'm not even touching yet the other deliberate, obfuscating accusations. I've been largely patient, honestly. Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Thanks for your closing view. In my comment above, I had expressed concerns regarding possible hounding from the filer. Could you advise what would be the correct course of action if this pattern were to continue in the future? Many thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy: Noted, thanks. Mar4d (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't consider myself involved re Mar4d but do apologize to Shashank5988 for not seeing their comment on the AE page (I see a ping in there, which I somehow missed, so the fault lies with me). Regardless, doubtless the other admins did look into the various allegations I see on the AE thread and made their decisions independently. I don't really see a big issue with not removing the ban from Mar4d. As I said on AE, they've complied with the spirit of the ban and we can't ask for a whole lot more from an editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El C

I don't really have much more to add beyond my evaluation at AE. The risk of further disruption by lifting the ban seems low enough to be worthwhile. El_C 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how some previous interactions with Mar4d make regentspark an involved party. That assertion has not been established to my satisfaction. El_C 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite that the basis for this request could be viewed as problematic. The Committee may wish to impose sanctions on the filer themselves for making a frivolous request. El_C 19:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Just a thought, but perhaps the admins at AE did actually look at the alleged "several instances of unambiguous topic ban violations (and) misrepresentation of sources while adding text to articles committed by the user" and decided that they either weren't violations or were very minor? And perhaps they did look at the claim that User:RegentsPark was WP:INVOLVED, and dismissed it? As I said at the AE, I take a very dim view of people that spend a significant amount of their time on Wikipedia trying to keep ideological opponents banned from articles, something which the filer of this (and a number of other editors in this area) have done recently - though I certainly didn't expect them to double down on it by taking up many people's time with an ARCA request as well. It suggests to me a battleground mindset rather than one that is dedicated to actually improving an encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Black Kite puts it so well I can only agree with every word he says. Plus a technicality: sorry, but it itches me to see RegentsPark apologising for "missing" Shashank5988's ping, when the ping wasn't correctly done and therefore didn't work.[15][16] Shashank5988, please see Help:Fixing failed pings for how to fix a faulty ping. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I’ll just say what I said on my talk page: I don’t think there are any procedures allowing the committee to overturn a successful appeal of a discretionary sanction if there’s actually consensus to do so (I guess I could see it if the closing admin badly misread, but this was unanimous.)

On the merits, this was an older sanction and there was consensus to lift it to give them another chance. I’m typically very anti-ROPE and think any argument that relies on it is usually a bad argument, but here we had a user who was generally constructive and demonstrated that the potential benefits outweighed the known risks. That’s my standard, which I think was met here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Surely the simplest thing is to let matters stand, and move for another ban should Mar4d resume disruptive editing in this area? If Mar4d is as deceptive as Shashank5988 says, surely they will be back at this board in short order, with past sanctions being taken into account. Guy (help!) 17:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d@ note the word "if" in the above ;-) Guy (help!) 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

The original topic ban should be extended to Shashank5988 for this bad-faith request, which has no purpose other than to harass someone they perceive as an ideological opponent. What else could possibly be the point of this admin-shopping request? We have ARBIPA DS and WP:GS/IPAK general sanctions to stamp out exactly this sort of drama-mongering and battleground behaviour, which has plagued this highly contentious topic area for years and years; we should use the tools available to us here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

Arbcom could theoretically impose the same exact sanction as the one lifted at AE as a sua sponte action of the committee, but that is the only way, under the current procedures, that a lifted sanction by a consensus of AE admins can be reversed by the committee. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:17, 26 June 2020 (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.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I trust the consensus of the five very experienced AE admins who reviewed the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. There is nothing to clarify or amend here. While I do not think ArbCom is completely barred from overruling AE as an ultima ratio, the whole system is designed to not have ArbCom interfere in the day to day operations. There is no evidence presented that was not already mentioned (and rejected) at the AE that would require us to step in and revert the consensus of these very experienced admins to lift the restrictions. Plus, as Guy mentions, lifting a topic ban does not mean it cannot be reimposed swiftly if the editor in question again displays the kind of behavior that lead to the first ban. Regards SoWhy 07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mar4d: If you believe there is a conduct issue, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE outlines the possible steps to address this. As a last resort, you can request arbitration. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a reason for ArbCom to get involved. The appeal got plenty of attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was some indication that the appeal was mishandled, it might make sense for us to review it, but with multiple experienced admins reviewing the appeal in detail I see no reason for us to step in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing this as falling within the admins bounds for decision. Decline. WormTT(talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would have to be a very compelling reason for us to overturn a consensus from AE, and I'm just not seeing it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=965656617"