Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms

---

Initiated by DrChrissy at 14:43, 20 December 2015 (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. 7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.[14]

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

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

Information about amendment request

• 7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.[15]

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

I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban.

policy as "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." (my highlighting). Below, I provide evidence that I have not been disruptive in this topic area, in fact, I have not made a single content edit about GM-plants in my history of editing WP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tryptofish, I do not see how someone can be banned from a topic they have not edited! It is bizarre and totally against why TB's are imposed! I might as well have been banned from

19:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish, based on your recent posting,[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=696229974} where you state I should be banned on "GM anything else", where is the evidence to support your suggestion that I should be banned from GM-bacteria, GM-protozoans, GM-Chromista and GM-Fungi. I have not ever edited in these areas.DrChrissy (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish. This is the worrying edit.[24] By your blurring my TB from GMO-plants to the entire GMO article, you opened the door to any Gotchya-player out there... Even one of the arbitrators has warned me only about editing sections of pages. Your approach to broadening the scope of topic bans and its obvious extrapolation by game-players to other sanctions (the DS and 1RR on GMO's) is really going to come back and bite WP on the arse. You heard it here first.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

---

Initiated by JzG at 00:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification DrChrissy

DrChrissy is under a topic ban from "all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted". DrChrissy is currently edit-warring to include negative text from Mercola.com, an extremely unreliable source, to Genetically modified fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (e.g. [25]). Fish are not plants, but the locus of dispute is GMOs generally.

1. Should DrChrissy be editing articles on genetically modified non-plant organisms?
2. Should non-plant GMOs be covered by the 1RR remedy?

.

ArbCom, what am I doing wrong here? It appears some of you are basing your decisions on a potential topic ban expansion on my editing of a single page - Genetically modified fish.

Am I edit warring? No. JzG stated I am edit warring, but I am almost the only editor on there! ...it is difficult to have a war with oneself. There have been no comments left on the talk page since December 21st - so anyone arguing that I am edit warring has not attempted whatsoever to engage in any discussion.

Am I breaking 1RR or slow edit-warring by reverting? No - I have made only one reversion since the remedies of ArbCom were published.

Are my edits POV? I can see how this might be perceived at the moment, however, the way I tend to edit articles is to present one point of view and subsequently others to balance the article. There are only 24 hrs in the day to edit and we are told that articles should always be considered as "work in progress". I have not yet had time to present other points of view and, of course, other editors are welcome to do this. Moreover, if my editing is being seen as POV, I have not been notified of this either on the article Talk page or my own Talk page.

Are my sources RS? I believe this criticism relates to just the Mercola source. When I first introduced the content, I did not know who the author was (how many content editors do know this?). Since I have been informed of this, I have not tried to reintroduce the material - I AM listening to criticisms.

In short, I am really at a loss to understand why some arbitrators think my topic ban should be enlarged. If this is to be a learning process, I need to know where I am going wrong. Please tell me.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Capeo...rather than going on ad nauseum about edits/sources, etc. here to try and discredit me, why not just make the edits you want to? Surely that would be the best approach to building a better encyclopaedia.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Capeo...sorry, I do not buy your flimsy time argument. The time to create your last-but-one posting going into great deal about just one source would have easily allowed you to make several constructive edits to the article. But rather than do that, and us perhaps engaging in discussion at the article Talk page which is where it correctly belongs, you bring it here to a Noticeboard. You are simply raising content issues - and these are not dealt with by ArbCom. I believe your approach is so uncollegiate as to be adversarial. Why are you so averse to content editing?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn Thank you very much for confirming Trypto's observation that there is no edit warring at the page. Please, if you feel my edits are one-sided, edit the article to add balance. Many of the edits simply have no other "side" to them, but if you believe differently, I encourage you to edit accordingly or open up discussion on the Talk page. Regarding my use of the Wired article, I actually asked the very question of whether it was RS at the Talk page shown here[[26]] before introducing the content. I received no negative comments so I assumed it was OK to use. I am trying very hard to learn here, so I think asking the question was the right course of action and one showing I am willing to engage in discussion and take other editor's viewpoints into consideration.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kelapstick: I do not recognize your name as one of the original arbitrators here - please could you tell me why you have posted here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick: Thank you for your explanation. I think all parties in the GMO case should be informed of this considering the implications for current and future clarifications. In my own case, perhaps you could indicate a diff where I have edited contrary to the intent of my topic ban to protect GM plants.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick: First, I did not "move to" editing Genetically modified fish after my topic ban - the article's history page shows clearly that I have been editing the page since August. Secondly, I used the Mercola source because this quoted comments - I was not using it as a source of Mercola's own interpretation of GMO matters. Third, please look carefully at the original clarification. The first part relates to "edit warring". It has been made abundantly clear by other editors that there is no edit warring whatsoever going on at that page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• New motion I have just seen the new motion to extend my topic ban. Could I please ask the proposer for evidence (diffs) that support their proposal - otherwise, how can I defend myself?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So at what point do I get to say I told you so? That article is horrible. DrChrissy has added almost nothing but negative material (the vast bulk of an article that barely bothers to explain what GM fish even are) using completely non-notable primary papers or outright WP:FRINGE sources. Often they're cherry picking data from the papers that aren't fringe, without context, giving an impression that doesn't even agree with the actual conclusions of the papers. This isn't shocking since they don't seem to understand WP:FRINGE [27] or what constitutes the scientific mainstream. Or even sourcing really. The whole controversy section is basically what DrChrissy finds controversial about GM fish and not what any notable sources seem to. Capeo (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to further display the selective use of even okay sources look at the second paragraph of AquaAdvantage Salmon under Controversies. Note how only raw data is grabbed from the source with no context at all to paint a much bleaker picture than the conclusion of the paper. In fact the 41% natural hybridization in the wild sentence literally has no bearing on the conclusions of the paper at all and DrChrissy leaves out that this has only been observed as a result of translocation. Not to mention it has nothing to do with GM Fish and specifically leaves out the first part of the sentence, that it was cherry picked from, that states natural hybridization rarely exceeds 1%. Now look at the impression that whole paragraph gives versus the conclusion of the paper: "Despite the apparent low probability for genetic introgression into the brown trout genome, the ecological consequences of decreased salmon growth in the presence of transgenic hybrids indicate that hybridization is relevant to risk assessments. Although transgenic hybrids would probably be rarer in the wild than in our experiment, our results indicate that transgenic hybrids have a competitive advantage over salmon in at least some semi-natural conditions. Still, it is entirely unclear whether this would be observed in truly wild environments. If this advantage is maintained in the wild, transgenic hybrids could detrimentally affect wild salmon populations. Ultimately, we suggest that hybridization of transgenic fishes with closely related species represents potential ecological risks for wild populations and a possible route for introgression of a transgene, however low the likelihood, into a new species in nature." Also, because this is just cherrypicking a primary study there's nothing that even indicates anything is actually controversial about this to anyone other than DrChrissy themselves. Unfortunately you can dissect most of controversy section in the same manner. Misrepresented primary sources with no secondary sources giving context or even expressing how any of this is controversial to begin with. Capeo (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly DrChrissy has seen the above because they have since added the last sentence of conclusion, as a quote, into the paragraph noted while still leaving the cherry picked and misleading data. I happened to look into the claims and sources in the paragraph above. It claims AquaBounty said their fish cannot breed and then says "however" there's a 1.1% chance of fertility as though AquaBounty denies this when the 1.1% source is from AquaBounty.com. Further the next sentence seems to imply the chance is higher based on a sentence taken from an abstract that, when read in full, actually confirms the claim: "Spontaneous triploidy was found to be rare (0.06% and 0.22% when eggs were stored in vivo or in vitro, respectively). Three larger scale trials (n =15,814, 10,419, and 19,593) using normal pressure, high pressure, or high pressure plus aged eggs, yielded triploidy frequencies of 99.8%, 97.6%, and 97.0%, respectively. Overall, among all pressure-treated groups (n =54,787 fish), 1.1% exceptional diploids were detected. If families with obvious high levels (>2%) of diploids are excluded, the frequency of diploid exceptions is 0.32%" (emphasis added). Not to mention this paper has been cited a whole 16 times and seems completely non-controversial. Capeo (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @DrChrissy:, a couple reasons, one being time constraints. I'm only able to devote maybe an hour here or there and sometimes no time for days. The other being, given your more recent postings about how you think fringe and POV should be interpreted, I see nothing but conflict heading down that road. And I'm not trying to "discredit you". We're talking about your editing not you personally. Now I've got to be well over the word limit by this point so I'm going to bow out. Clerks, if this needs trimming let me know. I should be on again for a bit later. Capeo (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that in the time since this was brought up (not edit-warring BTW just a NPOV issue) DrChrissy's response to the lack of neutrality pointed out is to expand the least neutral sections. This, "Many of the edits simply have no other "side" to them" posted above, elucidates the issue better than anything I can say. Between this ARCA and the one above these issues have been lingering and the response always seem to be doubling down. Arbs, if you are going to propose any amendments, I'd say sooner is better than later. Capeo (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tryptofish:, since when is blatant POV pushing not disruptive? I could sympathize more with your view if not for DrChrissy's reactions to being told their editing is an issue. They've collected two TBs now. Right up until the GMO case was closed and sanctions took effect DrChrissy did all they could to stuff their views into the Glysophate article. One slight attempt to fix the slant of the GM Fish article is insta-reverted. Here we have three arbs suggesting DrChrissy's editing is not neutral and the reaction is to double down again and expand the controversy section even more. It's not like fringe and due weight issues haven't been explained to them a million times now. I guess you have more faith than I do. Capeo (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold on a minute. I've been editing Genetically modified fish too. And I am concerned that JzG has misstated several things, and his misstatements are being taken as fact. He is probably right about the issues of POV to some extent, and my personal opinion is that DrChrissy has been adding too much detail from primary sources, but these things seem to be getting addressed at the page. And the Mercola source is unambiguously not an RS. However, the edit warring and 1RR issues are not as JzG says. As for his question 2 (should non-plant GMOs be covered by 1RR?), the page in question already has the edit notice stating the GMO decision about DS and 1RR, and it displays every time one edits the page, so I think that question has already been answered. More importantly, I'm not seeing DrChrissy edit warring over the Mercola source or over anything else. I'm just not seeing the reverting, unless I'm missing something. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my comment from yesterday, I want to re-emphasize my statement that there is much less going on here than what JzG accused. I'm glad that Aircorn and Dialectric have reconfirmed my observation that there has not been any edit warring. There just hasn't. And I don't at all see a battleground at this page, neither on DrChrissy's part nor in the edit summary from another editor that was cited by Dialectric. And I want to point something else out, too. The purpose of the GMO decision was not, and should not be, to prohibit editors from adding anti-GMO content. Much of what Capeo is saying is based on: DrChrissy adds sources that criticize GM animals, oh look, that's POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Well, no, it's not disruptive, in this case. DrChrissy is not violating the existing sanctions at that page. (And I trust no one will think that I, of all editors, am sympathetic to an anti-GMO POV.) I do think that DrChrissy's view of NPOV looks POV from where I am, and I sure do not like that statement about there being no other side, but DrChrissy is not being disruptive about any of this. I can sympathize with ArbCom that DrChrissy has been trying your patience with all the noisy appeals to you and to Jimbo, and maybe that also annoyed JzG, but there is no basis here for you to expand DrChrissy's sanctions. On the other hand, there are other pages, where other editors are doing quite a bit to make GMO-2 probable, but this isn't where that's happening. You need to close this with no formal action. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capeo, I really do not want to argue with you, because it isn't you or I who makes the decisions here. I'm trying to see this as real people editing, and real people are complicated. I agree with you about DrChrissy doubling down at the glyphosate page, but I think that, even though DrChrissy has added some stuff to the fish page we are actually discussing here that will end up being reverted, I'm seeing zero evidence that there will be a battle over it, at least not one waged by DrChrissy. And in case anyone did not notice it, DrChrissy has also been adding material that is pro-GM to that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I would be negligent if I didn't point this out, in the context of the existing interaction ban: [28], [29]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is on my watchlist. The feed is dominated by Dr Chrissy, but there is no edit warring going on. I am very concerned with the one sided nature of the additions and feel trouble is brewing on that article. That someone would even think wired could be a reliable source is also worrying[30]. AIRcorn (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are bigger GM Fish to fry that are taking up my limited editing time, but one day I hope to turn my attention to this article. There are plenty of sides to these articles, that is why they are so heated and why we are here now. AIRcorn (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed wording of Dr Chrisseys potential ban includes "commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them". However, at #Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans) the trend seems to be against adding this to the other topic banned editors. Obviously there is still time for these motions to go the other way, but I thought I should point this out in case it had been missed. Personally I think it would be unfair to extend the topic ban here unless the same is done above or evidence is provided that this editor is disruptive at those articles. AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jzg has not provided diffs which support his claims of edit warring. I have also been following the Genetically modified fish article and second Tryptofish's position that DrChrissy has not been edit warring on that page, and that in fact no edit warring has occurred there. This issue was not discussed on the article talk page or on DrChrissy's user page before the filing. Curt edit summaries like jps ' 'removing Mercola. Completely unreliable source' diff ) without explanation/elaboration on talk are likely to exacerbate battleground problems in this already contentious area. Dialectric (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• The answer to question 1 is yes they can under the restriction that was crafted for them. Should they? That is for them to decide.

  For question 2, those are covered by 1RR. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems we should have made the remedy to include "genetically modified organisms", rather than just plants. The "reference" cited was "Act now to stop genetically engineered fish from receiving approval". Someone citing a reference with "Act now" in the title is someone who seems to have difficulty with the concept of neutrality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We've been talking about changing the wording, now seems to be the time. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Doug and Seraphimblade. The intent here was to allow DrChrissy to constructively edit parts of the GMO topic area to demonstrate that he can edit in a neutral and collegiate fashion regarding GMOs. His actions since the close of the case have demonstrated that he cannot and so an extension of the topic ban is in unfortunately in order. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, extend to all genetically modified organisms. The leeway provided by allowing non-plant articles to be edited appears to not have the desired effect. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DrChrissy, it is now 2016. The new committee members are active. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DrChrissy, new Arbitration Committee members take over every year on 1 January. There was a month long election, and it was announced in several locations across Wikipedia. My earlier point was echoing Seraphimblade:
    • Your topic ban permitted you to edit GM articles not related to plants.
    • So you move to GM fish, and you make this addition here. The belief that such a reference would be suitable for such a contentious topic, which is very close to your topic ban (or any article for that matter) is concerning.
    • It appears that you are delving into areas that will cause you trouble, but because fish are not plants you are not expressly forbidden from editing in said areas. The solution as I see it is to extend the topic ban to include non-plant organisms. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. So fish aren't plants, eh? I think that needs a cn tag. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I also don't believe we should stand for constructions like "Person X has been quoted as summarising a study by stating that..." Drmies (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There was no edit warring; let's be clear about that. So that charge is out, and whoever brought it up (!) should be ashamed at this misrepresentation. On the other hand, and this is about the same diff Kelapstick linked earlier, the edit summary here is...well, unacceptable from someone who should know what they're doing, and it's the kind of thing that has been brought up before in DrChrissy-related discussions. Worse, their intractability on the talk page really makes it clear that they are out of their league when it comes to sourcing and such. Granted, they were having a discussion with jps, which is the online equivalent of eating concrete with spicy mustard, but still. To approach this from another side, I was ready to not support extending the scope of the topic ban until I saw the commentary on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Proposed:

DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

Enacted - Amortias (T)(C) 22:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As proposer. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. obvious --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sadly, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Majority reference

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

Proposed:

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

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

1. As proposer. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. did some wordsmithing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I cannot say that I find the original wording very helpful and did not, in the original case, see why the broad topic of "agricultural chemicals", commercially produced or otherwise, had to be included to further the goal of preventing disruption (and not preventing editors from editing)--but obviously I wasn't there, so I'll abstain now. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. I took no part in this case due to travelling, so I'll choose to stay out of it right now. (This is quite explicitly not a recusal, and not an indication I'll never talk part in matters regarding this case.) Courcelles (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

---

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

Case or decision affected

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• SageRad

There was some discussion as to potential ambiguity in the scope of the topic ban, stated as "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". SageRad raises an interesting edge case:

, which are not, themselves, agricultural chemicals.

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

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

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

Addendum: It's also pretty clear that Monsanto is core to the dispute, so edits like [31] might be more problematic even though they do not actually relate to GMOs or agricultural chemicals, other than in the involvement of the one company which, more than any other, acts as a focal point for the righteous anger of the anti-GMO and anti-pesticide lobby.

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

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

• The suggestion by Minor4th to explicitly include Monsanto in the banned topic areas has obvious merit. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

On seeing the motions presented...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not involved in the topic area but took part in the recent arbcom case on GMO's. The request for clarification is a good one. The name of the case was "Genetically modified organisms" and the scope should match the area of the topic that was discussed, namely Genetically modified organisms and topics that relate to it. The scope should not be widened to include any chemical that can possibly be used on plants, it should be chemicals as related to genetically modified organisms. After all water is a chemical, its sprayed on plants, even GMO's. Should

]

I will also point out that JzG's bad behaviour in this area is continuing from the time of the case [32]. He was excluded from the findings because of not being a named party, something that should be looked at again. His edits are not that of a careful admin in a contentious area seeking consensus before making large changes. He should know better. AlbinoFerret 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that

]

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

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

• polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (in lubricant for electric motors, might be on a farm)
• saccharin (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
• aspartame (it replaced a natural sweetener, from a plant raised on farms)
• polystyrene (you can grow plants in a Styrofoam cup)
• How about Chemical weapons[33] (they might kill plants and livestock to)
• Agent orange (its another chemical weapon,[34] it is not an agricultural chemical.)

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

@Kirill Lokshin, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, and Gamaliel: Since Kingofaces43 has gone down the slippery slope I wrote about in my last post here, I think its a good idea to point out the problems with it. Kingofaces43 points out that Sagerad has edited DuPont.[35] But looking at the edits themselves, a removal of unsourced material about charges at a hardware store,[36] and a chemical used to process Teflon [37] I see no intersection with GMO's or agriculture. The chemical companies, like DuPont make hundreds if not thousands of chemicals and other things that are not agricultural or GMO. Widening the ban to include these chemicals would be purely punitive and not preventive because no evidence of a problem exists now or in the case. In effect trying to stop a problem before it happens. I urge you to consider this before closing the section. On the other hand Jytdog asks for amendment to allow editing some GMO's.[38] I think this should be denied. It is clearly within the bounds of GMO's and he was a major person in this case with demonstrated issues during the case. It is way to soon to start relaxing bans. I also think if this area is open to him, it should be open to all the banned editors. That is just inviting a shift of location for a battle to happen. AlbinoFerret 08:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of specifying exactly what articles should be avoided, because, while it is true that some articles have irrelevant sections, equally, others not anticipated have sections that will be relevant, of where sections could be added that would be relevant. We should therefore be talking about topics,or edits, not articles. However, there have been at various times arb enforcement actions that gave seemed disproportionate, and we should be reluctant to give unlimited discretion there. I do not consider a scheme that leaves the details to whatever admin comes along and makers it exceptionally difficult to change them to be acceptable, but that is what we have for lack of any practical suggestions for anything better. So in effect I see no alternative to our laying down broad restrictions, and looking extremely unfavorably on attempts to test the limits or argue about the boundaries. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG But is Teflon, Styrofoam, chemical weapons with no agricultural uses, etc really testing boundaries? Or is the addition of these to a ban a bad reaction on the part of editors commenting here that helped cause the problem in the first place and a possible attempt to punish those they disagree with by pushing for the additions? Bans are supposed to be preventative, what past bad behaviour in these topics (Teflon, Styrofoam, chemical weapons with no agricultural uses) are you trying to prevent with these bans that has been proven to have happened? AlbinoFerret 10:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there seems no better way to do it. If enforcement were reasonable and actually did use discretion, there would not be a problem. But to the extent it is not, then topic bans are often going to similarly unfair because in many cases there are no clear boundaries. What does this leave us to do , between the alternatives of admonishments and outright banning? DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The better way is to leave it as it is. GMO, agricultural chemicals, and biographies of people linked to these topics. Block anyone violating the bans in place now, give the bans in place time to work before widening them. The current bans covers very wide area as it is, and it targets the areas that were proven in the case to be problematic. Adding an ever larger areas is a slope to catch people who some have disagreements with isnt an answer and you will probably soon see another request to widen it more if this one is given. Look at the editors commenting asking to increase the scope, mainly those have had bad dealings with the people they want to see the bans widened on. AlbinoFerret 10:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, Arbs, any other admins looking on, can someone get across to DrChrissy that they are indeed currently under a topic ban. Aside from already being at AE for blatantly breaking it [39] well after it was abundantly clarified they're now going after an editor here for simply attempting to do what this board is meant to do. Capeo (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irony 3: It never occurred to me that the ARbCom decision would be about all existing agricultural chemicals. Proof: go back to the very first page, it was me that WIDENED the topic from GMO (where I was not even active) to GMO related chemicals, in particular

which are indispensable for GMO crops, because engineered to resist it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Agent Orange- a herbicide, but no connection whatsoever to GMO's -mostly a)of historical interest b) an env contaminant with epigenetic significance c) a Vietnam War biological weapon. I thank JzG's comment explaining his position on Agent Orange; I think he sees this point like i do.
2. biocides
   , which per EPA includes antimicrobials. Organophosphates have nothing to do with the GMO case, neither the neonicotinoids.
3. agrochemicals -aside from glyphosate and 2,4D and Enlist Duo above I can not think of any others that are specific/ indispensable for GMO. It makes no sense to ban fertilizers like Ammonia, or ground spread like lime
   etc
4. prokaryotes on his talkpage User_talk:Prokaryotes#1RR not to further edit this site which he felt had GMO-related content only because the group awards an annual Whistleblower Prize, which went to Seralini this year. Yet Alexbrn reverted significantly here
   by removing a source and replacing it with an opinion piece with tendentious content, violating NPOV ( teh other source should have remained for balance)-- in large part the site has NOTHING to do with GMO.
5. Monsanto- it produces GMO's yes, but in the majority ?
6. Monsanto legal cases: most are not about GMO's, but about PCB's,
7. GMO food
   .
8. Organic farming - not using GMO crops is one aspect but certainly NOT teh majority of the topic
9. Polychlorinated biphenyl‎- no GMO-agr chemical content
10. precautionary principle

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

Questions

• Looie496 accused me on my talk page of violating topic ban by posting the above here on this page. He doesn't say why, yet admonishes me to read instructions asks for me to revert and threatens arb com enforcement: "Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is a clear and unambiguous violation of your topic ban. I urge you to remove it. If you are unsure of the breadth of the ban, I urge you to read the sections at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. You have also violated the topic ban on at least two other occasions since it was imposed. If you leave the statement in place, I will make a request that the topic ban be enforced..." I want to know : is he right, arbcom members, DGG, Guerillero? is he not? and why ? should he not strike his comment ?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Guerillero , on 21 Dec you wrote "You are breaking your restriction if you are doing more than engaging in good faith clarification" this is a conditional sentence but no answer to the question I asked. I have been engaging in good faith clarification on this page, so I know that I have not broken any restrictions. have I or have I not? Looie496 accused me, by not being clear do you support his accusation? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Guerillero, i read your post which mentions a 'traveling circus'. what do you mean by that? you did not reply to this question.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Guerillero, my question what do you mean by 'traveling circus' is unanswered. you also wrote "if you cant act like adults". evidence? what are you referring to? Did you address me with this? if so where I have acted "not as an adult" It sounds like sarcasm to me. please be clear here. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG thanks for your comment but i was misunderstood: does my posting here on this page to clarify the scope violate a topic ban as , or does it not ?--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DGG the above question remains unanswered.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG why did you address only SageRad in this clarification request? It certainly affected me too, as I edited Agent Orange before him and Sage reacted to my post as demonstrated in the section of diffs above.(talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• JzG you just posted a message named "reply" but you didnt reply to this question (and kindly ping me when you address me).--Wuerzele (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG is your clarification request about more than Agent Orange? It looks unclear to me. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG you just replied that your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG since your clarification request is about clarifying scope in general please reply why did you not inform all parties ? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Seraphimblade thanks for engaging. first can you tell me if my posting here to get clarification on the scope violates the topic ban as implied on my talk page or not ?
2. Seraphimblade, second, please look at my list of pages above: do you think PCB's, agent orange, ammonia, John Deere, lime, precautionary principle etc. are part of the arbcom decision? you see what I mean? someone has to decide which articles need to be tagged, so we must be concrete.
3. Seraphimblade, lastly, do you think it is ok, that only Sagerad was informed that there is a scope discussion here? doesnt it clearly affect all parties of the GMO case proceeding? thank you for your time.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I cant see you answered my questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@WhatamIdoing: I agree with your concerns about how the wording ends up being overly broad, and one can see just above that I have attempted to offer what I think is more useful wording. However, I was told in no uncertain words that the broad wording is a feature, not a bug, and ArbCom is making it absolutely clear that their intention is to make the topic bans and DS very broad. So, unless anyone on ArbCom now wants to say otherwise, yes, if the page subject is in a recipe for layer cake, it is forbidden by the topic ban. And apparently, it is even subject to 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: I know that you instructed me in no uncertain terms that the proposed broader language is a feature, not a bug, but I think that it is a stretch to consider Agent Orange to be an agricultural chemical, unless the purpose of the agriculture is to have barren fields. (Yes, I know it's an herbicide after a fashion, but it's a defoliant used as a military weapon.) And, per the issues that WhatamIdoing has raised, I still think that it's a bug, not a feature, to extend DS and 1RR to a topic description that will leave administrators at AE trying to figure out whether food preservatives should or should not be considered a covered topic. Do we really want a naive editor hauled to AE over making 2 reverts at what they perceive as a food page? In contrast, I can see some rationale for making broader bans for the small number of editors who already have topic bans, but it really seems misguided to me to make it so broad for all editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

]

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

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

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

If Arbs do feel an amendment is needed for clarity, I'm going to put on my entomologist/pesticide background hat on for a second. I'd suggest replacing agricultural chemicals with pesticides and related chemicals. The term pesticide covers these specific types (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, etc.) listed in the table. A pesticide includes the active ingredient (e.g., glyphosate) and other major components in the mixture such as surfactants or shelf life extenders (PCBs are one past example[40]). The "non-active" ingredients are why I included related chemicals to reduce definition gaming. Some pesticides contain multiple active ingredients, such as Agent Orange, but mixtures are still a pesticide nonetheless.

Most pesticides are multi-use where some are used for agriculture, urban/home use, backyard, etc. I believe the drafters included the term agricultural chemicals as a broad term for pesticides, or maybe they weren't aware they are used in broader areas than just agriculture that are not always easily separated by use in a topic. If so, using the term pesticides shouldn't change the intended meaning at all. It would also prevent the bans from extending to unneeded topics like fertilizer. I can think of only a few controversial agricultural chemicals that wouldn't be covered by this change, but they aren't the locus of this dispute. I don't believe clarification is needed on companies as "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic. . ."[41] That would mean that since DuPont is a major producer of pesticides, topic banned editors should be staying away from the page altogether with the broadly construed qualifier.

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

]

talk) 21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Topic bans Arbs (courtesy ping for @Kirill Lokshin, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, and Gamaliel: since this has been stale for awhile) have mentioned not expanding the new language to the topic bans (namely relating to associated companies) and letting that language be until editors move into areas not covered by the current language and cause issues there. In the case of SageRad, they are continuing edits on topics such as DuPont, a major agricultural chemical company. The response to the warning about them being on the edge of their topic ban is telling in that the flared temper is continuing, and some discussion on another editor's talk page gives some background on what others not involved in GMO articles at least are thinking.

I'm not going to pursue this at enforcement right now personally, but this is an example of an area/editor that would be affected by changing the topic ban wording that's worth consideration. It may not be sufficient to change votes (and that's fine), but I figured it's something recent you should be made aware of in the context of the decision.

talk) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

please see my response to AlbinoFerret, above. The abbreviated version is that there is no way of doing this exactly. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am making this statement according to

]

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

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

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

• In the section Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans) it is stated each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants..." This is incorrect.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

On the one hand I wouldn't want to see anyone prevented from taking part in Vietnam era articles. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see editors gaming the system to further their advocacy by going after these articles.

]

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

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

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

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

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

It's rare that I need clarification of an ArbCom resolution, but this one throws me off. I didn't realize that Wuerzele was involved in the GMO case, and yesterday I asked him to help me with

-certified, food-safe molecule. (We need a few divergent examples to build a guideline that hits the sweet spot of being both stringent and realistic: common vs rare, old vs new, food vs poison, etc.)

Problem: This chemical, in both its synthetic and natural forms, is used as a bee repellent, particularly by beekeepers. So does that make the whole article fall under the topic ban? Or maybe only the section that says it is used by some beekeepers during

]

@User:Jytdog: My problem is that I can't figure out what's supposed to be covered by these topic bans! Is organic flour an "industrially produced food"? Is pure organic cane sugar a "commercially produced agricultural chemical"? (It's a [single] "chemical", it's "commercially produced", and "agriculture" is definitely involved!)

If they said "stuff covered in the agrochemical article", then I could say, with reasonable certainty, that none of the ingredients in a cake are included in the topic ban. But right now, I'm feeling like this is admin lottery: the first nine will say that food isn't an agricultural chemical, but the tenth will say that it is (or, more cynically, it's covered by the ban if he disagrees with the particular edit), and AE is structured to let the most aggressive admin win.

The only thing that's clear from their comments is that several ArbCom members don't quite understand that everything – literally every single thing that you can touch – is "chemicals". Your food is chemicals; your clothes are chemicals; computer is chemicals; everything is chemicals. So unless they intend to topic ban these people from every single subject that (a) directly or indirectly relates to any physical substance whatsoever (anything that contains one or more atoms) and (b) has any connection whatsoever, no matter how trivial that connection, to food, then it would be appropriate for them to explain what is actually meant to be covered. I want solid information, rather than a change to the resolution. Even an unofficial list of several examples of things that are/aren't meant to be covered would be helpful to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that in my view the new statement of the scope is almost perfect. I would ask arbcom to tweak it to clarify that it is about industrial food production and the resulting food. That is what the anti-GMO movement, which has a very strong online presence (and hence constantly shows up in WP) is worked up about - so the scope should cover any GMOs related to food, the associated chemicals, and the companies that make them (primarily

etc in the ban, but at this point I am not).

I want to note that in my view the scope should not include

).

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

WhatamIdoing I hear you. The arbs will do what they will do. When I wrote above, "industrial food production and the resulting food", i really meant "conventional industrial food production and the resulting food". There is a whole nexus there of intensive chemical use in food production and processing, GMOs, corporate consolidation, IP law, monoculture, and fossil-fuel dependent equipment use, various parts of which upset some people viscerally. (although organic food and production are getting more popular are production has been somewhat industrialized, they are still a tiny proportion by weight and by money of the ag and food markets - the line between "conventional" and "alternative" is still very clear today - source for data on the relative market sizes)

About the demarcation - as I wrote above in my view people tend to emotionally focus most on "contamination" of conventionally produced food with "chemicals" and genetic modification. The relevant chemicals in this case are

agrochemicals - I think that is a pretty clearly defined field, namely chemicals used in agricultural production. I think you would have to twist pretty hard to consider flour or other ingredients in a cake to be "agriculture chemicals". (I have not been that involved in articles about chemicals used in food processing ... but have a look at Flour#Bleached_flour which I never looked at before today - do you see the chemophobia

that has colored that section? This is the kind of thing that happens in WP, that came to a head in this arbcom case about agricultural production and the resulting food. (along with a lot of grudges, which does confuse things I know))

About organic food and food production per se -- from time to time in the organic suite of articles (which i no longer watch as I consider it part of my ban, broadly construed) advocates would show up pretty regularly and either directly write nasty things about conventionally produced food/agriculture or more indirectly, write about how much "better" organic food/agriculture is (see for example The Non-GMO Project) - that is why (in my view) it is part of this whole mess and why I have considered asking arbcom to formally include it. In my view organic sugar (your example) would only be relevant if folks want to rip on conventional sugar or say how organic sugar is "better."

I don't know if any of that is helpful to you or anyone else. Demarcation is hard. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2,4-D. The Agent Orange article got more lively in the last year or so b/c Dow has developed GM crops that are resistant to 2,4-D (see here) and the anti-GMO crowd has been running around screaming about agent orange being used in the US on food crops (like this external link). In my view Agent Orange is well within the scope of the original topic ban that applies to me. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Question to the arbs on the scope of the current motion which names "GMOs" - above I wrote that

biopharmaceuticals are produced using GMOs (see for example the ZMapp article which I worked on quite a bit during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa). That kind of stuff is altogether out of the scope of the agricultural dispute and the lines between ag and biopharmaceutical are very clear to me. But perhaps to others the lines are not so clear. Does Arbcom intend that I not work on stuff like that? If so it would be a shame but I will abide by whatever you all say. But please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion has kind of dried up. To explain the "clear line" thing that I see a bit more.... Biopharmaceuticals are produced using GMOs that are cells. Those GMO cells are created in labs and then transferred to production facilities with big steel chambers where the cells are grown in batches. The cells make proteins that are purified and then sold as drugs under prescriptions. All that is very controlled, etc. Contrast that to a genetically modified seed that is sold to farmers who plant the GM seeds out there in their fields, harvest the crop (which is GM), sell it processors, who turn it into flour, oil etc, which then enters the food supply. Or a genetically modified papaya tree - the fruit is GM and people eat the fruit (no processing) or the new GM salmon, where again people eat the GM thing itself. All of that happens "out here" in the world where people live and work and eat. It is the latter - the use of GMOs in agriculture / food production - that upsets people and is controversial. To complicate things a bit (there is always grey, right?) academics and the biotech industry explored producing drugs in GM field crops - planted out in fields - away back in the 80s and 90s but those efforts were abandoned as being too scary for the public and for everybody. Pharming, as it is called, is still being done, but it is all either in greenhouses or in plant cells grown in vats, in order to keep things in a controlled environment. I hope that clarifies the use of GMOs in ag vs biotherapeutics. It is really a line between stuff that happens out in the public sphere vs stuff that happens in controlled environments. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to AlbinoFerret's comment above responding to what I have written. I'll re-iterate that there has been no controversy in Wikipedia (and hardly any outside wikipedia) with regard to the use of GMOs in biopharmaceuticals. It is not part of the scope of the case. Of course it may well be that others may widen their sphere of editing in pursuit of me and will begin disrupting those otherwise peaceful articles; this is what raised the pitch of disputes in the ag GMO articles and led to the arbcom case, and it continued in that case. Anyway, I don't have any more to say on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and in fact i withdraw my request to clarify. leave it broad. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

• The topic ban is for all pages that fall in the following categories genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. This is a natural language "and" since we are't writing
  right great wrongs that you see in the world. If you can not act like adults around the fringes of your topic ban it will be extended to something very broad or a site ban. This is not the first time that groups of editors have caused issues in a number of closely related topic areas, the American Politics area comes to mind, and the only way that we can deal with this is broad sanctions.

  Colleagues, would all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, Monsanto, or pesticides and related chemicals, broadly construed be a better alternative for all of you to nip this at the bud and to prevent a litany of future cases with the same parties? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • Update based on recommendations above --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Capeo: I do like that wording. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NE Ent: Sometimes I wonder where you get your pop-culture references from. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Semitransgenic: I don't see a reason to shrink the scope of the ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DrChrissy: You should avoid any section of any page relating to your topic ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      if you are doing more than engaging in good faith clarification --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • @Tryptofish: those expanded areas are a feature, not a bug, of the proposed (and former) wording. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no issue with adding "commercially produced" to the ban wording (though I suspect anyone trying to claim that "water" or "nitrogen" is covered as an agricultural chemical would be laughed out of AE), but yes, the intent is to keep people out of the bickering over the commercial chemicals. Other than that, if we need to broaden it, we will. Being topic banned means to take those subjects off your watchlist, avoid and do not discuss them at all, and leave the area entirely. It does not mean to stand on the sidelines and shout in, nor to keep tiptoeing right along the line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Were I topic banned on something, I would avoid the entire general area, rather than try to find ways to get as close to it as possible without triggering the ban. DGG ( talk ) To elucidate, asking the question is a reasonable exception to the ban, editing almost any of the pages would be covered. I would strongly advise not testing it. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues - if you are topic banned, stay away from the topic area and do not attempt to test the boundaries. If you are genuinely uncertain whether a page falls within the ban, go edit productively and collaboratively somewhere completely unrelated for a while. After at least a couple of weeks of this (ideally months rather than weeks), if you still want to edit that article ask yourself again whether it is covered by your topic ban - if it is, don't. If you a still really unsure then you can ask for clarification. If you are asking for clarification immediately after the ban is imposed you haven't understood the point of the ban.
  As for clarification, I'm happy with the suggestion by Guerillero and/or the suggestion by Capeo. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serialjoepsycho: requests for clarification should be made here, but they should only be requested in good faith and should not demonstrate a desire to skirt as close as possible to the edge of the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As my colleagues have said, don't test the boundaries, just show self-control and spend time editing other project areas, demonstrating that you can edit productively and non-contentiously. "GMOs, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them" seems good. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Doug's wording, and Seraphimblade's logic. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Doug Weller, is the "broadly construed" left out by design? I prefer narrow formulations and broad constructions. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Drmies Well spotted, it was a copy/paste error, it was obviously meant to mirror the original while modifying the scope of the sanctions. Fixed now. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Jytdog I think "broadly construed" covers it. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wuerzele, you asked a half a dozen questions, I think. If you want my opinion, I think your post with all those diffs and commentary, and your proposed lists of what should and should not be covered by WP:ARBGMO, does not serve to clarify what we're talking about here. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Majority reference

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

Proposed:

Jytdog's topic ban, SageRad's topic ban, and Wuerzele's topic ban which currently states that each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with each user "is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months from the date the case closed."

Support

1. We should standardize across the board --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @Kirill Lokshin, DGG, Doug Weller, and Kelapstick: Isn't the whole reason for this ARCA thread because SageRad and Wuerzele moved to Agent Orange which is in a gray area, I think a very dark gray but still gray, of our topic bans? (Discussion in question) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   there's no evidence of improper editing from them there. Nor are the issues involved really similar. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. In hindsight, I struggle to see how a topic ban on AgChem and GM-anything, can not include the associated companies (i.e. Monsanto, to pick the low hanging fruit for an example). Anyone who uses any sort of social media knows how divisive this topic is, and the epicenter is almost always the "corporations". The matter of Agent Orange is absolutely a gray area, however it is not an agricultural chemical in my opinion, quite the opposite. The link between Agent Orange and Monsanto as the manufacturer is easy to see. If one could edit Agent Orange without talking about Monsanto, as the company that created it, that would be nice. Initially I would not have considered the addition of the photojournalism external links to be a violation of the topic ban extension posted above, I would consider this to be (note since the topic ban has not yet been extended, there is no sanctionable violation at this time). Notwithstanding my previous statement, I dislike the skirting of topic bans by getting as close to the topic as one can without actually crossing the edge. I personally would appreciate it if when someone is topic banned, they just moved on to another corner of Wikipedia. There is a lot to write about. So in summary, yes extend the ban as Guerillero describes, other products produced by the companies as described falls under the broadly interpreted clause (consequently Agent Orange, and any other such products). Wuerzele in response to your questions, please see the comment by Thryduulf. I was in the process of writing up answers, but they ended up near identical to his response, so I feel it is best not to duplicate. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. These editors appear to be complying with the existing restrictions and not getting involved in conflict on adjacent topics. Consequently, I see no reason to further restrict them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Kiril. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Until there's an obvious problem I see no need to revise our earlier decision. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   As much as I enjoy consistency, if there is no disruption, I don't see the need to expand the restriction. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - Moving to support with extended rationale. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. Really, per DGG and Kirill. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Kirill. Presumably any admin can apply DS to expand the topic ban in this way if needed for these editors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. While I like consistency in the sanctions, Gamaliel is quite right that the topic bans can be expanded using DS to explicitly include these areas is appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. As per my comments on the above motion. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. I posted evidence in this case and am peripherally involved in the area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Jytdog at 00:26, 20 January 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

My user page has had stuff on it about GMOs for a long time. Two sections: User:Jytdog#GMO_stuff and User:Jytdog#Self-initiated_COI_Investigation.

Should I remove one or both of those sections about GMOs from my user page?

I am concerned on the one hand that removing either would be violating the ban since I am editing content about GMOs in Wikipedia; on the other hand I am concerned someone will say that the stuff even being there is a violation and that would be drama.

My judgement would be to remove the first and keep the second, but whatever you say I will do.

Sorry for the bother and also if this inappropriate - I just don't know what to do. Thanks.

Callanecc thanks, I will not touch it, so as not to come close to violating the TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm with the clarification. i want to be in the spirit of the TBAN so I will remove the 1st section. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I find TFD's reactions to me at the Bernie Sanders article to be pretty blatant bad faith and totally surprising. His note below is in response to my message to him here where I wrote: "TFD, you have written several things, and are behaving in a way, that violates AGF. Things like this and this are completely out of line and are getting in the way of dealing with content in the Sanders article. Please stop doing that and deal with the actual content proposals. I don't even know what you mean about "discrediting Sanders"."

Please do look at those 2 diffs of his comments. Please note that TFD presents no diffs below where I mention the topic of my ban nor even that sector of the economy. He will not bring any, because he cannot, because I have not.

The relevant section of the Sanders Talk page is here: Talk:Bernie_Sanders#competitiveness. I don't know if the article touches on the topic on my TBAN; nothing I have written in Talk nor in the content nor any sources i have used mention the topic of my TBAN. This is baseless as far as I can see. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TFD and AlbinoFerret are pushing forward with this. Again, I didn't edit anything about GMOs on his page.

I could see a clear point here and would agree it was a violation, had I edited something about his food policies or commented on them. I didn't and haven't. I could see a weak point if I had added some denigrating content about him. Content about a position he has held strongly for 30 years (namely that the free trade agreements we have signed since NAFTA have hurt american workers) is not denigrating. Not to me. I don't know why TFD feels Sanders' trade policy discredits him and I still don't understand his point. That is his deal. Not mine.

The arguments being made about this, are so weak that they demean the ones making them, and this forum. I understood that Arbcom was a more controlled environment where this kind of weak poison was not allowed to fester. Jytdog (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of my hounders have come out to play and I can bring plenty of diffs if desired to show that each of the commenters here (with the exception of TFD whose comments surprised me) have consistently opposed me on drama boards. Comments about what Monsanto may or may not want are irrelevant to the edits I actually made on the Sanders article and what I wrote on Talk there, and are a continuation of the hounding that has beset me for three years now. No finding was made in the arbcom case that my edits violated NPOV nor that I have any conflict of interest (see
  Findings of fact
  ) and these claims are a continuation of the behaviors that led in part to the Arbcom case. Had I participated in the case I would have shown this hounding behavior clearly and gotten findings of fact and sanctions regarding it. That I didn't, is my loss, and the community's.

I am not a paid editor; I have no COI with regard to the topic from which I am banned. I have no relationship with Monsanto and never have had one.

I anticipated that part of my post-ARBCOM life would include my hounders trying to create yet more drama based on weak arguments like these, in order to try to further restrict the sphere of my editing in Wikipedia, but it is disheartening to see it play out.

In any case, Gandy (who comments below) implemented the edits I wanted to see in the Sanders article about his position on trade (dif) and that is what I was interested in. I will not edit the Sanders articles going forward. Not because it is within my TBAN (although his stance on GMOs would be) but because my hounders apparently cannot bear it and will continue creating this kind of drama if I would, which is good for nobody. So I won't provoke them.

That said, I would like for this request to be decided, and I would like strong warnings given to those who have brought these weak arguments. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC) (adding emphasis. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

about gandy's remark that i am lying, please see this version proposed by me on the Talk page which was completed at 18:22 where I explicitly said i was dropping the wikilink to free trade in the interest of getting the broader content about his position into the article. Gandy completed her revision of the article almost an hour later at 19:10 (dif again). I commented on her revision first here asking for more emphasis on American workers, and then reconsidered a bit later amd here on Talk I said it was fine. So yet more misrepresentation of me. (not to mention her bizarre claim that "Sanders is against fair trade" which nobody including me has ever said - in her haste to denigrate me she misrepresented me, wrote nonsense, and deleted my comments. Here is her dif again)

But this is yet more offtopic hounding drama. I have not violated my topic ban and no one has brought a dif showing i did. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer please actually look at the dif where you made your comment - you will see that you indeed deleted some of what I wrote. the dif is here. I know it was an accident. I am not going to get into the rest of it further; i said my piece above and backed it with diffs, and if you actually look at them you will see that you are misrepresenting me. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy I hear that and that is what I said I would do above. That does not give this complaint merit.
• AlbinoFerret Your gem at WT:COI which you do not frequent is a case in point. (dif with my response) That comment is as sloppy as the one you made below. I get it that you are still unhappy with things at e-cigs per your lovely exchange here but that is no excuse to go around piling on with lame criticisms. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Albino your comments here and at WT:COI were lame and nothing but carrying on a grudge. You have been doing great with your closing work but you still pile on whenever you can against mainstream health editors, like me. All that stemming from your timeout from e-cigs, which you took in the face of an impending community-imposed ban. Just knock it off already please, as I have asked you before. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and about this. ditto. You play the disinterested party but all you are doing here is wikilawyering based on a very very weak initial argument, that the arbs/admins who have commented have already rejected. I won't engage further as this is all more offtopic drama from the main point of the bad request and the arguments badly supporting it, which have no merit. This is all just hounding. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• a last remark back on the heart of TFD's original concern, namely that Sanders is "a leading proponent of GMO labelling and opponent of Monsanto" and I must have known about that. In the ~ three years or so that I worked on the GMO articles, Sanders' name never came up that I can recall. This is something that is actually falsifiable:

• nothing in the Wikiblame search for "Sanders" in the GMO Food controversies article;
• nothing on that article's Talk page per this Wikiblame search
• nothing in this Wikiblame search on the GM food article
• nothing in a Wikiblame search of that article's talk page.

Nothing.

The Vermont law did come up, but only at that high level (like, the state of Vermont passed a labelling law and here is what the law says); I reckon if I went back and read sources about that law Sanders name might be there... but I don't know.

Also, the issue doesn't even reach importance enough to be mentioned in the Bernie Sanders article which summarizes the issues that have been themes of his career - at least not during the brief time I worked on the article. (and yes now that Gandy points it out, I see that it is mentioned in away down in section 9 of Political positions of Bernie Sanders; I worked on section 2 of that article, only.

All that is verifiable on-Wiki.

The following statements are not falsifiable - all you have to go on, is me saying them. If someone asked me to name who the leading opponents of GMO are, Sanders' name would not be one of them - I would name people like Jeremy Rifkin, Vendana Shiva, John Mercola, Seralini... those are names that have come up plenty in the work here in Wikipedia and that I would name. Not Sanders. I had no idea he had any stance on the issue until TFD raised this and I never thought of him as "a leading proponent of GMO labelling and opponent of Monsanto". TFD allegations just came out of the blue, for me.

Now that TFD has raised this, I see that Sanders does have a stance on this (again, not a stance that is central to his career such that it is mentioned in the main article about him, but yes he has a stance).

In any case as I said above I am not going to edit content about him further to avoid provoking my hounders and creating more drama. And again, I would like the people pushing for this to be warned to not bring poor cases like this going forward. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer I have explained in depth and provided diffs. The fact that you could not see that you deleted comments the first time and actually denied it and still have not acknowledged it, and then did it a second time even more dramatically, and said on your Talk page said that you are unable to follow diffs anymore... all these things are not my issues.

But I will try to explain the other issues without diffs.

1) Please actually read the second paragraph of your comments below. Oh hell I was just paste it here.

When Jytdog says that I edited the article per his wishes he is not being very honest. He was told again and again that the use of the term fair trade was not appropriate and that the problem was in no way connected to including the names of the trade agreements but to the use of the term fair trade. And yet he just ignored any comments related to the use of the term free trade even to including it in the final suggestion he made before threatening to bring it to a dispute resolution process. Jytdog is not dumb. He knows very well that there is a huge difference in saying that Sanders is against certain trade agreements and Sanders is against fair trade.

(bolding added)

Three times there, you use the term "fair trade". I made them bold for you in the quoted text. You do not appear to know what that term means. "Fair trade" is the kind of trade policy that Sanders favors (..kind of, it generally means something different than what would be relevant to US trade with say China, but it is close enough for now), compared to "free trade" which has been American trade policy for a few decades now and which Sanders opposes. What you wrote there is la-la land; it is not what I or anybody said, and it reflects either carelessness or a lack of competence in the topic. Yet even when I called your attention to it, you just wrote more nasty things and didn't deal with what you actually wrote, nor with what I actually wrote.

2)' Look what you wrote in the quoted content above about my proposal. If we cut you slack and substitute "fair trade" with "free trade" you are claiming that my proposal used the free standing term, "free trade". Now here is the proposal from the dif above (since you are apparently unable to follow difs):

He has opposed all

NAFTA, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership

, and the US trade policy under which these agreements were negotiated and signed; he holds that these agreements have benefited large corporations at the expense of American workers and he proposes renegotiating the agreements to better protect American workers.

The free standing term is not there. You misrepresented what I did.

3) below you wrote

Sanders has never said that he is opposed to free trade and there is no RS to make that statement.

- this was a gobsmacker. Again you don't seem to know what you are talking about nor have read any of the relevant sources. See this editorial by him headlined: "So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them". It is clear as day that Sanders opposes what everyone calls

WP:COMMONTERM

. I have been afraid that this is the source of TFD's opposition to use of the abstract term in the Sanders article - if so, that is really horrific WP editing. But I never went there while I was working on the article, and instead crafted the language above to work around whatever the bizarre opposition was.

This is as clear as I can make it. I am not going to respond further to this. Your question to clarify and offer to take responsibility feels authentic which I appreciate and is why I have responded. Nonetheless your participation here with the others - and focusing on this crap about "free trade" - has just been piling on to what was a dead-duck claim that I violated my TBAN, which has gotten no traction. You added to the circus. The ocean of bad faith here stinks to high heaven. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to comment on Jytdog's request but have another question for clarification. Does the topic ban apply to articles about Bernie Sanders?

Sanders is a leading proponent of GMO labelling and opponent of Monsanto[43] which, as a GMO producer, is one of the articles mentioned in the GMO case. Sanders is the only politician mentioned in March Against Monsanto, another article mentioned in the case. The new trade agreement which Sanders opposes, TPP, prohibits GMO labelling.[44]

Jytdog has recently begun editing this article, for example here and [45]. In the latter edit he added, "He has opposed free trade agreements...."[46] He does not mention that Sanders says it is not a free trade agreement and provides a link to the free trade article. He has not edited articles for any other presidential candidates.

This seems to me to be an example of continuing to edit a subject as closely related to GMO as possible, without overtly crossing the line.

TFD (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the enwiki database shows Jytdog made 93 edits to "March Against Monsanto,"[47] so I assume he is aware of its contents.

While it has been deleted, Jytdog posted, "My comments have been purely focused on Sanders' stances on trade and competitiveness generally and not on any single sector of the economy. (fwiw as he is doing so well I became curious about his positions on the economy and when I read our article on him, I found it to say little to nothing about anything other than economic inequality."[48] The discussion thread started by Jytdog at the Sanders article begins, "I have been wondering what Sanders has to do say about promoting the competitiveness of the American economy and i have found nothing anywhere (not in Wiki nor without)."[49] It is an odd posting from an experienced editor. Normally one would do a little research first and made or recommend the addition of material. The first editor to reply saw it as soapboxing.[50]

By "discrediting Sanders" I was referring to my earlier reply to Jytdog, "we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood." In the first source you added (PBS), TPP was not referred to as a free trade agreement.[51] Nor was it in the second (Punditfact).[52] And in the source already in the article, written by Sanders, he says, "This is not "free trade.""[53] And I pointed out in the talk page, "I note btw that Sanders says these are not free trade agreements, so saying he has voted against all free trade agreements is injecting your personal interpretation."

TFD (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick:, I agree with AlbinoFerret about the ban "including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics." Sanders introduced the amendment[54] to allow state requirement of GMO labeling. An article in the pro-GMO Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) says, "an example of a politician who still needs to overcome the knee-jerk reflex to be against food biotechnology is Sen. Bernie Sanders. He is chosen here as an example, because his presidential campaign makes him the most visible politician who is strongly against GMOs, and because he takes strong positions in favor of science on all issues apart from agricultural biotechnology."[55] The GLP is financed by the Searle Freedom Trust,[56] that supports a number of U.S. conservative thinktanks and organizations that oppose climate change science, state funded health care, etc. The site also says Bernie Sanders (and Hillary Clinton, although here opposition was more recent) oppose the TPP and then says GMO opponents are mistaken in their view that the treaty would prevent GMO labeling.[57] TFD (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

: Sanders says he opposes the TPP etc., another source says they are free trade agreements, therefore Sanders opposes free trade agreements. And the restriction on editing articles "about persons involved in [GMO]" would seem to include "the most visible politician who is strongly against GMOs." The reasoning is that discrediting anti-GMO advocates discredits anti-GMO advocacy.

These agreements are btw related to GMO, since they allow the export of U.S. GMO grains, and may protect them against GMO labelling, which the GMO industry opposes. The U.S. Grains Council for example says that tariffs on U.S. corn exports will be eliminated. 9[58] 0% of U.S. corn in GMO.

TFD (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick:, while I appreciate that Sanders is most notable as a politician, he is also notable for his opposition to GMO or, as the GLP says, he is the most visible politician who is strongly against GMOs. That meets the criterion of being involved in these topics. He is mentioned in March Against Monsanto and Farmer Assurance Provision (aka "Monsanto Protection Act"). A Google news search of "Bernie Sanders"+"GMO" gets 26,000 results.[59] Among the first of the articles, "Bernie Sanders promises to protect organic farming and denounces Monsanto", "Sanders, Murkowski vow to block appointment of FDA commissioner over GMO salmon, drug prices", "Can Bernie Sanders act like a progressive on GMOs, overcome tribal allegiances, embrace science?" "Hillary vs. Bernie on Frankenfood", "Bernie Sanders claims CBS canceled interview on rBGH after Monsanto threatened lawsuit", "Bernie Sanders Calls Out Monsanto for Killing His GMO Labeling Amendment."

--kelapstick, but isnt the Locus of the dispute tied to the broadly construed part of the ban? Section 4.2.1 Locus of the dispute says "The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics...." AlbinoFerret 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the hounding goes, I watch this page, not because of one editor, but because I have contributed to a few arbocm cases. Thats likely the reason others have made comments here as well. What brought me to this page this last time was the Mystery Wolff section below and I noticed the GMO section above it. All this talk of hounding is just casting

]

]

pinging kelapstick separately as the first ping was bad and not all the rest again. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of recognising the problem, he compounds it.[61] AlbinoFerret 19:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understood, Jytdog's ban should cover articles on companies like Monsanto, not only GMOs. A glance at the Sanders pages for the word GMO is not sufficient in this case.

Jytdog should not be editing pages of strong advocates for or against Monsanto and GE technology. For this reason, Bernie Sanders' articles should be off limits to Jytdog based on his topic ban.

It is well known that Sanders is a huge thorn* in their side. Consider:

Questions about agribusiness and genetically-modified food are not unusual at Sanders events, but on Saturday night the Vermont senator claimed his criticism of the industry and Monsanto’s objection caused CBS to cancel an interview:

"Monsanto is a very, very powerful corporation. They are one of the leaders in food technology and basically working hard to transform our food system. Let me tell you a funny story, or not so funny. In my state, a great dairy state, we have a lot of dairy cows. There was an effort to put what was called BGH, bovine growth hormone, which is a stimulant that makes cows produce cows more milk but is unhealthy. I was against that.

"I’ll never forget this. I was invited by CBS, not a small company, to appear on television to talk about why I was opposed to bovine growth hormone. CBS then called me up and said, ‘Well, Monsanto is threatening to sue us, so we can’t go on with it.’ They are very powerful."*

Consider too: Bernie on GMOs and the TPP

The TPP Protects Companies like Monsanto....a corporation thus becomes an "Investor State" with rights that supersede governments' (and people's) rights, including the right to label GMOs.

Jytdog should not be editing content related to trade agreements that have a massive, direct impact on Monsanto, the biotech industry and the spread of GM foods.

Request for clarity

• Doug Weller says: "if an article is not basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban."

• (Section 4.2.1) Locus of the dispute: "The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics...."

Please Arbs, clarify for us what you meant by "biographical pages about persons involved in these topics". Could you provide examples of people who would fall into this category?

Could one's prominence in media perhaps play a role in this determination? In other words, Sanders is concerned with many issues (not primarily GMOs), but it cannot be said that his position on Monsanto and GMOs is of no consequence, especially given his power as Senator and potential power as POTUS. I see a line of reasoning forming that to qualify under this topic ban, a bio would need to be solely concerned with the subject's position on GM technology, etc. Is this correct?

Sanders is, according to current polls, a few steps from holding what is commonly described as the most powerful position in the world, and because he is the most prominent and outspoken critic of Monsanto in the United States, as well as an advocate for requiring GM foods labeling, and for small, organic farmers, I can't imagine a bio of someone more fit for Section 4.2.1.

This is what he said in early January:

Sanders believes that the biotech companies are "transforming our agricultural system in a bad way." He says that he stands for the right of the people to know what is in our food (through mandatory GMO labeling that he helped pass in Vermont, an effort that the GMO giants are trying to block through the DARK Act) and supports family-owned and organic agriculture.

And, "We need legislation and efforts designed not to protect factory farming, corporate farming but to protect family-based agriculture" *

So, you've got Jytdog visiting the Sanders page to make POINTy edits and arguments about Monsanto's biggest U.S. critic, and about a trade deal that would prevent GMO labeling. This is not, in your collective view, a transgression of his topic ban?

• Arbs, please give us examples of bios addressed in section 4.2.1 More than one example would be preferable, so that we can get an idea of the type of person you were thinking of, and please make sure one of the examples is an American (I am not pushing for Sanders' to be included, but simply cannot imagine who you all are referring to if the bar is so high that he does not qualify). Thanks in advance. pingpingpingping

Interestingly, when Susan Sarandon introduced Bernie last night in Iowa, her short speech included mention of Monsanto.

First I agree that Bernie Sanders is at least somewhat related to GMO's because of his unique views compared on GMO's relative to other major candidates, to about the same level as GMO's are related to Agent Orange. Jytdog has show prejudice against anyone he labelled "anti-GMO". On the Bernie Sanders page, he is now into a dispute with Gandydancer an editor who I believe left the GMO pages largely because of Jytdog's behavior, where she says, "this has been a very unpleasant experience" diff. Although Gandydancer said she did not think the T-ban should apply here, IMHO seeing responses like this is a further reason the t-ban should apply to his behavior on this article.

I request that ArbCom to consider this editor's history at ArbCom and on Wikipedia in making its ruling and answering this editor's request, such as his overly aggressive behavior at COI that was brought to ArbCom's attention and lead to admonishment by one of the ArbCom members: here (that comment refers to this Statement by Risker and this mass deletion of mall articles over a supposed COI.) I similarly pointed out double-standards in this editor's behavior with regards to COI here at the GMO Arbitration. And now we have a new COI problem for this editor [62], who thought it appropriate to edit the COI guideline when questions were raised about his COI here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) (revised 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Some editors have presented some very interesting information above and now I can see why Monsanto would be very eager to discredit Sanders. BTW, I note below it is said, "There is no mention of GMOs in either his article, or his presidential campaign article." Actually there is a section on GMO labeling in his positions article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Jytdog says that I edited the article per his wishes he is not being very honest. He was told again and again that the use of the term fair trade was not appropriate and that the problem was in no way connected to including the names of the trade agreements but to the use of the term fair trade. And yet he just ignored any comments related to the use of the term free trade even to including it in the final suggestion he made before threatening to bring it to a dispute resolution process. Jytdog is not dumb. He knows very well that there is a huge difference in saying that Sanders is against certain trade agreements and Sanders is against fair trade. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting just plain silly. I said "[Jytdog] knows very well that there is a huge difference in saying that Sanders is against certain trade agreements and Sanders is against fair trade." He subtracts what he calls a bizarre claim that I made "Sanders is against fair trade" from this and calls it nonsense that nobody ever said, which is of course true, except that nobody ever said it, including me. Let's complicate some more--he says that I deleted and misrepresented him--though I did neither. This is not complicated, it is very simple: The article is about Sanders life and his political accomplishments and opinions. We are abbreviating Sanders's views on trade agreements to just one or a few sentences. Sanders has never said that he is opposed to free trade and there is no RS to make that statement. If we had more space to work with it could be explained that Sanders does not consider the trade deals in question to be "free" and he always refers to them as "so called free" or similar. So its been best, in order to keep things brief, to just say, "Sanders has opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, and PPT." Not complicated at all. This was brought up repeatedly on the talk page but Jytdog just went doggedly along not hearing it, refusing to discuss it, and now here calling it nonsense. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I have looked at the difs you provided several times and I can't figure out what you mean. Perhaps you could just tell me what I deleted rather than use a dif.Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I really do want to clear up the statement where you said, "So yet more misrepresentation of me. (not to mention her bizarre claim that "Sanders is against fair trade" which nobody including me has ever said - in her haste to denigrate me she misrepresented me, wrote nonsense, and deleted my comments." I will gladly accept responsibility but I don't know what I did unless you will tell me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Ah, I see - I used the term "fair trade" three times when I meant "free trade". It is true that the term "fair trade" had not been used on the article talk page by me, or you, or anybody. I spoke at length on free trade on the article talk page and I think that most people would tend to agree that I do seem to be aware of what it means. You may accept that I did follow your difs and try to understand our differences while never noting my mistake, or you can think I'm incompetent, trying to denigrate, etc. At any rate, I apologize for my mistake. Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders has spouted anti-GMO bollocks, so that requires care on Jytdog's part. Frankly if I were him I would leave well alone. There are loads of other articles to edit and enough people who are after Jytdog's blood and will spend their lives dragging every marginal call to this board that it's probably better to stay clear in the interests of a quiet life. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Univolved as far as I recall.] I haven't dug into the exact nature of the editor's participation and am not comfortable projecting any ideas about whether Jytdog is or should be aware of a Sanders–GMO connection (I have faith that ArbCom is competent to apply a DUCK/SPADE analysis, COMMONSENSE, etc.). I think there's a general risk here, with multiple levels:

• For a public figure, notable for anything other than their connection to the topic-ban subject, it's not a sure bet that any editor involved in the general topic is necessarily aware of the bio subject's connection to that topic. A legislator may have voted or debated on hundreds of issues in the same legislative session.
• For such a figure, the connection to the topic will generally be tenuous, unless they were heavily involved. It shouldn't be the result of a topic ban to deal with disruption in a general topic, that it effectively entrap the user if a bio incidentally turns out to have a connection to the verboten topic. Nor should it be the goal of a topic ban to prevent the editor from constructively working on any articles that are only tenuously connected to the TB topic, as long as they stay away from material in the bio or whatever that relates to the TB topic, and don't try to PoV skew the article (e.g. "I can't make them look bad on this, so I'll make them look bad on that").
• A major if not primary aspect of ARBCOM and AE these days is enforcement of various (including discretionary) sanctions for WP:Casting aspersions, including assumptions of bad faith without serious evidence. The presumption an editor with a TB in a topic is surely violating the TB by editing a bio with some vague connection to the TB topic would appear to be the exact kind of aspersion-casting that is forbidden.
• Too vague an approach here could also provide untoward
  WP:GAMING
  opportunities for someone who wants to get the party subject to the TB into even more trouble.

I don't raise any of this pro or con the specifics in this case. Frankly, I remain skeptical about the participation on that bio page. But it seems like something to keep an eye on, not something to whip out the noose for.

Regardless of the determination in this case, my point is: Please consider very carefully about this. While ArbCom isn't precedent-bound literally, it's clear that it has leaned more and more toward continuity and consistency between cases in recent years (and I'm pretty sure almost everyone thinks this is a good thing). So, an overbroad approach to this question in this case (even if the result were deserved) could lead to overbroad approaches in later ones, including sanctions that aren't really merited, or just a general chilling effect. Since we use a lot of legal metaphors here, like

]

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been watching this, and I decided to leave this relatively late comment now. I think that the Arbs are getting it right in their replies, so those replies should settle the immediate issues at hand. But I do think that SMcCandlish makes some very good points, that deserve to be reemphasized. I'm seeing a pretty heavy use of aspersions at numerous editors lately, of just the kind of asserting an agenda of editing on behalf of GMO companies, and the editors doing it are getting increasingly clever about wording it in ways that superficially mask the real agenda of casting aspersions. There's one case of it at ANI right now, and it's pretty clear that administrators do not want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. There is a real possibility of ArbCom finding yourselves with something like GMO-2, so I think that you should have that heads-up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wasn't going to comment here as I was confident arbs would come to the same conclusion they currently did so far in that it's fine as long as a a topic-banned editor isn't editing an article that's about the topic ban subject or an area of tangential articles. That being said, I do want to echo Tryptofish and say that arbs should keep an eye on who's "out for blood" in recent enforcement cases or clarifications. This is probably the biggest stretch of broadly construed so far by those trying to claim this violated the topic ban. One concern is the hounding of multiple editors by AlbinoFerret as Jytdog described above. I haven't decided if it's best to present that evidence at enforcement or if something like that is better handled at GMO-2 as Trypto mentioned, but just a heads up that there's still a lot of things festering that we just didn't have the time, space, or energy to deal with at the first case.

]

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This crap has gone on long enough. Admins have got to start liberally handing out blocks, bans, or whatever it takes to clean up the GMO cesspit. I have some professional knowledge I'd like to add on the topic (related to the potential for unintended outcrossing by windborne pollen) but don't dare edit the topic because of the utterly toxic atmosphere on anything related to GMOs. Things are only getting worse and the time for half-measures has long passed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent troll Jytdog, and I say that as someone who has amused himself early and often trolling self-righteous WP admins and internet "science" activists. Now, I'm off to buy some stock in Monsanto. Cla68 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have another clarification request here. Jytdog and I are both under an interaction ban. Jytdog recently closed a discussion in which I was engaged[63] I am not going to pretend this was a flagrant abuse of the IB, but it seems to me that it is an interaction - possibly of the remotest kind. But, after all, the closure means Jytdog is effectively preventing me from making further posts to that thread. Given that discouraging Jytdog from closing discussions in which I am involved is hardly likely to affect his editing in any significant way, I suggest it might be best if this is avoided in the future. Oh, as a very minor side issue, the discussion also contained some GMO content. It could be construed that Jytdog, by closing the discussion and leaving a comment, is commenting on GMO-related posts. All I am asking is whether Jytdog should in the future avoid closing discussions in which I have been involved - I am not asking for any action to be taken.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As far as I'm concerned:

• Leaving it there as is isn't a TBAN violation - as it was there before your topic ban was imposed.
• I guess removing it is technically a TBAN violation, but seriously, who cares - given the spirit of the TBAN is to get people to walk away, removing it is really following the 'spirit' of the ban just not the letter (and I strongly doubt anyone would have a problem with you removing things from your user page).
• Editing/changing it is a TBAN violation since it's not following the letter or the 'spirit' of the TBAN, though blocking for that would probably be a little extreme depending on circumstances.

Regarding the other part of your questions, it's up to you what you remove and what you keep, but your suggestion re removing first section and keeping second section seems reasonable to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Just noting that I added the bit in brackets in the 2nd dot point to make it clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What Callanecc said with regards to your userpage. The Four Deuces, if none of the content that Jytdog is related to the topic ban, than there is no violation. Regardless of Sanders stance on GMOs. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this the Bernie Sanders question is stretching the limits of broadly construed. There is no mention of GMOs in either his article, or his presidential campaign article. He's not notable as either a pro or anti-GMO activist, he's notable as a politician. So unless the material being edited is directly related to GMOs, the topic ban does not apply. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Callanecc. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As do I. As for Bernie Sanders, we've always said that if an article is not basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:TBAN pretty much explains it or what doug and callanecc said --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes. What Callanecc and Doug W. said. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, they've explained it well. Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by

]

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Topic banned
2. Enforcement log

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

• Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ) (initiator)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• MastCell
• EdJohnston

Information about amendment request

• Topic banned

• Undo tb

• Enforcement log (diff added by Callanecc)

• Remove the entry concerning editor prokaryotes

Related to this decision. I've asked admin MastCell, here on his talk page to reconsider the topic ban, and here at AN. However, admin MastCell did not reconsider the topic ban and AN was not conclusive. Main issue with the topic ban is that after self reverting 1RR, MastCell noted no further action required, another admin suggested 2 to 7 days ban (before self revert). Additional admin MastCell did not provide difs for his enforcement, the admin explained the topic ban as follows:

QUOTE by admin MastCell:..pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks, and so on

The enforcement request was initially filed by editor Tryptofish. A couple of weeks earlier, MastCell made it clear to Tryptofish that he supports him, thus he is not really neutral when getting involved with topic bans related to Tryptofish's request. I ask Arbcom to reconsider MastCell's decision, to undo my topic ban, because he failed to provide evidence for wrongdoing, because according to his own statement, no actions were required after i self reverted the reported 1RR violation, and because based on his own account, he is a supporter of Tryptofish.

]

@Rose2LP, good points, also notice Spartaz posted to my talk page, hours after he closed the AN discussion, after i posted here, ignoring my explanations at AN, and called my actions there "disgusting", then even claimed that editors participating over there are "my flashmob". Seriously, if someone is poisoning the well then it is based in such unreflected comments, totally absent from expecting good faith, ignoring input from the other sides, and continuing a pattern of baseless arguments. Hopefully we can use this request here to focus on the issue at hand.

]

@JzG, it is unclear why JzG brings up info about an alt account, when he was well aware of it, as well as at least some Arbcom members, and brought to at ANI by JzG, and is unrelated to the current discussion. JzG wrote below, "a currently undisclosed alternate account (actually disclosed briefly on-wiki and then removed by them a few minutes later)" - when in fact it has been discussed at Arb, ANI and elsewhere, with involvement of JzG. In response Rose has removed her previous comment, but there was no reason to do so.

Then JzG goes into great length, linking below to a page about Lunatic charlatans, then he goes on mentioning "proponents of fringe beliefs", and then he suggests that editor Jyzdog was banned unfairly, just because he promoted a wholly mainstream view.... Also here JzG explains how he frames the current GMO debate as fringe. I mention this, to make this very clear, there are no fringe views present in the entire GMO debate of the last 6 month of involved/regular editors (unless you want to count the minority editor opinion as such). In fact the meat of the debate is basically about a single word, "consensus" (in regards to food safety). A minor group of editors, like Tryptofish or Kingofaces opt against a "majority" of other editors to include the word consensus (see current discussion). JzG mainly involves himself from time to time and frames "the other side" as fringe (as he does below). These editors are unwilling to compromise, to discuss encyclopedic, neutral and in good faith, and because of this, are the main reason why this discussion drags on for so long. They are also the most frequent editors on these article talk pages, and for most of the article space. I ask JzG, and all other involved editors to stop suggesting that editors they disagree with present a fringe view, unless they cite clear evidence for such. Thank you.

prokaryotes (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Oddly enough here JzG explains why he has no problem with people who support fringe views outside of Wikipedia, as long they don't at WP (removed).

prokaryotes (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@MastCell, he mentions, "appeal at WP:AN, where there was essentially unanimous support for the topic ban from uninvolved editors and admins", this is simply not true, besides me there are five or six other editors who question the topic ban, Johnuniq, Spartaz, JzG, MastCell, Tryptofish and Kingofaces supporting. I explained at AN why i opened the discussion, because Spartaz participated in the discussion, and because at least at ANI closure is done by editors/admins who did not take part (at least that is my impression).

]

@Callanecc you wrote " the exercise of administrative discretion (by MastCell) by completely reasonable", can you link to a dif which makes his action completely reasonable? At least you should ask him to provide such difs, some real evidence - then judge in your position as a clerk arbitrator.

]

@Arbitrator, The main issue is, that discretion has been applied, without evidence (difs), thus arbitrators should ask the enforcer to provide these difs for the claims quoted above.

]

@Drmies, re MC's involvement, here he goes into detail about his job and how he uses GMO related stuff (notice the paper he refers to has been republished), here he chats with Tryptofish, and how he thinks GMOs are safer than conventional foods. Here MastCell endorses Tryptofish for adminship, gives his support, here he made 36 edits to a BLP article of a GMO opponent, adding critical opinion. I don't see an issue with his GMO edits, i see an issue with his close relationship with Tryptofish, who filed the AE, and he made it clear in his comments that he supports T's views. Maybe this is something for ARCA, when missing difs aren't.

]

• In a nutshell: MastCell took sides in the GMO debate, (Redacted) is an outspoken proponent of GMOs, therefore he is not neutral when enforcing GMO ds.
  prokaryotes (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OMG.

]

Statement by MastCell

• There's a line between being accountable and being subject to vexatious litigation. In my view, we have crossed that line. The
  WP:AE request in question sat open for nearly two weeks without administrative input, which is a disservice to both the requester and the requestee. I closed it using my discretion to topic-ban an editor who has repeatedly failed to uphold basic behavioral expectations, in keeping with the purpose of discretionary sanctions. I explained the basis for the topic ban at the time it was placed. I further responded to Prokaryotes' request for more details on my talkpage. I further responded to Prokaryotes' appeal at WP:AN
  , where there was essentially unanimous support for the topic ban from uninvolved editors and admins. He then immediately came here. He's simply running through every available venue without pause or reflection. I feel I've discharged my responsibility to be accountable, and this is now simply unhealthy and vexatious litigation.

• After an uninvolved admin closed Prokaryotes' topic-ban appeal on AN as unsuccessful ([64]), Prokaryotes himself immediately reverted the administrative closure of his appeal so that he could continue to argue it ([65]). I can't remember ever seeing that before, and it speaks to the depth of the problem here.

• I have little to say in response to various accusations below, as they're poorly supported and consist in part of insinuations and speculation about my real-life identity, to which I decline to respond in any way. It's interesting that very few people actually defend Prokaryotes' behavior. Instead, the arguments against the topic ban are either a) "somebody else is even worse than him!" or b) "MastCell is a bad admin!".

• I don't believe that I'm "involved", by any of the 10 or 12 varying definitions of the term promulgated by ArbCom over the years, in the GMO topic area. I'm impressed (if that's the right word) at the level of opposition research at play; it takes significant time and effort to go back over at least my last 2 or 3 years of contributions looking for something incriminating, but the results seem pretty meager (as Floquenbeam points out below). This is what any admin taking action at
  WP:AE
  can expect; we allow it to happen, and it's why requests sit open for weeks.

• I will say only that I think my record as an editor and an admin, on health-related or -unrelated topics, speaks for itself. I also think these events underline the fact that the GMO area is replete with poor editorial behavior. Since the majority of the cleanup work has been punted to
  WP:AE, it would be helpful to support the increasingly tiny number of admins willing to stick out their necks. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by David Tornheim

Punishment Does Not Fit Crime; Edit Warring By Accusers Source of Problem; Double-Standards

I support this appeal. The punishment did not fit the crime. I am not even convinced that the 1RR violation was a true 1RR violation--if so it was a technicality. The two changes were to the same sentence [66] and [67] with only one intervening edit by me [68] to a different sentence. Hence if the two edits were made at the same time, there would have been no issue. Additionally, the material reverted was edit-warred in here, here and then later here (that was self-reverted here). Aircorn acknowledged his/her mistake and worked with Prokaryotes to get the matter resolved, and the matter should have been dropped. But prokaryotes' accusers never admitted their wrong-doing and insisted on a topic ban. The topic ban was a gross miscarriage of justice when the accusers were equally guilty and never owned up to it and were not even warned. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False Claim: "unanimous support for the topic ban"
Spartaz and Johnuniq clearly supported Mastcell's action and the remaining three took no position: [70], [71], [72] .

Not "vexatious" litigation
Above Mastcell says that the accused has filed "vexatious" litigation.
According to statements below, the accused has the right to these appeals, and I urged that the accused take such action. To call it vexatious is completely inappropriate and prejudicial.

Plea: Overturn TB -or- Remand
For all these reason the TB should be overturned and the ruling overturned or remanded ideally to ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Roxy the dog's assertion that the point is now moot, because the accused has voluntarily accepted a 6 month ban. It is not moot because the indefinite TB would extend, if the editor were to come back in 6 months or request reinstatement prior to that. Given that the accused voluntary acceptance of a 6 month Wikipedia ban from ALL articles, I think a just result would be that the TB run concurrently with the 6 month ban, and expire after 6 months.

It makes me sad that the accused's unjust treatment has driven him or her to "wiki-suicide". We really need to look at how badly we are treating our editors, how unpleasant it makes the editing environment to allow ad hominem attacks from some editors but not their victims [73], allowing editors to blatantly lie about content and suffer no consequences [74][75], and how such unjust treatment and double-standards are driving people away, creating biased POV content and causing us to lose readership ^[1] from those who recognize the bias in our articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

What's ArbCom's opinion on involvement in these processes by a currently undisclosed alternate account (actually disclosed briefly on-wiki and then removed by them a few minutes later) of an editor with outstanding sanctions and a history with one of the parties? And is this considered a valid use of an alternate account? Guy (Help!) 12:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log § Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture, interactions per this search, how much detail of this history do you need or is that sufficient to take a view on this particular use of an alternate account? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Aside: It would not be surprising if a majority of those sanctioned in a specific area were editing against the "house POV" since they are the ones who are here on a mission. In respect of alternatives to medicine, the "house POV" amounts to the scientific consensus view as documented in

reliable medical sources and other reality-based references. It's well known that fans of various fringe and quack beliefs intensely dislike Wikipedia's adherence to a strictly mainstream view and are very determined to see that changed. Jimbo's view is that our policies on this are exactly right

- you may differ on that, but it is clear that it is Wikipedia's policy to follow the mainstream view.

I would not expect Wikipedia to be sanctioning as many defenders of the mainstream view as it is proponents of fringe beliefs - it would be weird if we were. However, proponents of mainstream views are sanctioned, for example Jytdog was topic banned from GMOs despite promoting a wholly mainstream POV.

• I have no idea what Prokaryotes is on about above. I think the ban of Jytdog was entirely appropriate, and I never said otherwise - I merely noted that it is an example of a proponent of the mainstream view being sanctioned, which refutes the implication that only those opposing the mainstream are ever sanctioned. Just that, no more. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the elephants in the room here is that MastCell only gets involved in Arb Enforcement in relation to health-related science topics and, in that capacity, he only topic bans or sanctions editors who appear to be taking the side against the house POV on that particular topic. It has been alleged that, (Personal attack removed). If true, is this ok, or like Future Perfect at Sunrise and JzG, is he doing "WP's good work?" Cla68 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it's going to take me a day or so. Cla68 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few nits:

• When Prokaryotes says "MastCell did not reconsider the topic ban", they mean "MastCell did not undo the topic ban". Maybe it's me, but Prokaryotes' wording seems to imply MastCell did not consider or reply to the request for review.
• When Prokaryotes says "AN was not conclusive", they mean "AN discussion did not result in an overturning of the ban". There was zero or near-zero support of uninvolved editors (depending on how you describe the involvedness of one editor) to overturn the ban.
  WP:AC/DS
  says it requires "the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors at AN".
• When RoseL2P says "MastCell has been editing GMO related articles as early as 2013", they mean "The only diff someone has been able to dig up of MastCell editing a GMO-related article was 2.5 years ago".(moot point, Rose2LP removed their statement)
• When RoseL2P says "Repeatedly closing down a fresh discussion that was not more than a week old", they mean "making a determination that there was no uninvolved support after 3-4 days, and then re-closing when Prokaryotes reopened it themselves".(moot point, Rose2LP removed their statement)

A plaintive wail:

• If AE decisions can be appealed at AN, and then if that is unsuccessful, to ARCA, then please cut out the middleman, and only make them appealable at ARCA. Especially if it requires a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors"; you couldn't get a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors that the sun rises in the east at AN. It is more difficult for involved editors to derail an ARCA request.

And (due to an edit conflict) an offended growl:

• Cla68's "It has been alleged that" smear is unfounded, speculative, and deserving of rapid clerking and possible sanction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)(moot point, statement has been removed by a clerk)[reply]

More:

• Unfounded speculation and soapboxing is no more valid if done by JzG than if it is done by Cla68. The history or background of this unfounded allegation has zero to do with keeping/overturning the topic ban. AE was a circus. AN was a circus. Personally, I'd encourage @L235: and other clerks/arbs to not let this be turned into a circus, by anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the GMO case, my much-reviled Workshop proposals included a recommended site ban for Prokaryotes. I wasn't wrong. ArbCom, you are now seeing the results of your failure to fix the problem the first time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the Arbs who have now seen first-hand what it has felt like during this discussion here: please consider how that has felt while editing content, with the same kinds of argument style on article talk pages. You've gotten some very clear feedback from administrators who have found themselves in the middle of this, and you should keep all of that in mind if and when (really: when) GMO conduct issues come before you again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the discussion about "moot", I think that it would be helpful to make clear exactly what that means, so as not to have any confusion about it in the future. ArbCom declining the request means that the topic ban remains in effect, because ArbCom declined to overrule it. That's all. It does not mean that Prokaryotes gets a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, simply by taking a six-month self-requested block. I hope that, if he should eventually return to editing, Prokaryotes will not be unclear about the fact that the topic ban remains very much in effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply fail to see what the point of arbitration is when the aftermath of a case leaves an unmanagable situation for admins at AE to try to wade through.

Apparently, I am a bad person for closing a discussion and then reclosing it when a deeply involved party decided that they didn't need to accept the determination of an uninvolved admin that the consensus was to uphold their tban. Then my honesty and integrity are called into question as a simple ploy to downplay the validity of my close and the tban. I get ADMINACC. My record for the 9 years I have been an admin shows that but seriously? There has to be a limit. There has to be a point where the surfeit of pings and messages I should be expected to deal with suggest that the committee was too lenient when they closed a case.

Its no wonder that AE is functionally broken and no admin in their right mind wants to get involved. A process that waits weeks for feedback and comment is unfair on everyone and I'd like to think the committee might get that and spend some time trying to set up a system that actually works.

While you are fixing AE, can I also ask this iteration of the committee to avoid storing up future trouble by being a bit more aggressive in banning people who clearly cannot get along or who have too litigious an approach to fare well here? Can you also make sure you frame your sanctions in a way that is less ambiguous? For example, if you mean a tban say tban and not page ban. Its hard enough at AE without needing telepathy to understand what the committee intended.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe its me then?

Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Roxy the dog

As the initiator of this request has now asked for, and received, a site ban (6 months) here all this is now moot, I think. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my thoughts on this, following David Tornheim's comments above, and GorillaWarfare below. Note that PK has not retired, and that a six month 'self-imposed' site ban appears to be a cynical way of avoiding examination of the OP's behaviour, which imho, bears examination. I believe that if ARBCOM were to look at the issue, there would be little reason not to re-enforce the sanction MastCell imposed, sending a clear message, and not just to PK, but to other editors involved in the area of GMOs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note and thank those who have considered this point, it is appreciated. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Cleaned request headers and templates slightly. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment on the merits yet but a note for
  discretionary sanctions log (as noted in the section you recorded it in). I've moved it for you. 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @JzG: @Cla68: Please provide evidence in the form of diffs supporting your statements. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse, as I participated in the GMO case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally, when appeals are presented to ARCA the Committee will only consider modifying the sanction when there is a breach of policy or procedure or the sanction is overly harsh. Given that the option to appeal to AE/AN has been exercised and it has been closed endorsing the topic ban, and that the exercise of administrative discretion (by MastCell) by completely reasonable I see no grounds to hear this appeal, therefore I decline. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • prokaryotes: I'm an arbitrator :) I made the decision based on the evidence which has been presented here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re to Floq: I hope my thought process (regarding when an appeal at ARCA would be accepted) makes it a little clearer why AE/AN appeals before ARCA are allowed. I'd contend that there is a much higher bar for modifications at ARCA (breach of policy or unreasonable discretion) than AE or AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Spartaz: Re page and topic ban ambiguity, which are you referring to? As we can likely clarify those now. AS I said above appeals to ARCA are a final check and balance and the bar for accepting an appeal are quite high. So, especially for areas such as GMOs, I have no issue with more 'aggressive' enforcement at AE, i.e. lower bar to impose one, topic bans (and for those topic bans to be all GMO articles rather than a selection of them). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks for replying Spartaz, but I'm think I'm missing something as the sanction says topic ban which Guerillero quoted in the admin section. Would it help if we wikilinked the sanctions to
      WP:TBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Decline Re-examinging the original case and the AE, the AE seems reasonable, and I see no adequate basis for an appeal. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, for now. I echo what DGG said: the AE seems reasonable, and the messy AN discussion doesn't take away from that. Spartaz closed it with the conclusion that there was no consensus to overturn, which I think is a proper reading of the discussion, and that puts an end to it. Now, the claim was made that Mastcell was involved because of an edit or two they made at some point, and this quickly escalated into more serious accusations made here, but evidence that proves Mastcell was INVOLVED and thus, by implication, was trying to get rid of an editor with a viewpoint he didn't like, well, that's completely missing.

  MAY I ADD, he added (that's me), y'all REALLY want to be careful here lest admonishments and blocks start flying: no outing, no accusations that cannot be supported, no supporting evidence that even smells like outing. If you have something to say that should be kept private, at least for the time being, keep it private. Email a friendly admin, and/or a reasonable Arb, and let DGG have a look at it. The clerks are in an uproar, the Arbs are scurrying this way and that, and the WMF is quickly retreating into the company sauna in the Big Sur, because this can possibly get out of hand and no one wants to be around when that happens. Let it not get out of hand, please: and you know, dear reader, who I'm talking to. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prokaryotes, I understand what you're trying to do but I'm not with you. I looked at some diffs, read some comments, followed some links, but I'm not going to comment in detail here except to say that I see no reason to disallow Mastcell in retrospect from deciding on your case. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This seems to be moot, as prokaryotes has retired. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tryptofish: Right. As the topic ban is indefinite, if prokaryotes returns to editing and wishes to have it lifted, they will need to appeal again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Primarily procedurally, as per GorillaWarfare's second comment. If prokaryotes returns, the topic ban's removal can be re-requested. I don't however see the value in debating it here, when its removal (or not) will have no impact in the next six months. More related to the question at hand (and so I can remember when I have to look at this in future), I don't see MastCell as being in a position where he should be prevented from performing administrative actions in this, or related, cases. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Prokayotes has retired and can appeal again when and if they come back to edit. I also don't see a problem with MastCell acting in such cases. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and close this now I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as moot. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

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

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: [77] (preceded by [78]). 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: [79]. He is telling you that, despite a spate of AE cases ([80], [81], [82], [83]), "[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]

Thank you to the admins who have been making very helpful suggestions, and there are plenty of options here that I would be happy to work with. Here is what I perceive as key after the most recent comments.

1. We agree that some sort of community RfC is preferable to having a GMO-2 case, but that doing nothing at all would be a mistake.
2. No one is asking ArbCom to decide about content. Whatever the format of the RfC, it will be the community that decides content.
3. No one is asking ArbCom to create a new precedent. ArbCom already ordered an RfC about Jerusalem. The sky did not fall.
4. I think it's important to have a process for determining the consensus after the RfC, in a manner that the community will trust. I think it's best to name a panel of 3 experienced, uninvolved editors, before the RfC begins, who will be responsible for deciding the consensus.
5. I appreciate the willingness of some admins to take responsibility for protecting the consensus under the authority of the existing DS. But I want to make sure that you are not over-estimating your abilities to handle what will come your way. Please consider: Several months after the RfC is over with, a source appears that looks, on the face of it, to change the consensus that was achieved. But it is not a reliable source. (There is a ton of that kind of stuff out there.) A POV-pusher posts about the source on an article talk page, and a few like-minded users show up quickly and agree that the page should be revised. An uninvolved admin looks at that discussion and figures, OK, it looks like there is a new consensus, and the page is changed. Then a few hours later, an experienced editor comes along and realizes that the source is not reliable, and reverts. Then there is a drama, at AE because this is governed by the DS, over who was violating consensus. And that will put AE admins in the position of having to decide whether the source was reliable or not. That won't work. I see two possible ways to prevent that. One is my original proposal for ArbCom to make the consensus binding for a period of time, and only allow change via a request for amendment. The other is to require the community to have a regular RfC, open for at least 30 days, before it can be concluded that consensus has changed. But that needs to be explicit from the start. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the most recent comment (by SMcCandlish), I am having concerns about the growing number of editors who would prefer to have no role for ArbCom here. This isn't a "constitutional separation of power" issue. It's an issue of ending long-ongoing disruption. It became an ArbCom matter when ArbCom accepted GMO-1. I've linked to the most recent RfC, and demonstrated that the community was not able to handle it. We can solve the issue of a "rapidly changing subject" (and it isn't really changing that rapidly, because the science is pretty much settled) by doing what I just said above in #5. It's false to say that users will flock to ArbCom to demand binding RfCs, because that hasn't been happening in all the time since the Jerusalem RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @David Tornheim: I promise that I read what you said to me here, and I want to repeat something I said earlier: that I sincerely thank you for the helpful way that you have worked with me in developing proposals for the content. On the other hand, the way you just described the history here is inaccurate, and illustrates why we continue to have a problem.
• @
  Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Assigned cases. Conduct during mediation apparently cannot be used in ArbCom proceedings to issue topic bans, so you and ArbCom cannot have it both ways. And we don't really need a typical mediation. There are already 5 proposals for the content at Talk:Genetically modified crops
  . We need an RfC to let the community to choose among the proposals, and we need it to not be a mess like the last one. It sounds like you really mean a community RfC where the existing DS will be strictly enforced.
• You've indicated that you might want to start with an ArbCom-free RfC, then see if there are problems, and if there are problems, then use AE and/or GMO-2. I can work with that, but it's my honest opinion that it will not work and we will probably end up with GMO-2 followed by a second, more carefully controlled RfC. Seems kludgy to me. I'd rather wrap things up sooner, not later, and that's what ArbCom is supposed to make happen. But if ArbCom decides to take the scenic route, then you will be placing a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the admins who have offered to step up under DS. So my next comments are to them, but you and the other Arbs need to read closely too.
• @The Wordsmith: @Laser brain: Thank you both for offering, and it's starting to sound like we will all take you up on it. You've both offered to enforce DS, and The Wordsmith has offered to guide the RfC process. Questions: would you be willing to recruit and name three experienced, uninvolved editors to determine the consensus following the RfC, or would you prefer that ArbCom would do that? Assuming that the RfC arrives at a consensus, are you confident that you can make sure that it does not subsequently get overthrown against consensus? It is starting to sound unlikely that the consensus will be made binding for a period of time. So, as I explained above, we need to have an enforceable agreement that the consensus can only be revised later by way of a (regular) community RfC, open for 30 days, and not just by a brief talk page discussion. Do you feel empowered to require something like that, or would you prefer that ArbCom would require it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Thank you very much. It seems to me that the 3 users who would decide the consensus at the end of the RfC should not be involved in any way during the RfC, and that would mean that you could either be one of the 3 closers, or be involved via DS during the RfC itself, but not both. Given the need for one or more admins to supervise the RfC while it is in process, please let me suggest that you help in moderating the creation of the RfC page and be a sort of supervisor during the RfC by enforcing DS, because that is most consistent with what you said before. And other uninvolved admins could also help enforce DS during the RfC. But I would suggest that it would disqualify you from being one of the 3 consensus-deciders.

I very much like your idea of declaring via DS that the consensus can subsequently be revised only via a regular RfC, but not by less than an RfC, and that this could be announced by talk page notices as part of DS. I think that works, and does not require anything further from ArbCom.

@ArbCom: Please note however that The Wordsmith says that he does not feel empowered to name the 3 users who will evaluate the consensus at the end of the RfC. Perhaps ArbCom could do that, without any other ArbCom involvement in the RfC process. Alternatively, I suppose 3 volunteers could be recruited via WP:AN prior to the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick: Where you said that you are "not fussy about" ArbCom mandating some sort of binding decision, do you mean that you are potentially receptive to doing that, or do you mean that you consider it too fussy for ArbCom to get involved in doing that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing what Petrarchan has now added, I guess I should say that I disagree with her characterization of me as someone who ignores consensus and edit wars. But I agree with her that editors should move away from seeing the dispute as being between two camps, which only makes me wonder why she then says of me, Kingofaces, and Aircorn, that "it makes sense for their side to try and frame the story". But I very much agree with her that it has become unpleasant to edit in this topic area – it's certainly unpleasant for me. Which is all the more reason to acknowledge that GMO-1 did not solve the problems. Anyway, please see: Talk:Genetically modified crops#Third Proposal (a non-SYNTH, sourced, one-liner). One of the five proposals for the upcoming RfC was prepared by Petrarchan herself, and it's not exactly like other editors are doing anything to prevent her proposal from being considered on an equal basis with the other four. In fact, proposal 2 was submitted by the editor Petrarchan quotes as being unhappy about the editing environment, and that proposal is getting a fair hearing too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, I want to let everyone know that it looks like the community is going to be able to implement an RfC under the existing DS, without any further action needed from ArbCom. I think that this is in accordance with what the Arbs have been saying, and it is also my personal opinion that I have good reason to be optimistic that this will be a solution that satisfies my concerns. I want to thank
  User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. Please let me suggest to ArbCom and the clerks that you leave this request here a few days, so that editors can see what I posted here, and then you can close it. Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 April 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 [84]. Despite the large number of studies very little is known about long term effects on health. ^[2][85], [86]. [87]. 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]

Comment by Tryptofish

I find this comment by Tryptofish troubling, because of these two comments:

(1) "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"

(2) "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."

Comment (1) is disingenuous. After this 2nd RfC, the closer found no consensus for the old language and a new consensus was established here (8/26/2015) after this lengthy discussion. The decision was to change the language from "broad scientific consensus" to "general scientific agreement". In late January 2016, Tryptofish and other editors did not respect the 8/26/2015 established consensus language that had been stable for five months. (See diff) I explained the situation in more detail here. In fact, he had another editor topic banned for defending the 8/26/2015 established consensus [88].

The same editors who tried to change the 8/26/2015 consensus language are pushing hard to get the pro-industry language saying "scientific consensus" back in (while preventing any language nearby that explains that countries ban or require labeling of GMO's or giving voice in the main text to experts in toxicology who express skepticism, e.g. [89]). They are hoping to force this non-NPOV language in for 3 years and use the admins as a police force to prevent anyone from being able to question it.

Comment (2) seems like a kind of Wiki-extortion. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation: Mediation might be an option. I would like to see Sunrise's example that meditation broke down. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section)
• Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section)
• Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section)
• Genetically modified organism (controversy section)
• Genetically modified maize (controversy section)
• March Against Monsanto (background section)
• The Non-GMO Project (mission section)
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
  (lead)

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.[90]. 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

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

talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Seeing some of the most recent comments by uninvolved editors, I think quite a few that want ArbCom to play no role here seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the request. This is not a request for ArbCom to rule on content. It is a request for it to sanction some type of moderation for the upcoming RfC to deal with behavior issues that have plagued previous RfCs. ArbCom can however step in when content and behavior intermingle in fringe topics, but that's not quite the request here. Having the decision be binding for X amount of time isn't as important as simply preventing the RfC from being disrupted.

talk) 20:30, 2 April 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.

As I've stated, the problem in the GMO suite does not involve two opposing camps, although you've been sold that story, and the outcome of the Arb case might seem to support the theory, with only Jytdog banned versus four or so of his challengers. Jytdog and King were challenged by normal, everyday WP editors (not a band of anti Monsanto fanatics) for literally misrepresenting the WHO by including them as a source for their SC. Nearly every editor who spoke out against this is no longer at WP due to the ramifications. I believe the GMO suite is an ugly scene on purpose, and editors have been made to feel intimidated about challenging Jytdog et al, due to the runaround and ineffective noticeboards that follow, along with the wrong people being blocked and banned. Any tactic to ensure their chosen wording and content remains live is fair game from what I have observed.

Jytdog could not properly answer complaints about misquoting the WHO, so right in the middle of the conversation about it, he launched, as a distraction the now infamous RfC, which led to the ArbCom case.

The 'side' of the GMO scuffle that is constantly bringing you new noticeboard threads, loads of diffs, accusations and top notch wiki-lawyering is the same exact side responsible for abusing the encyclopedia and fellow editors. That, my friends, is the central issue. It was Tryptofish, King and Aircorn who tried to ignore the RfC result and erase months of good faith effort by the many editors who took part in the RfC. So it makes sense for their side to try and frame the story, but it should also raise eyebrows.

I momentarily came out of retirement to weigh in when I first noticed what they were doing:

The "scientific consensus" wording requires extra diligent sourcing. Normally editors add content and try to summarize it afterwards. This "scientific consensus" was created by Jytdog and added, without ever fleshing out the supportive material in the bodies, to roughly 15 GMO articles. Skip to today: Aircorn, Tryptofish and KingofAces43 suddenly begin defending the use of this wording, group-edit-warring it back into the GM Crops article. Pro had been trying to align the article with our RfC and with RS, and is now enemy #1 for doing so. Editors are still refusing to add content to the articles, and are insisting on coming up with a "statement" based on their favoured sources. I regret to say, it appears to me that if the POV pushing is indeed on the "pro-GMO" side of this, it is doubtful this will ever be formally acknowledged due to group-think and intimidation for having an opposing view, or being labelled "fringe", etc.*

One last quotation from a fellow editor who has been as involved in the GMO suite/RfC as I, and who is always worth reading:

In the past, I've worked on Wikipedia for short spurts; I stuck around for over a year this time because I got caught up in the GM food craziness, kinda fascinated by how a tiny number of editors could so successfully defend such overall poorly sourced, unbalanced, incomplete content for such a long time. But much of the involved discussion around here, GMO and otherwise, gets mired down in toxic, petty argument that has little to do directly with content, and I suddenly hit saturation from one moment to the next, and stopped posting. It had become all disagreeable work, and no fun.* - Tsavage

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! 17:25, 13 April 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]

Wordsmith: the Commission should probably just consider merging the lighter weight process as an alternative for occasional use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 1 April 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CCC. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tryptofish:I would be willing to be one of the three collaborating admins. I don't feel comfortable handpicking the other two (I don't have that sort of authority and it would open the process up to claims of undue influence over the result), but if two other uninvolved admins, preferably with DR experience, step up then I would be happy to work with them. As for enforcement, Discretionary Sanctions gives enforcing admins more latitude than you think. It is true that they generally stick to things like topic bans and protection, but we've also gotten creative before. It would be well within DS rules to require a full RFC to overturn the previous one, and that could be enforced with a simple talk page notice and 0RR, backed up with blocks and topic bans (if necessary). Uninvolved Admins can (unless consensus or Arbcom overturns) essentially issue Remedies through AE much like Arbcom can, and i'm sure you've seen them get creative to solve an unusual issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I concur with several others above that this is not an ArbCom matter. WP does just fine having RfCs and sticking to them when consensus is clear in them. The twin dangers of a "binding RfC" like what's proposed here are a) this is a fast-moving area, and it could hamper our ability to cover the topic properly, and b) if the consensus were not absolutely clear and strong, making it binding would be arbitrary (in the negative sense that ArbCom is not supposed to be) and simply cause more problems than it solves. It could, in fact, lead to attempts to

WP:GAME the system by running to ArbCom to impose binding RfCs, and then engineering the RfCs to get a desired result that would latter be extremely difficult to undo.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Sunrise

Since most of the other involved editors have already commented here, I'd just like to add my agreement that active moderation and enforcement is needed, especially to make sure that editors are using and citing sources appropriately. As I see it, the main paths towards a resolution are: a) a binding RfC actively moderated by uninvolved admins, as requested here, b) uninvolved admins actively moderating the topic area in general, potentially including an RfC, c) formal mediation as suggested above, or d) maybe AE will eventually be sufficient. Any unmoderated RfC is likely to be derailed, and the issue with AE alone is that patience there is already running out. I'm open to mediation, but I suspect that at least a couple of editors either would not participate or would not engage constructively (and based on past behavior, might also refuse to recognize any outcome, e.g. by making claims about the integrity of the process; examples available on request).

The safety statement has been the primary focus of dispute in this topic area. After the previous set of disputes ended in 2013, editors had accepted the sources as sufficient, but even when the statement was stable it kept consuming time and energy because new editors showed up fairly regularly to dispute it, primarily at the Controversies page. IIRC, the conflict fully resumed when several highly active editors happened to enter over a relatively short period of time, though it was probably inevitable for that to happen eventually. Some recounting of the statement's background, if it helps: A version of it has been in the articles since late 2012, shortly after the publication of a couple of strong sources, and a consensus supporting it was established in the 2013 RfC. It was stable on the RfC version until approximately May 2015, when the current disputes began, and it's had a few different forms since then. The RfC in June 2015 was derailed and ended as no consensus, which in my reading of the closure was primarily due to the procedural problems (though also see this comment by the closer). Eventually, of course, we had the Arbcom case, which I think did a great deal for the topic area, but the primary issue here is likely to remain unresolved unless the circumstances change. Sunrise (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David, my comment was directed to the Arbs - I didn't describe my examples because they already know what the topic area is like, and engaging in behavioral analysis and counter-analysis would be a distraction here. I'd like to add as little as possible to the adversarial aspects of this process in a context where I don't think it's necessary. But if you're still interested after this request is closed, come to my talk page and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Sunrise (talk) 02:31, 7 April 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.

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]

• @
  Spartaz, The Wordsmith, Bishonen, and Laser brain: Pinging some uninvolved admins who have participated in AE cases related to GMOs. Could we get some of you to provide opinions above? Your firsthand experience would be valuable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Recuse from requests arising from the GMO case, as usual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• While this would be nothing new for ArbCom (Ireland, Jerusalem, and Muhammad come to mind), I am 100% ok with turning this over to MedCom to try to do something here before we use the nuclear option. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm OK with the MedCom option as well. It's really the authoritay of ArbCom that seems to be asked for here, but given the Discretionary sanctions, the community (that is, uninvolved admins) have a broad range of tools with which to combat disruption. And now I could repeat Gamaliel's questions, but I won't; Tryptofish pointed to the last AE case, which I really didn't find all that problematic or intractable. That case proved to me, I think, that while it is still a pretty toxic environment, the accused didn't deserve to be punished with ban or block, and the plaintiff could have been hit with a boomerang. Boris's nuclear option ("I don't want to take anything off the table!" -- Donald T.) is not likely to be exercised soon, but if the proposed RfC leads to the kind of problems that the last AE suggested, we will see topic bans flying around like mini-drones. And if the proposed RfC leads to a solution, I do not think it takes ArbCom to act. A solution was reached for Jerusalem (and I don't think it required the threat [?] of serious ArbCom torture), a solution can be reached here. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tryptofish, no, I didn't say or imply you didn't answer Gamaliel's questions; it's just that I agree with Gamaliel's concerns and while I read your answers (as I hope I indicated) you haven't made the case for me that this should be overseen by ArbCom. (BTW, let me add that as of yet ArbCom is completely GMO-free, and 90% gluten-free.) No, I know that ArbCom was involved with Jerusalem, but what I also think is that it didn't necessarily need ArbCom, and I think, right now, that a GMO RfC doesn't yet need ArbCom.

    I see, to some extent, what you mean with the "Assigned cases" pointer, though I note also that "Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process", and "Blocking parties during Mediation" is appropriate here as well. But in a nutshell, yes, your point is well-taken, that I want an RfC with strict oversight. That this requires a lot from the admins who run it, I am well aware of that (and I will gladly draw up a list of volunteers for you), but some of the comments here (you pinged two editors already) make me think that this can be done. Thank you--and please don't think that I am trying to throw shade on your proposal by downplaying the seriousness of the disputes. Looking at the previous AE, I can see this can get real disruptive (and personal) real quick. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an RfC with strict moderation would be appropriate here. However, I'm strongly opposed to setting a time period during which the content cannot be changed from the version decided at the RfC. Not only is this "unwikipedian," but it puts the Arbitration Committee in an awkward position: if strong sources come out that would normally result in the content changing, the decision will need to be amended by the Arbitration Committee so that the content can be changed. Although stating that the outcome of a community RfC is binding would not be ArbCom making judgments on content, us deciding that the text is out of date or that the sources are sufficient to change the article would be. I would prefer the RfC be held without involvement from the ArbCom, and the content be changed to reflect the outcome, with normal enforcement measures being used to ensure consensus is being followed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with GorillaWarfare, see if this can be done without ArbCom managing it, and I am not fussy on a three-year (or other time-based) mandate on content, only appealable to the committee. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tryptofish:, it means I don't like the idea of it (maybe "not fussy about something" isn't as common a euphemism as I thought it to be). I particularly don't like the idea of a time-based restriction. ArbCom stating the outcome of an RfC is binding is fine, but us judging the merit of the content, and updates to the content is not. As per above, I would prefer that this be run through MedCom prior to having us step in, however. I hope this answers your question. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Arb com involvement is not needed. (And I agree with those who would not give a fixed time span--circumstsances can change (for example, conceivably a GMO product may be marketed that does indeed turn out to be a hazard) DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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