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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Request for addition of Guy and Pete and protest inclusion of User:Jusdafax

I have stated this earlier, and now I formally request a decision by the full Arbitratration Committee on the inclusion of administrator Guy aka JzG and now, additionally, editor Pete aka Skyring. Their latest involvement against User:SageRad came earlier today at AN/I: note mention of Monsanto in the opening. Prior to that is the remarkable statement "I know who you are" by Admin Guy, who had previously blocked editor SageRad. Involvement at Vani Hari and the Talk page there is significant. There is also ample evidence that both Pete and Guy should be included as involved parties in this ArbCom case at Talk:Monsanto legal cases, where Guy closed an RfC despite being involved, and Pete has erected walls of text.

I also formally protest my inclusion in the case as patent retaliation by User:Jytdog. Note that I had not once been mentioned prior to my statement, and Jytdog's addition of me came within minutes of said statement. If allowed to stand, my inclusion sets a precedent that effectively creates a "chilling effect" - speak up, and you become a target forced to spend time as a party to a case. I submit this is gaming the system. If there is a more appropriate place to file these motions, please let me know. Thanks. Jusdafax 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely want Guy and Pete included, as they've been hugely obstructive in my experience, and quite flagrantly in violation of numerous guidelines. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Any decision on the inclusion of JzG/Guy and Skyring/Pete yet? I am others have made this request multiple times, and the case is moving forward (evidence section closed now) and yet there is no answer.

The two editors continue to be obstructive, sometimes to an extreme degree, as in Pete's onerous obstructionism here. I would like to know that the question of involved parties is addressed. It's already become too late to add evidence, as this moves forward. I know that no process is perfect, but here we have such a long delay in raising questions and seeing resolution. SageRad (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Further request for clarification, after several days of no reply

A number of days have gone by, and I can't help but find the complete lack of response to the above to be a concern. Is this, as I ask above, the correct spot to make this request? If not, where would that be? And if so, how long is a proper period to wait for meaningful reply, or reply of any kind? Being unfamiliar with these proceedings, I am quite perplexed. Jusdafax 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, my experience is that the Arbs simply have so many simultaneous demands for their attention that it can be difficult to get a timely reply, so it helps to ping them to get their attention. Consequently: NativeForeigner and Guerillero. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this until I was pinged. This page is low traffic so I don't check it very often. I have already said that I am not going to remove anyone as a party and I am not going to make an exemption. Being a party does not mean that you will be sanctioned. As for adding parties, we are already discussing JzG and I will consider Skydog. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. My thanks to Tryptofish for the assistance, as this is all new to me. I assume you mean Skyring, and I appreciate your consideration, as I feel the editing behavior of both parties needs scrutiny. Jusdafax 22:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Scope

@Jytdog: given the extent that in situ animal genetic modification has been in the news with CRISPR, including "discovery of the [multi-year period]" awards from extremely prestigious sources, do you think a scope limitation to agriculture is wise? Anticipating the same kind of both neo-luddite backlash and profiteer-driven paid advocacy motives down the road, I would rather that the outcomes apply to both agricultural and animal genetic engineering. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement made after case opening

@L235: A statement was added to the page after the page was closed to further statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish, done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Context

I find it hard to articulate in a few words why Wikipedia has such problems with cases where ideology collides with science, and where the ideologues use faux-scientific articles to try to support their position. A blog post passed to me today, explains this very well: http://hatepseudoscience.com/2014/07/11/3-arguments-the-anti-gmo-crowd-should-stop-using-2/

It is normal not to want to use a certain kind of product because you just don't like it: the emotion of disgust is baked into us by evolution as a survival mechanism. It is normal to rationalise your emotive choice to prevent cognitive dissonance. It is a problem for Wikipedia when you choose to assert those rationalisations as fact. This has been a problem since the earliest days of the project, which is why Conservapedia exists. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And I'll blow my own horn by pointing to [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree, though I would say that GMO labelling is actually a bad idea. I am coeliac, it's now mandatory to label all foods in the EU with common allergens [yes, I know it's not an allergy]. In the US, this seems not to be the case, my visit to Texas last month shows it has not changed in the two or three years I was last across the pond, so GMO labelling would add to label pollution, further increasing the sea of small print to wade through; and would give the impression that it's something worth avoiding. It's Morton's fork: If they have nothing to hide, why not label? / If it's harmless, why do they have to label it? And it addresses a non-problem while leaving an actual problem - under-labelling of things that are genuinely important - unaddressed. So it leaves the impression that GMOs are more of a risk than gluten is to a coeliac, which is, frankly, risible.

You may also find this of interest: [8]. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ramble

I have nothing against people selling GMO-free food. The organic types have been working out ways of preventing the encroachment of the spinning frame for a long time, so they can safely be left to work that out. Maybe they will even learn some science and stop abusing their animals by giving them magic sugar instead of medicine. I do find it amusing that they sell "pesticide free" produce that has been treated with "natural" pesticides instead of, er, the same molecule distilled out and applied in much smaller quantities. But I digress. Note for British readers: I am a Volvo-driving Waitrose-shopping Guardian-reading middle-class middle-Englander from a minor public school and I live on the borders of the organic belt. So: the problem comes when the truth-falsehood axis and the ideological like-dislike axis are greatly divergent. You end up with the situation we find with animal rights terrorists, where companies are sending the research to countries that don't give a fuck about animals. The result is, on balance, worse for everyone: jobs move offshore, animals are worse off. I think it's better to proceed with caution than to throw your toys out of the pram and pretend that some countries won't want pesticide resistant or drought-resistant crops in order to provide cheap food. And that's before you consider the way the climate denialists are succeeding in the popular narrative, and what that might mean in terms of needing to get good at shortcutting evolution in the near future. There are a billion legitimate criticisms of Monsanto. The technology of genetic modification is not, as far as I can tell form the evidence as I have read it, one of them. It's not glyphosate that's bad for the environment, it's intensive agriculture; blaming glyphosate is like blaming SUVs for global warming, rather than frivolous hypermobility, profligate energy use, and generally not giving a shit about how much oil you burn.

The environmental movement has done some great things. I visited Hyderabad for work recently, the air there is a thick muggy yellow soup, pollution on a scale not seen in the West since the Clean Air Acts. The problem is that the movement is driven largely by ideology not science these days. Their opposition to nuclear power and golden rice is irrational. Understandable, but not rational, however hard they try to pretend otherwise. George Monbiot has now converted to supporting nuclear power, a brave move that has attracted a lot of crap from fellow-greens. That's what a properly skeptical scientific environmentalist should be doing: reviewing the facts, dispassionately, and then measuring them against core values, not randomly selected visceral likes and dislikes. Criticise the real problems - profligate energy consumption, waste, greed - and the rest comes out in the wash. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your cartoonish depiction of the so-called "environmental movement" is laughable. Exxon scientists knew conclusively of the risks of anthropogenic climate change by 1981, and instead of helping to transform their business model, they and their competitors spent thirty years denying it while secretly knowing what they were doing was wrong.[9]. You can try to distract from the real problem at hand, like the fact that the oceans are dying and that the entire food web could collapse as a result,[10] but instead of naming names and pointing at the real perps, you'll try and convince us that a few dirty hippies are responsible? Please. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention Semitransgenic _talk. 07:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say there are no issues to address, and I specifically said I agree in large part with Trypto's comments, which make the same point. I disagree with him only on the question of labelling, which IMO is not justified, for the reasons I gave. And I am fully aware of the evil Exxon behaviour - one of the interesting things about the environmental movement is that, as I said, it has done some great things, including exposing the oil industry.

That's part of the problem actually. The environmental movement has been campaigning on climate change for decades, and using science-based arguments to do so. They are 100% right on this (though their arguments against fracking are often specious). That leads to a situation where poeple trust the environmental movement when it cotes science on a big issue - and in the case of GMOs it turns out that they are largely not representing the science correctly. The environmental movement is not, as the climate change debate might lead you to believe, a science-based movement. It is every bit as much about cherished beliefs as the libertarian political right.

It just happens that they are correct on climate change, and the science supports them. That's actually largely coincidence, as an examination of Greenpeace's arguments on golden rice shows.

And the comments above also display the binary views of the partisans in this topic. If I identify with any political movement in the UK, it is probably the green party. I live quite near George Monbiot and of all media commentators on the environment his views are closest to mine. Much as Trypto said in the comment to which he linked, in fact: I have vastly more sympathy wth the environmental lobby and the precautionary principle than with multinational corporatism. But I dare to point out some of the bonkers things greens say, so I am somehow part of the agricultural-industrial complex or something. Ten out of ten for demonstrating why this is in front of Arbcom :-) Guy (Help!) 08:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

JzG, I have not mentioned a word about GMOs here. I think it is safe to say that you are entirely ignorant when it comes to the topic of "environmental movements", because everything you have written up above is either false or a distortion, both of which are tired conservative tropes repeated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and other discredited talking heads. That you would take such ideas up as your own says a lot about your thinking on this subject. The problem is not environmentalists or environmental movements, the problem is market fundamentalism and those who promote it. I have done extensive research and written quite a bit on environmental movements, and everything you've written up above is completely wrong. I would have to say, given the extent of your errors, it appears that you are the one who is partisan here. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The initial 'context' link is a blog post by semi-anonymous authors with no credentials in science. None of the arguments it raises have played out on the articles related to this case except for the occasional SPA or IP editor inserting some nonsense from a similarly-uncredentialed anti-GMO activist blog. The follow up by JzG is much more WP:SOAPBOX than context, and strays far from the topic at hand, which is Genetically modified organisms. Here is some on-topic context: GMO producers have for some time restricted the independent science and scientific publication around GMOs through restrictive rights agreements. Major publications including scientific American and the New York Times have covered this. Dialectric (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

All of this reminds me of the early years of the tobacco lawsuits—the companies loved to produce "scientific studies" arguing there was no "proof" that cigarette smoking "caused" cancer. Some of the same logic (or lack thereof) is now coming out of the pro-GMO crowd. If WP wants to be truly NPOV, then a standard of what is or is not appropriate in these discussions has to be consistent across both sides — one reason we are here is an inconsistent application of existing rules; iffy studies with serious funding bias and/or design flaw sometimes get a free pass if they are pro-GMO, while equally valid if not stronger studies with a pro-environmentalist or anti-GMO set of conclusions get held to a more rigorous standard. Also, a discussion of the public political controversies is within the standards of WP:RS, not WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS; we must figure out how to discuss the political controversies separate from scientific findings. Simple fairness would be useful here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Open contempt problem

You know, it's the tone here that exhibits the problem, that and the implication that anyone who questions certain viewpoints that label themselves "scientific" are, by the fact that they raise questions, immediately labeled as "fringe" and guilty of "pseudoscience" or other fuzzy thinking, to the point that any attempt at dialogue is shut down, viciously. Such reasoning is, itself, filled with the logical fallacies and lack of AGF. I for one am old enough to remember the days when "science" claimed that DDT was the most wonderful thing, ever, and promoted thalidomide as the cure for morning sickness. It is reasonable to "teach the controversy" and raise legitimate challenges or questioning of peer-reviewed studies, so long as it is done from a position that is within the policies of wikipedia on reliable sourcing and verifiability. A healthy skepticism about GMOs and the studies supporting them is appropriate, particularly when the funding behind many of the published studies was provided by the companies producing them. For example, if I raise the possibility that organic crop growing methods may have long term benefits - and present evidence in support - this does not automatically equate to me being some lunatic with a belief in a flat earth and homeopathy (which I think is nonsense) or other magic pixie dust. Comments and attitudes like those above are a big reason why this is at arbcom. Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's some truth in this, in that partisans tend to identify disagreement as membership of the opposing camp. The problem here is that "pro-science" is Wikipedia's official stance. Science is the best method ever devised for separating truth from falsehood, and in matters amenable to scientific inquiry, it is policy that we follow the science. The interesting thing about GMOs is that much of the science aligns quite closely with what a pro-industry POV would look like, tot he point that an anti-GMO partisan may be unable to tell them apart.

DDT is a poor example, though. The science that shows it works, was correct. The adverse effects became evident through scientific inquiry (Rachel Carson is a scientist). There is pseudoscience around DDT, but the pseudoscientists are the ones promoting the Stockholm Convention as a purported cause of mass death due to malaria. IWith GMOs, the "evidence" comes form studies like Séralini, which it is difficult to characterise as anything other than fraudulent.

It's like an astronomer on earth looking at a binary star: you need a really good telescope and a fierce determination to be strictly accurate, to tell that it is two objects not one. From the point of view of a planet orbiting one or other star, the difference is pretty easy to spot.

The same applies in reverse to climate change, but in that case the twin suns of climate denial and the fossil fuel industry are close enough that they share an atmosphere. It is extraordinarily difficult to find any piece of robust independent science that contradicts the mainstream view, because the mainstream view already encompasses and acknowledges a large range of uncertainty and gets its confidence from consilience. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You see, this proves my point; I have no objection to "pro-science." Your immediate move to the pseudoscience POV is an example of the very problem — with 40+ years since Silent Spring we now acknowledge Carson was right, but in her time she was dismissed by the chemical companies as a hysterical female lunatic. Climate Change has the benefit of a huge scientific consensus, but other issues that sit a bit closer to 50-50 with scientific evidence are what we are addressing here. GMOs may be the DDT of our time — or not —but we need a way to "teach the controversy" in a way that allows the reader to have the intelligence to evaluate what's out there. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, there are significant numbers of people in the US, mostly free market fundamentalist libertarians, who continue to attack Carson as a pseudoscientist to this day in numerous books and papers funded by think tanks and foundations with strong financial support from chemical companies. In fact, I seem to recall reading that in certain US states, she's not even mentioned in textbooks or coursework. Scientific consensus on climate change was reached in the 1970s. Because corporations played the deny, delay, deflect, defend strategy (which JzG is very familiar with), environmental activists came to the foreground in the late 1980s to help inform public opinion and counter the massive disinformation strategy by corporate America. To make matters worse, these same corporations and foundations spent the intervening decades infiltrating academia and government. University endowments were setup to help promote and publish singular partisan views while a revolving door was created in Washington, placing the top industry executives in positions where regulatory capture was enforced. After a brief stint in public office, the same people who were supposed to be regulating these companies would end up back at the same corporations, and the cycle continues to this day. The very people who are supposed to be regulating these companies are intimately connected to them from the inside. The entire political process has been co-opted to favor private industry over and above the public they are supposed to serve. The system is rotten and corrupt to its very core. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

THer is some rationality in the above, both in regard to this topic in particular and to at least a few others. It would be nice if the Arbs could address it, but, honestly, probably irrational to expect anything from them regarding the possible cases of academic bias in all sorts of areas from this particular case. To my eyes as well as apparently to the eyes of others here, there seems to me to be a rather remarkable failure of the scientific community to recognize that at least some of its conclusions are based on something other than good science. I suppose the arguments about the Historicity of Jesus could be seen as falling into the same camp, although, honestly, in that case, it seems to me, who was a bit of a history student, that their actions in basically premising that there was, effectively, virtually concurrent belief in the existence of Jesus are more in line with the standard methodology of history than some of the points made in perhaps the global warming debate. But, if there would be any way to get the Arbs to maybe request that we develop some form of explicit policy or guideline be developed for cases, maybe even including medicine, pinging @Anthonyhcole: here, for scientific topics, maybe including in some cases possible long-term effects of medicines which haven't been around long enough for long-term results to be known, and some of the other intractable controversies which seem to have at least some degree of reasonable scientific/academic "expert" opinion on disagreeing sides. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following the arguments on this page, but I do think that, as a rule, the defenders of science on Wikipedia are too arrogant and rude. I know why this is: they have to deal with an endlass stream of egregious loonies and POV-pushers. But I do wish they (not just you Guy) would reset their attitudes. Really. It's not necessary and makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere.

On the safety of GMOs, many topics in science, medicine and history are lacking in certainty. In those cases I try to clearly convey the degree of uncertainty to our readers. If it is true that all the real science on the safety of GMOs is paid for by the companies selling them, then I'd like to see that point mentioned (and the implications of that fact made clear) in the article. Presumably, the point is made in some good, reliable sources. (There is some very good science out there demonstrating the effect of industry funding on published medical trial results.)

Sorry if this is redundant, I'm on a mobile at a flea market just now. I'll look at the article and talk page later. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Carson had solid evidence and a plausible mechanism of harm. Scientists were concerned about the safety of DDT from the 50s at least, a decade later Carson wrote Silent Spring, a decade after that it was banned. We're three decades down the line with GMOs and when you ask for evidence of harm the best that can be provided is the fraudulent Séralini study. You can't prove absolute safety, but the scientific community is broad enough, and enough has been spent by well funded and motivated environmental groups, that GMOs being acceptably safe is a viable working hypothesis. Glyphosate is somewhat different, in that it's wholly plausible that it might cause environmental damage - in fact it would be remarkable if it didn't - so the issue is unpicking inherent risk from risk brought on by practices (like using antibiotics on livestock, which is legitimate as a treatment for disease but profoundly problematic as a growth promotion technique). And over all of this is an anti-corporatist mindset that simply hates Monsanto for all that it represents, also not without justification. But there's no smoking gun, as we now have with Exxon. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the comments here nicely describe the situation. I am sympathetic to those who get frustrated with an ongoing onslaught of fringe views and general tendentiousness, but there are those of us who, as here, raise legitimate discussion and who are summarily dismissed as if we were the same as the trolls. I appreciate all the comments here and the insightful observations. More of this would probably have avoided the need for ArbCom involvement. Montanabw^(talk) 03:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Montanabw I did not participate in the content related WP:SOAPBOX exchange of the prior section, but rest assured, I share your content related opinions (and would love for you to be an administrator!) - Just not this one: Re "More of this would probably have avoided the need for ArbCom involvement". i respond with a decided "Au contraire!". we have been having content discussions to the wazoo at the embattled pages (plse see ongoing Talk:Monsanto legal cases, Talk:Monsanto, Talk:2,4D, Talk:Glyphosate to no avail. ArbCom involvement has been overdue and is last resort to constructively act against the tolerated rule breaking and rule bending of a handful of editors, so entrenched that one has to assume WP is captured. I am glad the case was accepted and look forward to the decision. --Wuerzele (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What I really think is needed here is some sort of essay with a lot of input in it to deal with cases where there are questions in some reliable sources of whether the existing dominant position in other reliable sources is said by some to be subject to a form of bias itself. I guess maybe one way to start input on that would be to maybe create a page for such an essay, like that at User:John Carter/Claims of bias or incomplete information among mainstream academic or expert sources and see if there is some way to get together principles for dealing with them. At this point, the page is open to being edited by anyone, but, as it is in user space, at least for the moment, I hope everyone realizes that it may and probably will be substantively reorganized and edited before being moved to wikipedia space. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping you all have seen this. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it's not surprising, nor does it change the fundamental fact that after over three decades of use nobody has produced any scientifically sound evidence of actual tangible harm from GMOs, only from practices around their use. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your are incredibly dishonest to suggest that one can separate such harms or that distinguishing such harm is any way meaningful. "GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops. This development is welcome, but the committee's report is not expected until at least 2016."[11] Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Any scientifically responsible person would encourage continued examination of the question of GMO safety. I support continued study of atrazine, despite roughly 6,499 of the 6,500 studies conducted on it to date finding no significant harm to humans or environment at ecologically possible doses. But JzG is correct; currently - and I do emphasize currently - there is no scientifically sound evidence of tangible harm. Could that change in the future? Certainly, and then those such as myself who abide by what the scientific process has found will change our opinions and support addition of such material to WP. But until then, it is incredibly dishonest to suggest that proof of harm has been found in studies not objectively tainted by junk science and/or by scientists who violated their ethos by conducting studies in support of foregone (or funded!) conclusions. Until objective, verifiable, reproducible, independently conducted, and scientifically rigorous evidence is produced, any attempt to inject material that calls GMO safety into question in a way that frames that material as fact is similarly dishonest, misleading, and POV.

Now, for the flip side. I also think removing any mention of GMO safety concerns from these articles is problematic. I think most of us would conclude that that material has a place, so long as it is not framed as undisputed fact, does not preempt/drown out the body of evidence that contradicts it, and is itself critiqued within the main text. Similarly, we have - for the most part - only discussed human health issues of GMOs. Discussions of social, economic, and other non-health issues may similarly belong. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting when people look at a single source and use it to jump to all sorts of conclusions. That NYT piece has been heavily criticized, for example here. And this is the most recent development of such FOIA requests, showing a stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits. To be a nonbiased editor you need to be able to look at all RS's, and it's a bit telling where a person's ideology lies when they are cherry-picking sources that confirm their bias and not reporting on others. Wikipedia already has a clear policy against WP:RGW, and it's not a place to get ahead of research. After such a report is made, then we can use the results as WP:DUE. Until then the current scientific consensus stands. Adrian (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that there is a "stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits" is clearly not competent to discuss this issue, so you've only discredited your own position by promoting fringe claims with zero evidence. The biotech industry spends hundreds of millions to lobby for GMOs, and actively undermines legislation in the courts to that end. You're either deliberately lying or one of the most ignorant people on the planet. The "scientific consensus" on monetizing the food supply and increasing the levels of pesticides and herbicides which damage the environment and impact animal and human health is settled, and the consensus is against GMOs. No amount of denial, delay, distraction, and defense of the indefensible will change these facts. The people don't want GMOs. Now, who runs the government? The people or the biotech industry? Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to tack on to what you've said, Viriditas, our GM suite of articles has a very strong local (US) slant. The rest of the world treats the issue much differently than we do, as I'm sure you know. But try including any such content in the articles ..... A comment I just left on the talk page of Genetically modified food addresses some of the issues you mention and suggests that we start thinking about how to more comprehensively incorporate the available information: [12]. Minor4th 00:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You are on VERY thin ice bringing personal insults to this conversation and claiming consensus where there is none, Viriditas. In at least North America, your statement is demonstrably false. Even so, if people "don't want GMOs" as you claim, how much is that due to falsified evidence, bad science, and outright lies? Do you really want to speak in favor of mob mentality? And, since it has been proven current levels of food production are impossible without GMOs, who gets to decide which additional people (beyond those already starving due to supply chain problems) are going to starve to death? Is that really a morally viable position? Now, I have no problem with the anti-GMOers having their say within GMO articles, and bringing what evidence they can. In fact, as stated above I think it's the right thing to do. But I have a BIG problem with people who start lobbing insults and spouting falsehoods as if they are undeniable truths. And that is why we're all here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (EDIT: Proof of GMOs increasing food production by 22%, decreasing the need for pesticides by 37%, and an explanation that articles claiming "GMOs don't increase yield" are incorrect, as those articles falsely claim that the yield protection GMOs provide cannot be counted as yield increase: [[13]])

Viriditas, I suggest you strike the accusation of dishonesty. You do not seem to allow for the fact that someone might look at the facts and come to a different view from yours, which is a problem described in the long-standing essay at m:MPOV. My view on this subject is honestly held. I acknowledge that while honestly held it might also be wrong, and I actively look for information that might show it to be so. Most of what I find standing against my current view displays clear evidence of motivated reasoning, leading me to conclude that opposition to GMOs is ideological and not scientific - a point made by several independent sources, so certainly defensible even if it turns out not to be correct. The widespread use of Séralini by some anti-GMO activists certainly speaks to a cavalier attitude to scientific rigour, if they care at all. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely dishonest (and counterfactual) to claim, for example, that there is a "stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits". That statement is so incredibly wrong, it borders on delusion. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That argument basically exemplifies my criticism here, Viriditas. When we have actual evidence that there is scientific misconduct to attempt to support one industry (organics), and nearly zero evidence of scientific misconduct to support another industry (biotech crops), that does not support the position that science is owned by the biotech industry. There is currently no scientific consensus for the idea that GMOs impact animal and human health in a way that is uniquely different than non-GMO's, and virtually no evidence to support it. Could there be scientific misconduct? Sure. Could it be possible that GMO's adversely affect us? Yes. But no RS's have put forth the evidence to suggest this.

When it comes to lobbying, you are being harsher about the supposed "hundreds of millions of dollars" of lobbying being done by the biotech industry, while ignoring the lobbying being done by other involved industries that is a factor here. You've made it clear that your POV is a belief that the biotech industry runs governments and slants the scientific perspective. Which is an interesting position considering that the oil industry, which dwarfs the biotech industry immensely, can't seem to sway scientific consensus at all regarding global warming. Adrian (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, pure ignorance and misinformation. There are dozens of books specifically about how the oil industry managed to successfully "sway" the scientific consensus on climate change for three decades by confusing the science, attacking the scientists, and preventing any type of political solution from being implemented. At this point, I'm totally convinced that everything you write is false. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet science still endured. Had Wikipedia been around during the time before a scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, it would not have been included then. This is a feature, not a bug. However, your comparison of the oil industry to the biotech industry, which is much much smaller, is less than apt. And writing off other editors because you're convinced without evidence that they are liars, ignorant, or shills after disagreeing with you is the epitome of incivility. Adrian (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you still claiming that there is a "stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits"? Please put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already showed evidence supporting my claim, which was meant as an example of people ignoring certain sources that don't agree with their POV. Incidentally, you seem to have ignored it so I will summarize here: As a result of the FOIA requests, which you attempted to use to support your position, Benbrook was discovered to have solicited funds from Kailis, an organic food lobbyist, for the purpose of actual deliverables by way of a published scientific study that questions GMO safety, and charged $200/hr to act as an expert witness in the lawsuit the research was solicited for. That is actual scientific misconduct. Along with the discredited, and retracted, Seralini study that was disingenuous and unethical at best, there is evidence showing an attempt by a particular industry to slant scientific evidence regarding GMO safety. And that industry isn't the biotech one. Adrian (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a Forum

Can I remind people of WP:FORUM. Funny that some people have a lot to say here yet offered nothing by way of an actual constructive contribution to the arbitration process when it was possible to do so. Semitransgenic _talk. 08:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have zero interest in this topic. I came here only because I saw rampant disinformation, misinformation, and outright dishonesty being peddled as facts. Anyone the least bit familiar with the history of environmental devastation caused by the companies promoting pesticide and herbicide use to monetize their control over the food supply knows exactly what's going on here. This tired old game has been played many times before, with the United Fruit Company one of the most notable examples. What these people don't understand is that it is now the 21st century, and the world has moved beyond their greedy, crony capitalist shenanigans that leaves ecological destruction in its wake. It's like trying to debate someone from the early 18th century who argues that the benefits of slavery outweigh abolition. These people are psychologically stunted and stuck in an archaic mindset that no longer has any relevance. They truly believe it is still 1840 and fail to understand that the world has moved on to environmental sustainability concerns that leaves little to no room for their useless products that nobody needs or requires. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

judging by the word count, you do have an opinion, one that could have been offered, in the appropriate way, and in the appropriate place, here it's just hot air. I would encourage you to see here and voice any opinions/concerns you might have. The outcome of this process does have consequences for the community at large. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I have no interest. My concerns are historical. This is my last comment on this case. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 DrChrissy at 14:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 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..."

Statement by DrChrissy

I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban.Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed I am requesting the amendment deletes the inclusion of "genetically modified plants and". I am requesting this amendment because there is a total absence of evidence that I have been disruptive in this topic area. I respectfully quote the WP:banning 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)

@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 Modernist architechture because I have some very strong ideas about this and might be disruptive there! The only interpretation of my TB of GM-plants is that it is punitive (reminiscent of your blocking). I do not understand your motivation here. It was your suggestion that my topic ban be limited to GM-Plants, which I thanked you for, but then you decided and posted that I should not edit Genetically modified organisms because GM-plants are mentioned in it. You argue that my GM-Plants TB should exist because I edited aggressively on Glyphosate. Glyphosate is not a GM-plant, but I suspect you are arguing that because it mentions GM-Plants, it is therefore related. Using this logic, a quick search reveals that Laboratory mouse Sheep and Zebrafish discuss genetic modification and therefore I am TB from these. Again using this twisted logic, there are 5,137 articles containing "genetically modified" and therefore all these 5,137 articles are now under DS and 1RR.DrChrissy ^(talk) 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)

• @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)

Statement by Tryptofish

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by JzG

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)

@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)

Statement by Count Iblis

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)

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

• 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)
• No --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• No. Follow the advice given by my colleagues first. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• Either way this is an appeal, decline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (January 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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)

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

Statement by JzG

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?

.

Statement by DrChrissy

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)

• @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)
• @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)

@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)

• @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)

@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)

@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)

• 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)

Statement by Capeo

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)

• @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)

Statement by Tryptofish

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Aircorn

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)

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)

• 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)

Statement by Dialectric

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)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms (2): Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms (2): Arbitrator views and discussion

• 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)

• 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)
• We've been talking about changing the wording, now seems to be the time. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • DrChrissy, it is now 2016. The new committee members are active. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Hmm. So fish aren't plants, eh? I think that needs a cn tag. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (DrChrissy)

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)

Support

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

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)

---

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.

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (DS) (January 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

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

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

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)
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)

Recuse

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

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)

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (January 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by JzG

There was some discussion as to potential ambiguity in the scope of the topic ban, stated as "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". SageRad raises an interesting edge case: agent orange. Technically, I think this would be classed as a chemical weapon. Its components are 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, both of which are clearly agricultural chemicals. The harm caused by agent orange appears to be primarily due to contamination with dioxins, which are not, themselves, agricultural chemicals.

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

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

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

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)

@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)

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

Statement by SageRad

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

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

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

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)

Statement by ScrapIronIV

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

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

Statement by Looie496

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

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)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I am not involved in the topic area but took part in the recent arbcom case on GMO's. The request for clarification is a good one. The name of the case was "Genetically modified organisms" and the scope should match the area of the topic that was discussed, namely Genetically modified organisms and topics that relate to it. The scope should not be widened to include any chemical that can possibly be used on plants, it should be chemicals as related to genetically modified organisms. After all water is a chemical, its sprayed on plants, even GMO's. Should Water be included? Perhaps if the article references uses with GMO's. But not about a river, or a lake, or a water cannon used by the military. Agent orange is a military chemical, not a general purpose agricultural chemical. It is a herbicide, not used on GMO's, and from what I can tell not used in farming. I urge the arbs to clarify the scope of these banns in that they are within the scope of GMO's. AlbinoFerret 23:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

I will point out that WP:BANEX should allow the banned editors to post here, per banex "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." is allowed. Since arbcom gave the ban, I can think of no better place for clarification than the noticeboard set up for that exact purpose. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Capeo

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

Statement by Wuerzele

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

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

• 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 glyphosate and 2,4D which are indispensable for GMO crops, because engineered to resist it.

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

GMO core pages

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

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

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

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

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

pages not in the majority about GMO-crops and /or agricultural chemicals

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

1. Agent Orange- a herbicide, but no connection whatsoever to GMO's -mostly a)of historical interest b) an env contaminant with epigenetic significance c) a Vietnam War biological weapon. I thank JzG's comment explaining his position on Agent Orange; I think he sees this point like i do.
2. pesticides other than 2,4D and glyphosate]], namely herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and other biocides, which per EPA includes antimicrobials. Organophosphates have nothing to do with the GMO case, neither the neonicotinoids.
3. agrochemicals -aside from glyphosate and 2,4D and Enlist Duo above I can not think of any others that are specific/ indispensable for GMO. It makes no sense to ban fertilizers like Ammonia, or ground spread like lime etc
4. Federation of German Scientists: recently Alexbrn warned prokaryotes on his talkpage User_talk:Prokaryotes#1RR not to further edit this site which he felt had GMO-related content only because the group awards an annual Whistleblower Prize, which went to Seralini this year. Yet Alexbrn reverted significantly here by removing a source and replacing it with an opinion piece with tendentious content, violating NPOV ( teh other source should have remained for balance)-- in large part the site has NOTHING to do with GMO.
5. Monsanto- it produces GMO's yes, but in the majority ?
6. Monsanto legal cases: most are not about GMO's, but about PCB's,
7. Genetic engineering: this describes the general technique to make a GMO, used in microbes, Mammals, Fish, Invertebrates, none of which have to do with the arbcomcase, only genetically modified plants, GMO crops and GMO food.
8. Organic farming - not using GMO crops is one aspect but certainly NOT teh majority of the topic
9. Polychlorinated biphenyl‎- no GMO-agr chemical content
10. precautionary principle

pages unclear

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

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• DGG the above question remains unanswered.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)
• JzG is your clarification request about more than Agent Orange? It looks unclear to me. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Minor4th

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

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

• 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)

Statement by Tryptofish

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

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

Statement by NE Ent (GMO)

Agent orange is in Category:Auxinic herbicides which is a sub-cat of Category:Herbicides which is a sub of Category:Agricultural_chemicals , so it's reasonable to say the topic ban would apply Given the AC/DS and 1RR restrictions also apply to agricultural chemicals, and there are, for example, 100 pages in Category:Pesticides (another subcat), while the existing scope is sufficient to minimize disruption related to GMO article editing, it does appear to be unnecessarily broad. NE Ent 02:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@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 ($\cup$) 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 ($\cap$) 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)

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

If Arbs do feel an amendment is needed for clarity, I'm going to put on my entomologist/pesticide background hat on for a second. I'd suggest replacing agricultural chemicals with pesticides and related chemicals. The term pesticide covers these specific types (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, etc.) listed in the table. A pesticide includes the active ingredient (e.g., glyphosate) and other major components in the mixture such as surfactants or shelf life extenders (PCBs are one past example[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). Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, FYI, on your question of demarcation, I had a suggestion above to cut the term agricultural chemicals and use the phrase pesticides and related chemicals. I don't expect that to change the current articles that DS and bans actually apply to, but it's more concise and shouldn't be quite so open to potential gaming. Guerillero suggested that in the arb discussion below, but it looks like it either got lost in the discussion or just didn't get traction with arbs. I'm not going to push for my change further unless the wording becomes a problem in the future, but it's there if anyone wants more background on what an "agricultural chemical" should be defined as in this instance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm not going to pursue this at enforcement right now personally, but this is an example of an area/editor that would be affected by changing the topic ban wording that's worth consideration. It may not be sufficient to change votes (and that's fine), but I figured it's something recent you should be made aware of in the context of the decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Statement by DrChrissy

I am making this statement according to WP:BANEX to clarify the wording-change proposed by User:Tryptofish. Tryptofish has suggested[42] "...with "organisms" changed to "plants" in DrChrissy's case". I would like to remind the community that WP:Banning policy states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." Tryptofish must produce evidence that I have been disruptive on pages relating to genetically modified plants.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Statement by Mrjulesd

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

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

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

On the one hand I wouldn't want to see anyone prevented from taking part in Vietnam era articles. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see editors gaming the system to further their advocacy by going after these articles. Herbicidal warfare, agent orange, the other Rainbow Herbicides and ect would seem to fall under the topic ban. I'd also ask that you consider making it clear that if anyone attempts to game these sanctions that it can lead to a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@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)

Statement by Semitransgenic

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

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

@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)

Statement by Count Iblis

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

Statement by WhatamIdoing

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

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

@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)

Statement by Jytdog

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

Statement by Only in Death

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

Statement by Opabinia regalis

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

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms (1): Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms (1): Arbitrator views and discussion

• The topic ban is for all pages that fall in the following categories genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. This is a natural language "and" since we are't writing symbolic logic statements or SQL statements; the topic ban is not for the intersection of the two topics like some are trying to claim.

  Further, the traveling circus seems to have moved from Roundup to another Monsanto chemical that is controversial. I do not care how much like (or dislike) Monsanto, Du Pont, or any other multinational corporation; you are on an encyclopedia not a place to right great wrongs that you see in the world. If you can not act like adults around the fringes of your topic ban it will be extended to something very broad or a site ban. This is not the first time that groups of editors have caused issues in a number of closely related topic areas, the American Politics area comes to mind, and the only way that we can deal with this is broad sanctions.

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

  • Update based on recommendations above --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Capeo: I do like that wording. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @NE Ent: Sometimes I wonder where you get your pop-culture references from. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Semitransgenic: I don't see a reason to shrink the scope of the ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @DrChrissy: You should avoid any section of any page relating to your topic ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Wuerzele: You are breaking your restriction if you are doing more than engaging in good faith clarification --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • @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)
• 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)
• I agree with Seraphimblade. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Doug's wording, and Seraphimblade's logic. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Jytdog I think "broadly construed" covers it. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms (Topic Bans)

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

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)

   @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)

   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)

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)

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)
2. per Kiril. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
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)

   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)

4. Really, per DGG and Kirill. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

Abstain

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

Recuse

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

---

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (3) January 2016

Original Discussion

The following discussion 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 Jytdog at 00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by Jytdog

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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))

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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 United States free trade agreements since 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 free trade. If your point is that he only uses the term with quotes ("free trade") - well that is is just rhetoric like calling the estate tax a "death tax" and runs dead against 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)

Statement by The Four Deuces

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)

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)

@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)

@Jytdog:, it is not that Sanders' trade policy discredits him, but saying he opposes free trade when he has not said that does. It is synthesis: 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)

@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."

Statement by AlbinoFerret

--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)

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 WP:ASPERSIONS. Like there is some kind of anti-Jytdog secret cabal just waiting for the chance. Something that many editors who have or had a section on this page seems to add at one point or another when multiple editors see a problem. AlbinoFerret 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Callanecc, --kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, and Doug Weller part of the findings of the GMO case is section 4.3.6 Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case. With this edit Jytdog has chosen to disregard that warning.[60] and has focused on Me and not content or issues WP:FOC The comments of "lame" and "sloppy" and criticizing my post to another editor (S Marshall) are very troubling considering the warning he received. That this also happens in a section on topic with that warning raises the concern. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Petrarchan47

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.

Statement by David Tornheim

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))

Statement by Gandydancer

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

Statement by JzG

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)

Statement by SMcCandlish

[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 chilling effect and overbreadth, I suggest that a wiki equivalent of criminal intent needs to be a factor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Kingofaces43

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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Cla68

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)

Statement by DrChrissy

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)

Statement by {other-editor}

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• 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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Agree with Callanecc. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• WP:TBAN pretty much explains it or what doug and callanecc said --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. What Callanecc and Doug W. said. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed, they've explained it well. Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Little effect?

I'm skeptical that WP:ARBGMO has had much of an effect. Every other time I go to a noticeboard, guess what dispute is there, usually with the same main players? See, e.g. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OR on GMO articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Paleolithic diet most lately (both still ongoing), plus various recent AN*/AE threads.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (February 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 Prokaryotes at 05:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 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

Statement by 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. prokaryotes (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@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.prokaryotes (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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). prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation missing.

@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. prokaryotes (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC) prokaryotes (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@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. prokaryotes (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@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. prokaryotes (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

OMG. prokaryotes (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

False Claim: "unanimous support for the topic ban"

Mastcell above says, regarding the "appeal at WP:AN, where there was essentially unanimous support for the topic ban from uninvolved editors and admins." That is clearly not true. There, Kingofaces43 identified "Nyttend, Spartaz, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, Johnuniq, and Liz" as "appear[ing] unquestionably uninvolved..." [69]. A simple review of the comments of the five identified shows that only 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)

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 from those who recognize the bias in our articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

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)

@Gamaliel:: disclosure, removal, active restriction on the main account logged at 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)

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)

Statement by Cla68

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)

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

Statement by Floquenbeam

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)

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)

Statement by Tryptofish

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Spartaz

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.

Callanecc if you look at the current AE concerning SageRad, [76] he has a page ban that has already be clarified as a tban. I might easily have sanctioned him if SV hadn't stepped in. Its the same for the other bans on that case. If this isn't what the committee intended please fix it. Otherwise its a redletter for the editor and more confusing than my little brain can cope with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe its me then? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Statement by {other-editor}

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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)

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• No comment on the merits yet but a note for MastCell, as this was a discretionary sanction it should have been recorded in the 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)

• @JzG: @Cla68: Please provide evidence in the form of diffs supporting your statements. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse, as I participated in the GMO case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • @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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  • 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)
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. This seems to be moot, as prokaryotes has retired. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Decline and close this now I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Decline as moot. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (May 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 Tryptofish at 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• @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.
• @Drmies: Thank you for what you said. (Did you mean that I failed to answer any of Gamaliel's questions??) However, there are some details where I want to draw your attention to some errors of fact in what you said. You seem to say that the Jerusalem dispute was resolved without ArbCom getting involved. Not true: please see my links to motions, above. ArbCom ordered that the consensus of the RfC would be binding for three years. ArbCom also appointed three people to determine the consensus of the RfC, and a fourth person to mediate the RfC process. You are also now the second Arb to endorse turning this dispute over to MedCom. However, you also said that if there are problems in the RfC, there will be topic bans a-plenty. I agree with you about the topic bans, but: please see 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)

@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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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 The Wordsmith for taking the lead in it, and also Laser brain for helping. For anyone interested, please see User talk:The Wordsmith#GMO RfC and 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)

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. 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. [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." 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

• 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)

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 climate change denial. These WP:ADVOCACY actions trying to further a fringe point of view to this degree technically should be sanctioned as ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that advocacy related to fringe theories needs to be dealt with to calm subject areas (which also contradicts the claim that is only a content dispute and admins/ArbCom can't do anything in that realm).

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

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

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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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! 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) No longer participating in AE.Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@Tryptofish::If you believe editors would not accept MedCom oversight, I can offer to step in personally under my own authority as uninvolved Administrator to supervise an RFC. As per your concerns about enforcement, I would direct you to the Discretionary Sanctions procedure, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"(emphasis mine). It would seem that any uninvolved Administrator can impose a restriction on the topic area along the lines of "Consensus has shown that X is the best way to phrase Y. Don't reword Y without a new consensus.". Discretionary sanctions are not limited to blocks and topic bans; they can be restrictions on edits including imposing restrictions on a piece of an article (or multiple articles) when that one piece is what's being warred over. There are ways to work with existing policy to resolve this without giving Arbcom the power to decide what is and is not consensus and override WP:CCC. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish::I would be perfectly happy with an established group of admins (preferably AE admins who have some familiarity and mediation experience) collaborating to sort out this complex issue. @Alanscottwalker:: You are correct, MedCab was more flexible and more suited to this sort of issue than MedCom, and it is currently defunct. However, if there is interest from the community and Arbitrators believe it would help, I see no reason why I, as a former MedCab Coordinator, couldn't bring it out of mothballs (at least temporarily unless it generates more people willing to participate). There was never a formal binding decision to close it, there was just some discussion and then it was done. Being informal, we could just start it up again without having to jump through hoops. I'm willing to help resolve this issue, by any means necessary short of a new Arbcom case. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• @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)

• @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)

• @MastCell, EdJohnston, SlimVirgin, 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)
• Recuse from requests arising from the GMO case, as usual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • @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)
• 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)

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 Tryptofish at 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification of The Wordsmith
• diff of notification of Laser brain
• diff of notification of Coffee
• diff of notification of SlimVirgin

Statement by Tryptofish

At an amendment request that I made earlier this year: [91], there was discussion of whether there might be a community RfC about some contentious GMO-related content. Subsequently, The Wordsmith and Laser brain began to work with members of the community, under authorization from the Discretionary Sanctions issued in the GMO case, to develop such an RfC. After Laser brain withdrew for reasons that have (if I understand correctly) been privately communicated to ArbCom, Coffee stepped in as his replacement. At the time that I write this, the RfC page can be found in draft form at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC.

Since January, editors who were parties to the GMO case have been lobbying SlimVirgin at her talk page, for her to intervene in the content dispute: [92]. A few days ago, just as the RfC plans were being completed, SlimVirgin raised questions about whether The Wordsmith and Coffee really have the authority under DS to conduct an RfC in the manner planned. You can see these discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins requested for moderated RfC. It appears that the community is divided as to exactly what ArbCom did and did not authorize under the DS of the GMO case. Therefore, I want to ask you a direct question to clarify that point:

• Is the RfC planned at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC an allowable option, under the Discretionary Sanctions that ArbCom issued in the GMO case?

I think the answer is "yes", but I hope that a clear reply from the Committee will allow the community to go forward with a definite understanding of whatever may actually be the case. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

About what David Tornheim said, I already tried to explain to him: [93], [94], but in any case I think the Arbs should speak for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is probably obvious, but the diffs of evidence presented by Petrarchan47 simply link to her own statements of opinion, and Jusdafax bases what he said on what David and Petra presented. Anyway, the accusers should notify the other editors who are being accused. And if the RfC goes down in flames, Boris' plan works for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me to clarify another point. Although I originally proposed a 3-year time period as was done with Jerusalem, consensus was against that, and what The Wordsmith is preparing has no such time period. Changes could be made anytime either by a new RfC, an AE consensus, or by permission from ArbCom. Just not ad hoc or by edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arbs: I'm noticing that many of you are commenting about the issue of how the community could eventually alter the outcome of the RfC, and are commenting about your own personal preferences. That's OK, and it's fine to discuss it. But the question that I asked isn't really about each of you backseat driving for the administrators who have taken on the thankless task of enforcing the DS that you issued – and indeed, you previously said quite clearly that ArbCom should not run the RfC. So – it would be very helpful if you could make it clear whether you feel that The Wordsmith's existing plan is, as I put it in my question to you, "an allowable option" under DS. If it's allowable, then ArbCom really ought to say to the skeptics in the community that it's allowable. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

Eurgh, I was hoping to avoid this. At the previous ARCA, Arbs seemed to think that the community holding an RfC to decide this issue was preferable to having Arbcom make a content decision. The decision to use DS was, I believe, my suggestion. It is certainly the most creative use of DS I've seen in 8 years or so, but seems to be allowed. Page sanctions are explicitly allowed; this covers the imposition of a restricted format on the RfC. It also covers imposing whatever the result is by sanction on the resulting page. Contrary to whatever others suggest, it can be overturned at any time with another RfC or, since it is imposed as an Arbcom Discretionary Sanction, through AE or Arbcom directly. Scientific consensus can change, but not quickly, and there is no deadline. Editor-sanctions give admins broad discretion to remove editors from pages they disrupt on (including the RfC, which now has an editnotice that it falls within ACDS) or to impose interaction bans. My hope, however, is that my role is purely symbolic and that I will be more of a mediator and facilitator.

Several times over the last few months there have been requests to open it, and each time other editors came and requested more time. I have been more than accommodating whenever asked, but it gets to the point where the RfC will become pointless through attrition. We have already had one admin bullied out. Unless any Arbitrator opines that these actions do not fall within the bounds of DS and the community's own authority, I plan on publishing it at 1400 EDT as planned. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Note regarding "uneven" enforcement: It should be noted that I have a lot on my plate and thus don't see every comment (and there have been volumes and volumes of text produced on what I think is a rather boring topic), plus I have a very thick skin and don't necessarily notice personal attacks where others do. I have asked SlimVirgin to ping me or drop a note on my talkpage if she sees something she thinks violates NPA (others are welcome to do the same). Given SlimVirgin's recent postings (and extensive history on Wikipedia), she is far more of an expert on personal attacks than I.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note that since no arbitrator has objected, I have initiated the RfC according to the schedule stated on Friday. And in response to GorillaWarfare, since it is being imposed as a DS it can also be overturned by the usual means. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Update The RFC has been open since yesterday afternoon, is getting input from a variety of editors outside the topic area, the sky has not fallen, and I haven't had to sanction anyone. I know it is very early to be counting chickens, but it looks like the process is a success so far. If this works, it might be useful to consider for other contentious areas. Perhaps someone (likely meaning me) should write an essay about the types of Discretionary Sanctions available and what sort of precedent there is, as well as how they work. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain

I encourage ArbCom to clarify that this moderated RFC (accepting it as a "creative" use of DS) is allowable and its resulting consensus enforceable, to settle the content dispute in the lead that has led to many accompanying behavior problems. The original hope was that if one key contentious content dispute was laid to rest, some of the behavioral issues might go with it. I don't think anyone has clean hands, and maybe an Arb case needs to settle behavioral problems. But the RFC should go forward, if for no other reason than to get wider input and an enforceable consensus from more outside editors.

A lot of behavioral issues emerged while this RFC was being planned, and I encourage anyone making allegations on this page to provide diffs. @David Tornheim: Many of your summaries of events that transpired are inaccurate. I don't recall anyone ever telling you to "shut up" (I'll await your diff). You are correct that I warned you that I would apply DS if you suggested that any other editors have a COI without evidence here. My message is neutral and professional, so I object to your statement that you were "severely threatened with DS". I do recall assisting you in expressing your concerns about the RFC wording (here and here); in fact you even characterized my statements as being in support of your position on changing the RFC questions ([95]). So I find the following statement utterly dishonest: "I got zero assistance from the moderators, despite complaints from numerous editors that the RfC questions would create problems. Despite numerous pleas, the moderators made no effort to address the issue." --Laser brain (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

Statement by SlimVirgin

Statement by Alanscottwalker (uninvolved)

I commented the last time this came here (on the utility of RfC's) and at the AN but have no interest or history in the GMO article(s) or the prior GMO case. At the AN I linked to a principle of this committee, which should be helpful, so I will quote it here in full:

If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

— [96]

In the most recent AN, a concern has again been raised that an RfC will lock in a consensus - in part sure, maybe (if it has some success), but really, it happens all the time, and if a new consensus in the future can be formed quickly or it takes a month, so what, there is no deadline on that, but what there is a helpful end to (deadline to) is putting things to bed for awhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim

False claims that RfC is "mandated" by ArbCom

A number of editors have misrepresented you, claiming the RfC is "mandated" by ArbCom : Laser brain: "this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case" [97] (also [98]). In fact, it was Trytpofish who threatened another full ArbCom case if he didn't get the RfC on his terms: "Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2" [99]. Kingofaces43: "this ArbCom mandated RfC" [100]. Tryptofish: "the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom." [101] --David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

problems with RfC rule-making / uneven treatment of editors

I have been involved in the preparation of this 3rd RfC since inception, and spent hours creating an NPOV proposal for it. I participated in the AE where I was open to Mediation. I participated in good faith, assuming the RfC would be handled fairly. I am shocked by how I was treated during the rule-making phase[102]. It was not even-handed: The discussion was well hidden here: For the first 18 days, only two editors knew of it besides the moderators. Both happened to be advocates for restoring the Wiki-voice to state a "broad consensus" of scientists find GMOs safe in ~10 articles and hammer it down--for 3 years. When I said that the rule-making discussion should not be one-sided and others should be notified [103] I received a frosty response from a moderator[104]. I did the notification. When I made comments similar to SlimVirgin's about the money at stake, and asked that closing admins make declarations of no COI with GMO, I was threatened with DS by both moderators. [105], [106] When I asked that a new proposal with language clearly not supported by RS problems, I was told to shut up. here When I objected to moving forward because all revisions of the rules were made exclusively by the proponents of the scientific consensus language, I was accused of filibustering. [107][108][109] When I tried to work with the other side, I got zero assistance from the moderators, despite complaints from numerous editors that the RfC questions would create problems. Despite pleas, the moderators made no effort to address the issue. The language created by the proponents is still in place. Laserbrain denies this. But look at the edit history of the rules: Tryptofish and King run the show. King forced in Q1 [110] and reverted all attempts to take it out[111][112], despite numerous objections to it. (added 02:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)) Instead, the moderators gave the proponents everything they asked for, never threatened them for their name-calling and behavior. Something is seriously awry at the RfC. SlimVirgin made a similar observation here. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

I agree with Justdafax and Petrachan47: Enough is enough. I have seen the disruption and wiki-lawyering by these same two editors in their obsession to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" in the ledes of 5-10 GMO articles.

Petrachan47 is absolutely correct about the sourcing issues. I have seen similar troubling claims about RS: [113]

The number of cases and drama they have brought or caused at AE, ARCA, AN/I and attempts to TB editors in their mission to try to force this language and lock it down, despite the previous RfC that rejected it, is astounding and exhausting for all of us. The best way to avoid the drama and GMO-2 is give them both a 6 month hiatus.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (revised 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC), 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

NEW: This is the kind of harassment and intimidation that I constantly get from these two when I speak about NPOV content issues: [114]. They keep begging admins to have DS applied to me. I was not even pinged. I will provide more diffs of this. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47

The community should be aware that this constant GMO drama could be considered distraction by Tryptofish for the fact that he, KingofAces43 and Aircorn went against the RfC findings and tried to argue for "scientific consensus" even after the community discovered this is an unsupported claim. That activity should be actionable to this day, considering the suite is under DS. I spoke to this: * * *

• Here is Tryptofish reinserting language disallowed by the RfC: *

On the misuse of sources:

According to WP:MEDRS, Domingo and Krimsky, being recent review articles in peer-reviewed journals, are the best sources we have with regard to GMO safety. David elucidates on these sources here.

• KingofAces43 called Domingo and Krimsky "fringe".*

• KingofAces43 incorrectly used an article that spoke to six studies, and claimed that it debunked the entirety of the aforementioned reviews (which looked at over 26 individual studies)*

• Tryptofish buried these same two sources in his RfC Proposal (#1) by using "but see also" so that it's almost impossible to find them.

These diffs show Tryptofish (and KingofAces43) should be topic-banned. I explain to Tryptofish here

these diffs show that you have suppressed the very best review articles we have on GMO safety to a "but see also" in the sources for your "GMOs are safe" proposal. Those articles say that there is lively debate in the scientific community about GMO safety, but this isn't mentioned in your proposal. So you are showing an inability to properly weigh and summarize GMO science. Further, there is a diff showing where you re-entered the term "scientific consensus" months after the RfC mandated a wording change, since this phrase does not have support in current literature. You were aware of that RfC, I have seen you refer to it many times, and you were well aware this suite is under DS.

In general, they fight anything that brings into question the safety of GMOs using bullying, walls of text, obsessive noticeboarding, and misusing sources.

Based on the behavior I have observed and illustrated above, I support JusDaFax' proposal: King and Trypto should be topic banned for being disruptive to the process of writing neutral, informative content.

Additional comment

Not only is "the other side" of the GMO safety issue being kept from WP's pages, but when I tried to simply add a note about the percentage of Americans who support GMO labeling, and mention of the USDA's new GMO labeling program, I was reverted and 'handled' on the talk page. To this day we don't tell our readers this and other basic information about the GMO issue. WP is loosing good editors due to the refusal to put an end to, or even acknowledge, this idiocy.**

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Arbs, you know you're going to have to turn WP:ARBGMO2 blue eventually. May as well get it over with. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I strongly disagree with the above statement that GMO2 is needed. The solution is simple: topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces from the GMO articles and subpages under the existing discretionary sanctions.

David Tornheim and Petrarchan47 have made an excellent case just above that Trypto and King have misrepresented themselves repeatedly, abused process, and distorted sources. This is arguably bad faith editing. The diffs David and Petrar present are clear, and direct. Their case is strong, and I thank them both.

Slim Virgin aka SarahSV has also shown clearly what is going on at the current AN thread referenced above.

If further confirmation is needed, look at the edit histories of Trypto and King. Clearly these two editors see themselves as heroic defenders of the Wiki, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They are obsessive, and will do or say literally anything to get what they want.

Enough is enough.

Regardless of whether the RfC proceeds, in my view ArbCom should decide here and now to topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces and end their ongoing disruption. Im suggesting six months. Thanks.

• Additional comment - David Tornheim's backing of my above-proposed GMO topic ban for Kingofaces and Tryptofish is a seriously telling endorsement, which adds considerable weight to my contention that those two editors need a six month vacation from the subject to stop the waste of editor time. David worked patiently for many weeks with these two, and few are more qualified to testify to their tendentious and abusive editing. I thank him sincerely for his protracted attempts to bring balance to the RfC in question and the overall GMO issue, and his just-posted specific support for the proposed GMO topic ban for King and Trypto, which as I see it is long overdue. I also thank Petrarchan47 for her specific support. Jusdafax 19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I'm on the road for work with less internet access that I expected, so I won't likely have time to respond here further this week (though I'll say my part at the RfC on Monday). My understanding from the last request was that ArbCom didn't think they should intervene directly in moderating the RfC and leave it up to the community/DS. Once The Wordsmith and Laserbrain said they'd be willing to set up the RfC, arbs let that responsibility fall to those admins as that settled the request without a need for a vote. The request was closed because a solution was found. That far from implies Arbs disapproved of the RfC, especially when specific arb concerns about implementation (not simply having the RfC) were addressed. Regardless, the DS are meant to break the back of disputes in these topics without explicit ArbCom oversight on each action, and that's exactly what is being done with this RfC.

At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with an RfC that forces all editors to focus only on the content for once. That's especially when all parties had ample time to submit whatever proposed content they wanted. I could rail about various behavior issues I've had to deal with, but now isn't the time for that. That's for GMO-2 if it becomes warranted at a later date. There's a lot of absurd stuff there I've kept relatively quiet about for now even though it would likely result in boomerangs. That's because now is the time to focus on content by giving the RfC a chance under discretionary sanctions first to really sort out content to see how much it fixes.

We've got the potential for this RfC to halt the primary dispute to the point editors all sides will have to move on instead of calling for heads to roll as part of the content dispute. We might finally beat this poor horse to the point there isn't any point in editors continuing further battleground behavior. Continued distractions away from the RfC through admin boards won't help the topic right now. I for one am choosing to forgo that to focus on the RfC content, as that's what really matters here. I hope other involved editors do the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• In the March 2016 amendment request, the Arbitration Committee declined Tryptofish's request that the ArbCom hold a moderated RfC to decide on this wording. A number of us, including myself, agreed that an RfC would be a fine way to handle it, but that the ArbCom did not need to be the ones managing it. Myself, kelapstick, and DGG also agreed that we did not like the idea of mandating that a fixed time pass before the wording could be changed (the original proposal by Tryptofish said "ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.").

  I agree with David Tornheim's correction above that ArbCom did not mandate an RfC be held, but I also don't see those comments as deliberate misrepresentations. I am, however, somewhat concerned about the visibility of this RfC during its drafting phase, as it does not appear to have been widely publicized. However, I see that David Tornheim posted to the GMO article talk page (as well as a few other pages such as Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, Talk:Genetically modified organism, etc.)‎ to notify of this discussion on May 2. This was a good call, and I see that a month passed between those notifications and when Wordsmith protected the draft RfC talk page. I think that is probably sufficiently long for outside parties to have stated their opinions, though these parties should really have been notified from the getgo.

  Mandating that the result of this RfC can only be changed by another 30-day RfC is certainly unorthodox. I agree that there should be a high level of agreement to alter the wording, if the outcome of this RfC does result in consensus for a change. I also don't think that kind of agreement will come about in this topic area without a fairly strict discussion, so at the moment I am not opposed to this clause being included in the RfC. However, I'd be curious to hear my colleagues' opinions on the inclusion of this clause, and their opinions on how this jibes with current policy.

  If he is willing, I would urge Laser brain to contact the ArbCom, and perhaps also the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team, regarding the harassment he has endured recently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Any RfC can by consensus mandate some form of moratorium, either in length of time or some form of consensus, as otherwise results could be ignored or tossed aside very quickly by people with enough time, motive and energy. So maybe mandating a 9-month moratorium could bring some stability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse, for the record. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• This is certainly a creative use of discretionary sanctions, but, as far as I'm concerned, I find it entirely cromulent. I also have absolutely no problem with the fact that the results of the RfC will be binding for a specified term, as long as the community has a way to modify them before such term has expired, in the event consensus changes in the meantime – and, again, as far as I'm concerned, another monthlong RfC is perfectly acceptable. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• It seems obvious to me that an RfC like this, with so much expected input and a panel of three judges (Simon Cowell is unavailable, I understand) to bless the result, would need an equally voluminous RfC to overturn it. If that's not obvious, then I'll put my wooden shoes on my head and walk out of the temple. In other words, I do not see a need to quantify or legislate a moratorium. On the other issue, whether we'll run this with DS on it, sure. I have no problem with that; it seems to me that that is the kind of thing DS is also supposed to do, with much of its language pertaining to discussion and disruption of discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• I am opposed to any extension of the use of Discretionary Sanctions, which I think are too often used in an unfair manner- I would rather try to avoid the use of DS. This is independent of any guess about the likely outcome. DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm happy with the RfC taking place and agree with Drmies (and Salvio) that the use of Discretionary Sanctions is fine here. Ambivalent about the need for to quantify or to have a definite moratorium. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Drmies and Salvio that this is fine. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx), Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, and Talk:Gdansk/Vote come to mind as "lock ins" in language via an RFC --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 David Tornheim at 03:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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:

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Laser brain
• Notification of The Wordsmith
• Notification of Lord Roem
• Notification of Kingofaces43
• Notification of Tryptofish
• Notification of EllenCT
• Notification of Petrarchan47

Statement by David Tornheim

I request a stay of the Proposed Decision to block sanction me in this action. (revised 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

I reassert the appeal of the now final decision in this action. I also add that one of the reasons given for a stronger sanction was punishment for asserting my right of appealing the decision to this forum (per WP:AEBLOCK) pejoratively labelled "wikilawyering" [115] (isn't that "casting aspersions?). I did file the appeal before the decision was finalized, because I was under the (apparently mistaken) belief that the proposed remedy was a block based on this comment in the case. Waiting until after the decision was final would have made it impossible to remove the block from my block-free record, causing irreparable harm to my Wikipedia reputation. It is my belief that in American jurisprudence, an appeal before final judgment is not unusual. I find it unbelievable that my punishment should be increased for asserting my right of appeal. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the admins' comments show any consideration of the evidence I presented of POV editing by my accuser Kingofaces43 ("King") or battleground and harassment behavior by King and Tryptofish. I specifically asked whether the diffs I provided showed POV editing and got no response.

The evidence of others who made similar comments to mine was not considered or commented on either.

I also question the neutrality of The Wordsmith and Laser brain. When I asked for an admonition to King for POV-editing here and here, the admins all said they would not act on it, that I should go to WP:AE, including The Wordsmith[116]. Laser brain had also voluntarily left all GMO related administration after he was accused of bullying regarding comments about me and Petrarchan47 [117]. I previously explained to you here that Laser brain and The Wordsmith had not been even-handed with me in comparison to King and Tryptofish at the RfC ruling making. (revised 05:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

The Proposed Decision only applies sanctions to me and a warning to EllenCT; It proposes no sanction, warning or admonishment for King and Tryptofish, despite the troubling evidence I provided. (added 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

I am concurrently filing another related action that will help resolve this one: [118]

(misspelling of Laser brain corrected 09:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Laser brain

Literally nothing in David's statement is correct, including my username. I don't really have anything else to say. --Laser brain (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

Please note that there is no proposal on the table to block David. The proposal being discussed is a sanction being crafted to enforce the Committee's decision on casting aspersions, which has been a serious problem in this topic area. It appears to be well within the bounds allowed by Discretionary Sanctions, and David has not presented any argument that either the sanction being considered or the process used to craft it are improper. Moreover, while ARCA is a valid forum for appealing an AE decision, I can't recall any precedent for going to ARCA to seek an injunction to prevent AE admins from enforcing an Arbitration decision. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Update: It should be noted that the original request, which was backed by several other editors, was for a topic ban (and that would have been upheld given the evidence presented). I don't like doing that unless absolutely necessary, so I came up with this new sanction (or rather, a variation on an old one). Different varieties of Civility Parole have been used a few times over the last decade where we've had great content creators who had problems interacting with others, with mixed results. My proposal is an attempt to solve the problem of casting aspersions (and in doing so, enforce the Arbitration decision) while still allowing David to have a voice in the topic area. Unless an Arbitrator specifically puts this on hold, I have no intention of waiting several days (or even weeks) for the Committee to come to a decision before enforcing the consensus of uninvolved administrators. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem

None of the admins responding to the enforcement request are proposing a block. The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) suggested a novel idea to resolve the underlying conduct issue in a focused way without too broad a sanction. If and when an admin imposes such a sanction, David is free to appeal then, but nothing yet has actually been done. Based off my read of the evidence submitted, The Wordsmith's proposal is worth giving a shot.

I'm also not sure what David's reasoning is for saying The Wordsmith isn't neutral. Is he saying they're involved? Or something else? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

You Arbs are quite right to quickly decline, and I'm not sure that I need to say anything, other than to agree entirely with Laser brain, and to express my opinion that this toxic dispute is going to keep going on and on, unless AE follows the advice that I remember Drmies saying at an earlier discussion: that if editors keep fighting after the recent RfC, topic bans should be flying around like drones. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EllenCT

I note that arbitrators are considering warning me for "battleground" conduct at [119]. I do not enjoy making editors uncomfortable by expressing doubts about their statements and conclusions, but it does not rise to the level of "battleground" conduct such as edit "warring" both of which are abominable abuses of the English language to try to rationalize censorship, on par with "slave hard drive," a data storage term, or "collateral damage" and "casualties" meaning war deaths. If warned, I will ask for specific behaviors which were found equivalent to battleground conduct. EllenCT (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

For reference, since there was no support expressed for any type of "stay", I've gone ahead with closing the request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cathry

I wonder why Kingofaces43's behavior was not discussed at all by administrators there. Instead there was MastCell's statement about David Tornheim with offensive and irrational accusations without diffs ("he routinely characterizes his perceived opponents as industry shills " (where?), "presence are toxic to the topic area" , "he views this topic area in Manichean terms" (telepathy?). Cathry (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse from all things GMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• I really don't see anything for the Committee to do here. There's nothing which is not a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and I haven't seen evidence to prove that any the admins involved shouldn't be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Quick decline. The request has no merit whatsoever. Let's let the good folk over at AE handle this. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline, per Callanecc and Salvio. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline piling on here per above. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Decline albeit late. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 David Tornheim at 03:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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:

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Laser brain
• Notification of The Wordsmith
• Notification of Lord Roem
• Notification of Kingofaces43
• Notification of Tryptofish
• Notification of EllenCT

Statement by David Tornheim

I request clarification on these questions regarding the Casting Aspersions Discretionary Sanction [120].

(1) Is it *always* wrong to identify an edit as pro-industry, even if it has a strong pro-industry WP:POV?

(2) If so, how are we supposed to achieve WP:NPOV if we cannot talk about POV problems?

(3) Does the sanction only apply to pro-industry allegations? in one direction?

(4) Does it continue to be acceptable (e.g. [121]) to call editors who challenge pro-industry edits with:

• pejorative labels (e.g. anti-GMO, anti-science, fringe, psuedo-science) -and-
• associations (e.g. anti-vaxxer, climate change denier, flat earther).

I am concurrently filing another related action [122] that the current action will help resolve.

Statement by Laser brain

Statement by The Wordsmith

Statement by Lord Roem

I think the casting aspersions principle speaks for itself. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." That goes in both/all directions on any topic. Editors should focus on research/references when dealing with disputed material in a calm and dispassionate manner. Saying something along the lines of "that edit is totally pro-X" is never helpful; instead, an editor should do their best to discuss their disagreement without attacking the credibility of their peer. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

Per Satchmo: [123]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

David was placed under a topic ban at AE, and has now been AE-blocked for a month for violating the ban, as was another editor whose ban was enacted by ArbCom in the GMO case. Please let me suggest that this request, along with the one directly above, should be closed and archived. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EllenCT

Question for arbitrators: what is the difference, in practice, between casting aspersions and expressing doubt? Since expressing dissent is stronger than expressing doubt, would a consistent set of rules require that you also forbid dissent? I mean this as a sincere question to elucidate a flaw in reasoning using the Socratic method, and not as a rhetorical question. EllenCT (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

At WP:AE#Casting Aspersions (permalink), David Tornheim has continued casting aspersions and apparently does not understand that serious accusations must be backed with evidence.

• David Tornheim wrote (diff) "King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing."
  • The above refers to a statement by Kingofaces43 at WP:AE (diff) where King wrote "I actually drafted that part of the language in large part because of evidence at Arbcom that EllenCT would follow me around to boards casting aspersions exactly like below and blatantly misrepresent me when I explained how I actually used the source in question even though they are fully aware there characterization of me below is false, directly calling me a paid shill, etc.[124]."

    Apparently the draft became the Casting aspersions principle adopted at WP:ARBGMO—a motherhood statement of the obvious.

  • The above is a gross mischaracterization of what Kingofaces43 wrote. Of course editors are welcome to call attention to any edit and to question its applicability in regards to policy compliance. Policy does not permit editors to cast aspersions by repeatedly insinuating someone is a shill, paid or otherwise, with no evidence.
• The GMO RfC ran from 7 June 2016 to 7 July 2016. It was closed with a very clear consensus that anti-GMO editors do not like.
• Despite the above, David Tornheim's WP:AE#Casting Aspersions statement includes "Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?" Taken as a whole, the statement is another clear suggestion that Kingofaces43 is a company shill. The evidence supporting the shill conclusion appears to be that Kingofaces43 made edits in accord with the outcome of the RfC, although apparently David Tornheim believes those edits were too enthusiastic, and that edits which oppose anti-GMO views must be from a company shill.

David Tornheim should be topic banned from the GMO area as his presence is unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JTrevor99

In my opinion, pro-science-industry comments are not WP:POV when those comments are backed by non-industry scientific research, as has been demonstrated conclusively on this topic. The fact that what the industry states as fact is also stated as fact by a consensus of third parties should be taken into account. Stating that such comments are WP:POV ignores the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in their favor. Thus this ARCA action is moot. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I would suggest that Arbitrators review the recent RFC on the Harassment talk page. While there was consensus against a vague wording of of an exception clause to off-wiki linking, there appeared to be a guarded consensus for it in certain cases, mostly related to paid editing.

It is also perhaps worth considering whether the principle in question is overboard, considering the number of occasions that, for example, Tea House regulars, or AfC creators have to remind people of the COI implications of editing articles about themselves, their band, company, product or pet.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

Statement by JzG

The key point here is that there are three sides to the real-world dispute, not two. Partisans on both sides tend to paint this as pro-GMO versus anti-GMO, with every comment, fact and edit cast as one or the other, but in fact much of the commentary is neutral science. Science does not, bluntly, give a damn whether a fact supports one side or the other, it cares only whether it's a fact.

This is of course not unique to GMOs. It also applies to vaping, evolution, alternative medicine and climate change, to name but four of the contentious ones that keep ending up here.

Science that shows GMOs to be safe is not "pro-industry science", it's just science. Of course it can be manipulated. Of course people will be suspicious when science is funded by one party or another. Sometimes this suspicion is amply justified (e.g. the Séralini rat studies). But science is not an opinion or an agenda, it is a way of looking at the world, and, just like Wikipedia, it converges asymptotically towards accuracy.

Any edit supporting neutral scientific findings that happen to be convenient to one set of partisans, and thus inconvenient to the other, will always inflame partisans and spark exactly the kinds of rhetoric around editor motivation which David Tornheim has displayed and which led to this sanction. While some who do this are wilful contrarians, I think it's fair to say that most are sincere and well-meaning. Evidence of involvement of industry shills is scant. Activists do not see themselves as having a COI, but as bearers of Truth. The results are inevitable, and that's why we have sanctions like this available to us.

Anyone who thinks this is a new problem needs to study the history of Wikipedia - one of the first big blow-ups was around how we handle creationism, and this is precisely analogous. To creationists, evolutionary biology is atheist science. That is true only in the most literal technical definition of atheist, in that evolutionary biology is science that does not include any consideration of supernatural cause. It is not anti-Christian, or anti-God in any sense, it simply includes no consideration of God whatsoever. And that is precisely the problem here: in the same way that a creationist will see an agnostic as functionally indistinguishable from an atheist, so a partisan in most of these disputes will see any finding that undermines their agenda as being part of the opposing "side". That's why Kevin Folta is being harassed in the real world, and that's why this dispute won't go away on Wikipedia.

Yes we know that there is evidence of industry involvement in the science (both GMO industry and Big Organic, who bankroll organisations like USRTK). That problem is not ours to fix, it is the job of the scientific journals to weed that out. Wikipedia should and does follow the science, because science is notionally neutral, and whatever the problems it has on any given day, the process of science is inherently self-correcting and will move always towards the right answer. We may not like the answer. Again, that's not Wikipedia's problem to fix, and trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" a "bias" which exists in the real world is and always will be a pressing problem.

False balance is not NPOV. Assuming that every edit is partisan, is similarly problematic.

Anyone can get heated when they feel passionately about a subject, the best solution IMO is to take a break - and if you won't do it voluntarily then we have to use sanctions. Sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse from all things GMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• What Lord Roem said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ditto. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• And me (or I guess 'I') Doug Weller talk 15:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• David Tornheim, you've been editing here for eight years. Stick to discussing the strengths or weaknesses of sourcing and the correlation of material to sources. Casting aspersions or encouraging battleground behaviour will likely bring a topic ban. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (January 2017)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 DrChrissy at 23:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. DrChrissy topic banned (January 2016)

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

• DrChrissy topic banned (January 2016)

• Rescind the topic ban

Statement by DrChrissy

Over 12 months ago, I was topic banned from editing "...all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted". I am seeking this sanction be lifted.

Since the imposition of the topic ban, I have remained a highly productive editor here on Wikipedia - please see my user page where I have listed articles I have created and significantly edited. It is clear I have not simply "waited out" this sanction.

To the best of my memory, I have not violated this topic ban, nor have I been accused of skirting around the ban or testing it. The protection of these articles has been successful.

The reasons I wish to have this sanction lifted are two-fold:

• First, I wish to be able to directly edit GM animal articles. I have a vast experience of animal behaviour based on my real life university position. Many articles on GM animals could benefit from edits, some in my areas of expertise.
• Second, I often edit animal-related articles which contain interwoven GM related content. I would like to have lifted the pressure of having to be extremely careful what I write, where I write and looking over my shoulder.

In summary, topic bans are imposed to protect articles - I believe this has been achieved. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary 1

I am deeply concerned at statements made below that the GMO articles are now quiet - as if the disruption to this huge subject area has been due solely/largely to me. So, let's look at the extent of my editing in the GMO area prior to my topic ban. First, let me remind you of the scope of my topic ban. It is "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."

• I have never edited articles on GM plants, vegetables, crops, etc.
• I have never edited articles on GMO commentators - either pro or anti-GMO
• I have never edited articles on GMO producing or related companies.
• I have never edited articles on companies that produce agricultural chemicals
• I have edited several articles on GM animals, but the only one where there was controversy was Genetically modified fish. The main concern of other editors were the sources I was using. One was a monograph written by Professor Donald Broom (who I know professionally) the Emeritus Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge. The argument was being made this was not RS, however, RS clearly states When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. The second concern was my use of a Mercola publication. I accepted removal of this once it was explained to me the reason was it is not RS and did not attempt to edit war this into the article. During my topic ban I have learned to more accurately check the reliability of sources such as using Bealle's list and not using predatory journals, vanity journals, pay-for publication journals, etc.
• I have edited the Glyphosate (an agricultural chemical) article. This article became a major battleground among several editors, including myself. I fully accept responsibility for my adopting a battleground and disruptive mentality on this article, and I understand a much more collegiate approach is needed for the benefit of the project. I have been working on this change in behaviour during my topic ban.
• DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary 2

Regardless of the outcome of this appeal (and yes, I can see the writing on the wall), I wish all members of ARBCOM a Happy and peaceful New Year. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to BeyondMyKen

BMK's statement is woefully short of diffs as is requested and expected at ARBCOM. In fact, the 2 diffs they do provide relate to confusion by multiple editors about the closing wording by an admin (in May 2015), and not my editing behaviour. Neither do these diffs relate to this topic ban.

BMK also accuses me of being a civil POV pusher. I have no problem with being called "civil", but if BMK believes I am a POV pusher, they must provide evidence (diffs). DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to KingOfAces43

Please note that several of the diffs are immediately after the topic ban was imposed and several were attempts at clarification in the earliest stages of the ban.

• This diff[125] was provided as evidence, however, it relates to an I-ban, not this topic ban. The two are fundamentally different.

• This diff[126] was provided as evidence. This is what I wrote "Given that this is an arbitration page, am I allowed to contribute here without violating my topic ban on GMO's (the same as SageRad)?DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)". I asked a question because I wanted to understand the nuances of the topic ban yet you seem to be using this against me. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: Hi. I am pinging you because I added a section to my statement (Supplementary 1) which was just before your posting. It may have been such close timing that you missed it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement By Beyond My Ken

DrChrissy's statement neglects to mention some facts:

• 1. As a result of the Genetically modified organisms arbitratuion case, which closed on 12 December 2015, DrChrissy received this topic ban:

  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.

  DrChrissy's topic ban was less stringent that that received by other parties to the case. This was deliberate on the Committee's part, to allow him to edit about gentically modified animals. However, less than a month later, because of DrChrissy's continued problematic editing and testing of the boundaries of his topic ban, the ban was changed by motion to read:

  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."

• 2. Prior to the GMO case, DrChrissy received editing sanctions from the community. On 16 May, [127] he was

  indefinitely topic banned from editing any biomedical articles.

  This, too, had to be clarified. It was modified on 20 May [128] to read

  User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users). This modifies the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Topic ban for DrChrissy which imposed a topic ban from "biomedical articles". This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months from now, and will be logged at WP:RESTRICT.

  and had to be modified again on 3 September 2015 "to clarify 'broadly construed' for human medicine and MEDRS", to read

  User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed.

• 3.The clear conclusion to be drawn from this is that DrChrissy cannot be trusted to edit responsibly in this topic area. Even when he received very specific topic bans, his editing required that the bans be modified a number of times to prevent his editing around their edges. It seems obvious that if his ArbCom ban is lifted, he will return to precisely the same kind of editing that got him banned in the first place. This is because DrChrissy is the epitome of a civil point of view pusher. He has a specific agenda, and his edits are designed to promote that agenda and skew our articles.

• 4.The evidence DrCrissy provides for the sanction to be lifted is "To the best of my memory, I have not violated this topic ban". This is not a reason that a ban should be lifted, it is the minimum requirement of an editor under a topic ban. The articles have been "protected" because DrChrissy is forbidden to edit them. To say that a reasonable response to that is to lift the topic ban is simply illogical and flies in the face of DrCrissy's editing history.

• 5.I urge the Committee to reject this appeal to lift DrChrissy's topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

It's pretty clear DrChrissy has continued the same behavior that got them topic banned in GMOs in other topics, so the topic ban is still needed. They also neglect to mention with their not skirting their sanctions comment that they actually did skirt their topic ban, which resulted in it being broadened. They also violated the concurrent interaction ban handed to them from the same ArbCom case. Unfortunately, there is a recurrent trend of DrChrissy engaging in battleground behavior, pursuing that in vexatious requests on admin boards, and moving on to other topics once they get topic banned. After all that, they file an appeal immediately after they are able to only to have that appeal rejected because the community sees even more battleground behavior that went on in other topics after the ban. Here's a snapshot of what's been going on in the last year:

Leading up to GMO ArbCom

• Before ArbCom, topic banned from alt-med topics as part of a boomerang for their battleground behavior directed at other editors.[129][130]
• Alt-med ban appeal fails due to continued battleground behavior.[131] (third paragraph of close gives a good summary of the recurring issues with DrChrissy that need to be addressed to successfully appeal a topic ban)
• Topic ban[132] and interaction ban[133] due to behavior in GMO topics.

Since ArbCom (within the last year)

• Warned for violating topic ban.[134]
• Topic ban expanded by Arbs after original ArbCom ban due to behavior they found to be disruptive.[135]
• Blocked for violating I-ban by delving into editor interactions in GMO topics and vexatious use of AE noticeboard [136]
• Tries to comment on AE case directly relating to a GMO topic.[137]
• Alt-med topic ban extended due to continued battleground behavior.[138]
• Warned for more battleground behavior where a proposal gained some traction to ban DrChrissy from admin boards due to more vexatious filings.[139]

That's just after a quick search of summary level discussions, bans, etc. without getting into DrChrissy's actual comments (I'd run out of room relitigating everything within the last year). It's obvious they are not keeping their nose clean or acting on why they got banned in the first place. We're finally getting peace in the GMO topics (and nearly a whole month without a related AE case). The topic ban is still preventing further disruption as evidenced by DrChrissy's continued behavior documented in their other topic ban appeal denials. That's especially since it's clear they've been hanging around the periphery of GMO-related meta issues on editors' general behavior that have just been sanctioned in the topic.

I'd urge Arbs to continue preventing this disruption in the GMO topic as it's already been made clear DrChrissy cannot handle nuanced topic bans as they are requesting. That's especially with DrChrissy's pre-case actions being the straw that broke the camel's back (for eventual better or worse) that led to the opening of the original GMO case. If they have since not been able to appeal their other (and earlier) topic ban due to the same battleground behavior, that's also a good indication the more recent GMO ban should remain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

Context matters, opinion doesn't. I have zero hope that anything I say here will affect the outcome of this appeal, but perhaps if someone questions the modus operandi of the encyclopedia enough someone somewhere will begin to look more deeply into how we deal with editors. The extensions to this sanction were not added because Dr Chrissy deliberately tried to skirt the boundaries of the sanctions but because the boundaries of the sanction were in the original wording, unclear. For example:

There is disagreement about the close on 16 May of the topic-ban discussion about DrChrissy. (See discussion about it here, here and here.) Beeblebrox closed it as a ban from "biomedical articles," [68][69] and told DrChrissy that she was banned from "human biomedicine." [70] He later changed his advice to DrChrissy to "biomedical articles, broadly construed," [71] in response to a request that the ban include nonhuman animals. There was barely a mention of animals during the discussion. DrChrissy is an academic in a mainstream university who specializes in animal behaviour and animal welfare. He has written animal articles without a problem, including Feather pecking, Cognitive bias in animals, Deception in animals, Pregnancy in fish, Declawing of crabs and Self-anointing in animals. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to write about animals without mentioning health issues, and he needs to be able to write without looking over his shoulder. So the question is whether the biomedical topic ban extends (or should extend) to nonhuman animals. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We have to be careful in saying that an editor is a POV pusher, or doesn't care about the encyclopedia as a whole because they describe a sanction in terms we don't agree with. No one says an editor has to agree with a sanction, but what we do say is that the editor has to abide by the sanction which assumes that in the first place the sanction is clearly worded. We can't accuse an editor of stepping over boundaries if the boundaries are not clear or do not exist.

As a general statement: One of the situations which occurs on Wikipedia is that we get extremely knowledgeable people who begin to edit without the background many experienced editors have. These editors don't necessarily have the understanding of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources and in attempting to add sources are treated to sometimes, and even often, nasty incivilities. Not surprisingly, newer editors can respond by digging in. Experienced editors often respond with annoyance and, "this is a time sink". Yes it is, but this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and part of that is to use the expertise of other editors where it can be the most useful. What is always missing from these equations is the response of the experienced to the inexperienced, the disrespect shown to those who are actually off-Wikipedia experts and the ownership of a self - selected group towards certain kinds of articles. I understand there are those who are attempting to disrupt with information that biases the reader; we have to be able to delineate those from those who are learning the ropes. I probably wouldn't have responded to this clarification given the chances that anything will change this appeal not because the arbs are unfair or are not knowledgable but because the process cannot give them kind of information we need to come to a fair conclusion, and human beings, all of us, are not un biased or without our own belief systems often unknown to the owners, but today I feel somewhat fed up, not with the arbs who I always assume are doing their best but with a system that doesn't work very well.

The arbs might be better served here if they actually asked DrChrissy some questions about his editing rather than take for granted the comments here which lack context and are opinions. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Capeo

It would be a mistake to rescind this sanction. This is one of the (too few) cases where an ArbCom case and subsequent DS and ARCA's pretty much removed all disruption from a huge swath of articles. Aside from a few drive-by SPA's that quickly disappear, the entire suite of GMO related articles has been relatively quiet. DrChrissy contributes well in other areas but still doesn't seem to grasp why all these sanctions were placed on them. Their insistence that they weren't found to be pushing a particular POV, despite the evidence presented in so many arenas that lead to the sanctions, or broadening of sanctions, is baffling to me. It's something they have claimed before and something they are still claiming here. This suggests they still don't see what the original issues were with their editing, such as adding almost nothing but negative and often badly sourced material to GMO articles.

I have to note as well that Olive mentions above that many of these comments lack context. To that I'd like to point out that most, if not all, the Arbs here were presented evidence in various venues, some going all the way back to the GMO case I believe, so I'm sure they are aware of the context. Capeo (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

• Cleaned. For the future, please use this link to file requests for amendment. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline. The need to protect the encyclopaedia from the disruption you're quite liable to cause has not subsided. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. Sadly, I see nothing in this request that makes me amenable to granting it: no reasons are given, nor any indication of awareness of the results of past behavior. I think there is a distinct lack of understanding here, indicated also by the statement "topic bans are imposed to protect articles"--that is not their only goal. Being oblivious to one's disruptive effect on noticeboards and in discussions is a very good reason not to grant this request. DrChrissy, I'm sorry, but this won't do. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline I supported the topic ban expansion last January, I have seen no reason to lift it at this time, and am in agreement with what Salvio says. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline I also see no insight/awareness of the problems that led to the topic bans. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (September 2018)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 David Tornheim at 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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:

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Kingofaces43

Statement by David Tornheim

I’m sure it’s not a bad faith edit on Kingofaces43’s part; however, without having the courtesy of notifying me, Kingofaces has prominently mentioned me at this WP:AE discussion.

My question to ArbCom is this: Under the terms of my topic ban in this area, am I allowed to respond to King’s statements regarding me?

King has also prominently mentioned me with regard to my TBAN at this open WP:AN/I discussion. Am I allowed to respond there or somewhere else? Is there an appropriate venue? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to all the arbs that have weighed in. I appreciate the feedback. I support the close. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I don't think much else needs to be said aside from that this filing or following the AE case is a violation of David's GMO topic ban. That's in part why they weren't pinged or alerted, which considering their topic ban, could have been considered pointy, grave-dancing, baiting, etc. if I had done so. The case also wasn't particularly relevant to David (no new sanctions being imposed on them) aside from me saying here's an example of pretty parallel behavior that got people topic-banned in the topic. People aren't always familiar with the GMO aspersions principle and the history of it, so examples of past issues with it at AE are helpful for admins who haven't followed the topic.

Either way, the topic ban was supposed to keep David out of this topic. I'm not sure why he thinks it would be ok to comment in an AE case on GMOs. If anything, it feels in similar territory as this AE case by another topic-banned editor with the take home message being that topic-banned editors should know better than to involve themselves in GMO DS issues unless it's to appeal their topic ban. We had problems at ANI with David violating their topic ban recently as well as concerns in this ANI thread of vexatious use of admin boards to proxy battleground behavior from the GMO topic. I chose to ignore it at that time after removing their initial topic-ban violation, but if this behavior continues and an admin doesn't call David out for that, it seems like a pretty straightforward subject to bring to AE. This venue's not really needed for that though, so I'm not sure what arbs could say here other than steer clear of the topic if anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

It seems to me that if anyone proposes any kind of sanctions or other actions against David, anywhere, David has every right to respond, anywhere – but that's not what's going on here. Pointing to a past case involving him does not require a response from him; the past case stands unless there is a successful appeal. And there certainly is the appearance that he has been following editors against whom he has a grudge following his GMO topic ban: link. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Hijiri88

I'm frankly shocked that nothing has been done witht David since his first (one-month) block for TBAN violation. He hasn't apparently made any attempt to improve his behaviour, and has been blatantly hounding Jytdog, recently showing up at ANI for the first time in sixteen months for the sole purpose of undermining him in two separate threads. This is obviously revenge for the whole GMO mess, even though Jyt, who was already banned himself in the original case, had nothing to do with David's banning -- that didn't stop him from dancing on Jyt's metaphorical grave during the AE thread that led to his own TBAN, and it doesn't seem to be stopping him now. He has barely contributed anything to the mainspace in at least a year, and seems much more interested in picking fights. (Note that so-called "kombucha" does not appear to fall under GMO, even broadly, so neither Jyt nor David violated a TBAN simply by making edits related to it; my contention is that, by continuing to go after Jytdog as he has been, David is engaging in the same disruption that led to his TBAN, in clear retalliation for the GMO incident several years ago).

Obviously, ARCA is not the best place for me to be bringing this up, as I don't think it quite rises to the level of an ArbCom site ban at this point, but I do think the IDHT regarding his own TBAN, followed by a swift and long block, followed be storming away from the project for the better part of a year, followed by ... [140] (and probably more than a few others), followed by hounding Jytdog, combined with his barely making any noteworthy contributions to the mainspace during this time, I think this probably does rise to the level of some kind of community sanction, perhaps an indef block.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

No comment on the request for clarification, and I have never been involved in the whole GMO stuff, but as Hijiri and Tryptofish hint above, it may be time to consider a one-way IBan of Davod Tornheim towards Jytdog and Kingofaces (and possibly others who are as yet unmentioned here). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• That AE thread is not about you, so no, you may not comment on it. This thread is not inherently a topic ban violation, as it is an attempt to seek clarification on the topic ban itself. Using this thread as a platform to comment about the AE thread would be, but that hasn't happened yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Recuse. Katie^talk 15:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Recuse - I'm recused on GMOs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• What Rob said, see WP:BANEX. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Also noting that the AE thread has now been closed anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Noting that I agree with Rob with his statement. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Nothing further to add, except that I always encourage an abundance of caution when it comes to BANEX and thank David Tornheim for seeking a clarification. An answer has been provided and the AE has been closed. I move for this ARCA to be closed in 24 hours barring no objections. Mkdw ^talk 17:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• No objection from me, I also agree with Rob. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (November 2018)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 Petrarchan47 at 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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:

• Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [141]
• [142]
• [143]
• [144]

Statement by Petrarchan47

I am appealing this action by Drmies: [145]​

Background:

• KingofAces43 opened an WP:AE​ case against me. ​[146]​

• The majority of the community weighed in on my side​. [147]

• KingofAces43 contacted two administrators about this case:
  • Seraphimblade ​[148]​
  • Drmies [149]​ who said, "Kingofaces, I am sure you want more, and I am sorry I have no more to offer at this time." ​[150]​

• After ​Sandstein closed the case [151],
• Drmies reopened it. [152]​

Drmies had no authority to reopen the case according to policy​. violating WP:ADMINACCT Dismissing an enforcement request​​

In this 2015 case the Committee unanimously agreed "once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened". Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)​

Drmies was informed of the violation and said, "There is nothing wrong with reopening a thread; if one admin can close it, surely another can reopen it, especially if a third admin thinks there's something to the request". [153]

(The "third admin" was AGK who weighed in after the case was closed ​​​[154]​, and after Drmies reopened it, banned me indefinitely from all GMO-related pages. [155])

@Serial Number 54129: I have struck mention of WP:ADMINACCT as unnecessary. petrarchan47คุก 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:

• Yes I am appealing my topic ban, with a focus on the reopening of my AE case which violates this DS rule:

Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee

This procedure was not followed.

• I am not precluding other issues being considered, such as the severity of AGK's determination.

Note: There has been considerable activity in my case over the last 24 hours. I would appreciate if you wait to close this case until I have responded further. petrarchan47คุก 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I managed to have completely missed the note on my talk page; my apologies.

I really don't have much to say. This is an attempt to get something undone by way of a technicality, that some procedure was not followed or was broken--it seems to me that there is already broad agreement that this simply doesn't apply. For starters, there's Sandstein's "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted." More importantly, in my opinion, is the suggestion that everything is covered, or should be covered, by procedure. BTW, I think the community should be pleased that admins are willing to disagree and to consider and reconsider matters, and that more admins are willing to step up to the plate: all of us are making a small number of admins, including Sandstein, pull all the weight at AE. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Petrarchan: it's funny, but years and years ago, before I was an admin myself, I'd watch these candidates get asked at RfA, "when would you invoke IAR"? And I literally had NO idea, thinking the rules captured most if not everything, and IAR was only used to keep stuff that was deleted at AfD or something. Silly, huh. Now, if it is the judgment of the committee that indeed this little bit of procedure, this complaint, is valid, and that that would vacate the topic ban, I'd think it would be a good candidate for IAR, but I also think that this entire matter will either be appealed or pop up again at AE, and that it will turn out that while you thought you were building something here, you were actually digging a hole. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

First, linking to instants in the discussion gives an incomplete picture. Here is the full enforcement thread.

Appellant argues that per this principle in a case decision, enforcement requests are carved in stone if an administrator {{hat}}s it. Such a rule would be finicky, even for Wikipedia arbitration. Mercifully, decision principles are not binding. The actual rule is that requests are dismissed with a consensus of uninvolved administrators.

When the request was first closed, 1 administrator supported acting and 1 did not. Consensus: absent. Once a consensus emerged, 2 administrators favoured action and 1 was ambivalent. Consensus: existed. I think what happened between times is irrelevant. AGK ■ 20:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I agree with Winged Blades of Godric below that the grounds given for this appeal are invalid. But I certainly don't join Winged Blades of Godric's personal attacks on the appellant, which, having been made in an arbitration forum, should result in appropriate action from arbitrators or clerks. Sandstein 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I'm not really sure what's intended here. Petrachan47 was topic-banned from GMOs by AGK through discretionary sanctions. How the AE ended up being closed doesn't affect that topic ban or any sort of appeal. Topic-banned editors cannot bring up the subject material, admin board discussions, etc. of their ban unless it's directly relevant to an appeal, so I'm not sure why Petrarchan is trying to bring this up as opposed to someone else who isn't topic-banned if this is meant as a more meta-AE clarification rather than their own ban. I don't see any mention of a topic-ban appeal, and even if there was, none of what's posted here so far would address anything relevant towards an appeal, such as addressing the long-term behavior issues they were banned for in the first place we'd expect of an actual appeal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

He had raised the same point at Sandstein's t/p, a month back, where Sandstein pointed him to the same and he replied No worries, thanks for responding.∯WBG^converse 08:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There would be some minimal merit, if he had chosen this venue to criticize AGK's final decision and/or the quantum of the sanction but here we have something about Drmies' actions as perceived violations of ADMINACCT and previous ArbCom decisions.

FWIW, I pretty much concur with Tryptofish's comemnts at the original ARE-thread and think that the awarded sanction easily passes the rational basis review.∯WBG^converse 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129

• I'd disagree with User:Sandstein's analysis that fucking incompetent rises to the level of a personal attack; it merely recasts WP:CIR slightly more robustly (possibly, on refelection, slightly overly robustly, as although the question of competence is fundamental, it can also be an extremely sensitive one).
• @Petrarchan47: Wot's ADMINACCT got to do with it? ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been mentioned, and I've been involved in this since the original case, so I will briefly say that there are insufficient grounds for any action here. The claim that the majority of the community were on her side is a stretch, and the rest sounds to me like wikilawyering about how an AE thread was closed. The bottom line is that the enactment of AE sanctions was in conformance with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

Doug Weller, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, Worm That Turned, Callanecc, PMC

Herein the confusion lies, and I request that the arbs please explain how they or any other admin can overrule the following Arbitration decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate)

• 6.1) Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened.
  In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.
  Passed 9 to 0 at 8:25 pm, 23 August 2015, Sunday (3 years, 3 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

We are dealing with a rather important decision that was made by ArbCom and I see no justification for changing that decision. Are you now saying that Sandstein did not dismiss an enforcement request because what I read was that, technically, he did dismiss it when he specifically stated that he did not agree the evidence was convincing and closed the case which is an administrative action. He also stated that the "reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now." That action was technically an administrative action of closing the case. I am excluding the ping to Drmies because anything stated after the decision to close is in opposition to the ArbCom ruling. We cannot keep pulling these stunts - and yes, that's what I believe has happened here and it has a chilling effect. For one thing, it is not fair to the accused to be endlessly drug through the mud only to survive and have another admin with a different POV drop the blade on the guillotine​. That's as close to double indemnity as it gets and it's just plain wrong. When an admin has used their discretionary judgment based on the merits of a case and what other admins apparently​ have agreed to by their silence, and the finding of fact is that no action should be taken - well, that is the close; i.e. the dismissal of the case and as such no other admin can reopen it regardless of what the closing admin stated after his closing argument. Where does it say that an admin may close a case but allow others to take whatever action they deem appropriate when it involves DS?? Such an action is completely opposite of the ArbCom decision. I'm asking the arbs I've pinged to please show me the exact ruling that allows such a close to be overturned once it has been formally closed as no action. This case was not heard at AN/I or AN - it was heard at AE which to me means the decisions made by ArbCom should prevail. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

PMK, please show me specifically where it states what you believe to be applicable in this case. I included the actual finding of fact decision by ArbCom and feel that if what you believe is true, it will be in writing somewhere. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Further clarifying - where does it say an admin can overrule a decision by ArbCom? ArbCom stated unequivocally that Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened. It's black and white - no ifs, ands or buts - there is nothing in that decision that even suggests a case can be reopened and overturned...not even a hint...the admin executed an enforcement action and dismissed it. Period, the end. Whatever he says after that is not applicable because it would be a violation of the ruling. Had Sandstein said something along the line of I disagree with the arguments, the evidence is unconvincing...yada yada...and I hereby concede to let others make the final decision and close the case. That is not what happened - he closed the case - and Drmies reopened it despite ArbCom's clear decision that once a case is closed it may not be reopened. I am not aware of any amendments or changes to that decision. If there are, please show me. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

• I've removed some statements made by WBG at the direction of a member of the arbitration committee. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Sandstein's comment closing the thread stated that another administrator could take action if he or she thought it was warranted. Given that statement, the usual rule against reopening a closed AE request would not apply in this instance. If Petrarchan wishes to appeal from his topic-ban or seek to end it, he should focus on the substantive reasons the topic-ban was imposed rather than procedural issues. @Winged Blades of Godric: It is a bit contradictory to accuse an editor of trolling and of incompetence for the same post, since they imply very different mind-sets. On the other hand, it is quite acceptable to respond to the post without alleging either of these things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• There are several named parties to this ARCA that have yet to provide statement. I would like to hear from some of them before making a decision. Mkdw ^talk 17:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• I've read this a few times now, and Petrarchan47, am I to understand that you're not appealing the GMO topic ban per se, but in fact appealing the "re-opening" of the thread? I assume, with the hope that if we confirm the thread should not have been re-opened, then the ban wouldn't have happened, and therefore can be dismissed. Well, no - I have no issue with the thread being re-opened, there had been little discussion and Sandstein closed as such, explicitly allowing for Drmies (or any other admin) to take action. If he'd closed as "clearly no violation", that might be different. Worm^TT(talk) 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues, Sandstein closed the thread specifically allowing other admins to modify the outcome at their discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• As do I. I don't see grounds for granting the appeal. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Same; Sandstein explicitly closed the thread to allow for later modification, so it's not invalid. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Atsme, I would argue that Sandstein used the discretion afforded to administrators in handling AE requests to specifically leave room for Drmies (or someone else) to reopen the thread. Just as we respect an admin's discretion in crafting situationally-specific sanctions, we should also respect an admin's decision to close with a situationally-specific caveat, as was done here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment - Sandstein exercised his judgment to dismiss the thread while explicitly carving out an opening for Drmies to exercise his judgment if he disagreed with Sandstein's. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
      • That principle is obviously intended to prevent situations like the one that resulted in the case you're quoting, where one admin unilaterally (ie without the consent of the dismissing admin) overruled a dismissal and blocked someone for a month. It is clear in this case that Drmies did have the prior consent of the dismissing admin, so his action was hardly a unilateral reversal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with my fellow admins. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (March 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 EllenCT at 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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:

• EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Kingofaces43

Statement by EllenCT

Do the discretionary sanctions imposed on "genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed" apply to discussion of the decline in insect populations in general, or to anything in this edit in particular? I ask because Kingofaces43's revert, replacing a blog post and unreviewed advocacy organization sources opposed to a peer reviewed literature review, was accompanied by a warning on my talk page that they do. I am not the first editor to question whether overly-broadly construing discretionary sanctions is being used by Kingofaces43 to gain leverage in content disputes. EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: the review in question says, "Habitat loss by conversion to intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines. Agro-chemical pollutants, invasive species and climate change are additional causes."

If the decline in insect populations judged to be within the scope of restrictions on discussing agricultural chemicals, then I would like to take this opportunity to appeal my 2016 AE topic ban, as I have fully respected it until this issue arose today. EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: what do you think I am trying to game? There was already consensus to undo your revert because of the quality of your sources before I asked this question. In any case, my request to appeal the 2016 topic ban stands. EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I had forgotten the full scope of my topic ban after three years and have struck the talk page comments which violated it. (Clearly I would not have highlighted the violation here if I was trying to circumvent it.) I still hope to appeal the 2016 restrictions. EllenCT (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: understood; I withdraw the request to appeal and will take it up later. I'd like to try to address the controversy surrounding the sources without referring to organizations involved with pesticides, or even pesticides at all, for that matter, just to be on the safe side. EllenCT (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

EllenCT's topic ban is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.[156].

The aspersions about me trying to gain leverage in content disputes comment due to me actually following the DS in this subject seems to be in violation of that ban and isn't covered by WP:BANEX even here. I had to deal with another editor doing this at ARC about a week ago, so I would appreciate if arbs or clerks would enforce both the ban and DS on comments here this time.

That said, EllenCT already made this comment at a talk page claiming the Entomological Society of America, a major insect science organization, was a pesticide lobbyist organization. EllenCT already views the subject as covered by pesticides and made that comment also violating their ban about sources too. That should be a clear indication the behavior hasn't changed. The content stuff they bring up had already been agreed upon by other editors, not just me, so it that's more targeted pursuit.

For some background, EllenCT was one of the main editors that caused us to have to craft the GMO/pesticide WP:ASPERSIONS principle here in order to prevent patent battleground behavior in the topic where disruptive editors frequently engaged in shill gambits about pesticides to attack editors (more on that at their AE topic ban). That ban was mostly because they were often harassing and hounding me across pages, so I'm very concerned they want to appeal their topic ban (proposed in lieu of a one-way interaction ban) in order to edit exactly where I'm active again. Besides being mostly removed from GMOs and pesticides with that ban, they've had sanctions elsehwere. We've had recent flareups of those kinds of aspersions problems with other editors and lack of enforcement (something for another ARCA someday), but we definitely don't need to reintroduce another editor with this behavior.

To focus on the actual question, insecticides/pesticides are listed as one of the main causes of the declines in reviews[157][158][159][160], and the DS were made broad in both GMOs and pesticides to prevent gaming them. One can debate edge issues in other topics where a only a certain paragraph or section may truly fall under the DS, but this is an event with pesticides listed as a prominent direct cause. One could make an argument that broadly construed isn't even needed to cover it, but broadly construed removes any reasonable question. As already seen in past insect decline related requests, we're already having problems with edit warring and pesticide-based aspersions with related WP:GAMING, so it's definitely become a topic where both the DS/1RR and enforcement are needed to prevent disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

• EllenCT is subject to some restrictions per an AE decision: [161]. It seems to me that asserting here about Kingofaces, that his use of the GMO DS is "being used by Kingofaces43 to gain leverage in content disputes" comes close to "discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors", and although her request here does not refer to "the actions of corporations or persons related to" GMOs, she is obviously discussing the GMO topic area.
• I'd like to explain some issues about the relationship to the content in this request to the scope of the GMO DS, as well as the course of events in previous discussions. First of all, as I previously said here: [162], yes the decline in insect populations is within scope (and most certainly close enough to scope to mean that an editor pointing to the DS is not being disruptive), because the available source material attributes a large part of the decline in insect populations to the agricultural use of insecticides, which are clearly "agricultural chemicals". Second, EllenCT provides a diff to something that GoldenRing had said, but does not reference the subsequent discussion. As I note in the diff of my own comment above, I was considering coming here to pose a question very similar to EllenCT's myself. But I didn't, because GoldenRing subsequently said this: [163], indicating his agreement that insecticides are indeed within scope. So the question here seems to come down to whether an edit in which the content added by that edit does not explicitly mention pesticides, on a page where the DS apply, is somehow exempt from the DS that apply to that page. My understanding has always been that when DS apply to a page as a whole (and, again, there is no way to cover insect population decline without giving significant weight to insecticides), then it is reasonable to expect all editors editing the page (perhaps excepting minor gnomish fixes) to adhere to the DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ellen: "Agro-chemicals" = "agricultural chemicals". Your edit involves a source that specifically refers to agricultural chemicals.

More broadly, I think it may be helpful to add that several GM crops were created for the specific purpose of causing a decrease of insect populations on those crops: List of genetically modified crops#Insect resistance. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As an additional bit of information, there was a Request for Clarification shortly after the original case, in which the DS scope was discussed extensively: [164]. At that time, I and others raised the question of how broadly "agricultural chemicals" should be understood, and whether there was a danger of having the scope applied beyond the intended scope of the GMO case: [165], [166]. The response from one of the two drafting Arbs was this: [167], which I take to mean that it should be understood as broadly as possible, in order to avoid having editors trying to argue about scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtable

This seems a reasonable request. King's been slapping DS tags on editors who tried to refer to studies showing bug decline since 2017, which even he admitted was "borderline". One of King's AE requests was closed as "out of scope" in January, with admins + a veteran editor (Collect) unanimously disagreeing with King. That said, a game changing high level review came out in February, and from that point WP:Due does seem to demand mention of pesticides in any article length treatment of bug decline. On the other hand, the Insect article is already over long, so only warrants a few lines on decline. The review itself lists the 4 main causes of the decline as habitat destruction, pollution, climate change & invasive species. (with pesticides later discussed as a sub cause under pollution, albeit a major one.). So there's no way the Insect article necessarily has to mention pesticides.

Due to current disruption, with King edit warring against multiple editors and trying to wikilawyer against SlimVirgin herself, it might be useful if we could have a ruling that clarifies whether the DS applies to the Insect article. There seems to be reasonable arguments either way, it would just be nice to have it settled so there is one less reason for contention.FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

As an admin trying to pick through all this, I agree that it would be useful for the committee to clarify whether any discussion of insect biodiversity / population decline falls within the scope of the GMO DS. An alternative way of asking the same question is whether this edit falls within the scope of the GMO DS?

Kingofaces43 has repeatedly insisted that it does (eg here), because (according to them) insect decline and pesticides are inextricably linked and some of the sources used in that diff also discuss pesticides' role in insect decline (I haven't checked whether this last part is true, but I assume it is). I'm still skeptical; IMO this is like saying any discussion of American manufacturing would necessarily fall under APDS. However, I'm prepared to be wrong on this. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• It seems the original question has been answered/worked out. I don't think shifting this into an appeal is a particularly good idea for many reasons. Mainly, such an appeal really should go to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN. Yes, editors do have the ability to come straight to ARCA if they wish, but that means we don't have any type of community comment on the editor's recent conduct which is elicited at AE/AN. I rarely vote to accept appeals that bypassed an available community appeal option. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It is up to the community whether a particular topic fits within enacted discretionary sanctions, generally. ArbCom only steps in if there is widespread disagreement among admins. I see no reason to break from that model here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (July 2020)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 David Tornheim at 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification TonyBallioni
• diff of notification Seraphimblade

Information about amendment request

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

• Remove restriction

Statement by David Tornheim

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

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

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

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

@Bradv and GorillaWarfare::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Motion

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

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

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

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

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

(1) I did not ask further for clarification here at WP: ARCA or anywhere else.

(2) I did not edit anything remotely related to glyphosate, i.e. anything involving GMOs, pesticides, companies that make these products, etc.

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

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

Statement by TonyBallioni

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

Statement by Seraphimblade

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

As someone who spent a lot of time trying to curate the GMO topic and deal with the disruption David Tornheim and other editors caused, I'm going to ask arbs to carefully read the comments (especially admins) from both David's original topic ban AE, and the appeal, especially in the context of how frustrated the community was with what David was constantly stirring up in this topic. A lot of David's actions outlined there more or less forced us to need a DS-enforced RfC on the scientific consensus for genetically modified food safety. There (and before) David frequently engaged in denialism on the consensus, and in the real-world, that is generally treated similarly to climate change denial, anti-vaccine sentiment, etc.[168][169] Such WP:PSCI policy violations generally require a significant demonstrated change in subject matter competence for sanctions to be not needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a reminder since this is still open that group battleground behavior was an issue at David's original ban where Jusdafax was also sanctioned. Jusdafax's Unless one assumes bad faith comment is just continuing that same pot stirring from old disputes. That case partly shows why those of us science editors actually in the subject are so cautious about this all.

Otherwise Nosebagbear's comments are a fairly even-handed read of the situation. There are plenty of GMOs that don't deal with glyphosate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Side note

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

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

On motion

• Bradv, I'm a bit concerned about your comments that all GMO topics may be related to glyphosate is a compelling explanation. On one end of the spectrum in terms of full WP:AGF, that's a very poor subject matter competence issue for an editor like David who is not new to the subject at all. They could have edited Genetically modified animal, subsections of Genetically modified maize, Genetically modified insect, Genetically modified fish, Genetically modified bacteria, Genetically modified tree, Genetically modified virus, Religious views on genetically modified foods, etc. for just an extremely small partial list without even needing to touch on glyphosate. No one should be making such an argument in reality, nor should it hold water with even a cursory glance at the subject. Just off the top of my head, that would be like saying you can't edit in climate change topics if you're topic-banned from Al Gore.

On the other end of the spectrum in terms of WP:FRINGE though, which has been an already established issue with David, is that glyphosate has been treated as a sort of pervasive boogeyman in the subject by fringe proponents, similar to what we see with moving goalposts on vaccines "causing" autism pseudoscience. One of the issues in this subject is fringe proponents blaming all perceived ills on a topic of the day, namely glyphosate lately.[170]. When I see someone making an argument that glyphosate is so pervasive in the subject that it cannot be approached without needing to address glyphosate, that does throw up a red flag about continued POV mentality issues even after all this time of being banned.

I understand arbs are not going to be up to speed on all the fringe stuff that happens in this subject (apologies for my section length in trying to help with that over these months), just as how they may not immediately see red flags in the nuts and bolts of a climate change denial case, but those comments should add more concern, not less. I've said more than enough about the history with David previously, but this bit on what the subject matter actually entails did need to be brought up. As Capeo alluded to, such seemingly innocuous language can instead be major red flags to us subject editors who've dealt with it first-hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, (and current commenting arbs Joe, SoWhy, Newyorkbrad, and Bradv) it's definitely the latter in this case on your comment speaking as a public sector agricultural scientist (i.e., no COI, etc.) since you ask . I mentioned all the GMO subjects above they could have edited, but I neglected to say the DS/topic bans don't cover just GMOs. They also cover pesticides, and many pesticides have nothing to do with GMO (or glyphosate) at all outside of a select few. I'll just link Pesticide#Definition as a start to that rabbit hole. Even giving the incorrect idea that someone couldn't edit after their GMO & pesticide ban without hitting on glyphosate a generous buffer for the sake of argument, I'd guess that at least 75% of articles would have no conflict with the glyphosate ban. We just cannot misrepresent the topic by saying that glyphosate is so pervasive, and I linked above how that mentality gets into WP:PSCI territory. Even Arbs cannot override that policy and endorse such a viewpoint without running into problems with that. That's just the inherent nature of the subject though.

The approach you do mention though is pretty much what was suggested at the last AE. Why the ban should be lifted without them following that advice with ample opportunity to do so is what concerns me given their previous focus on glyphosate. Let them demonstrate it in topics within the old ban they have nothing to do with glyphosate. Even I can't argue against that, and it shouldn't be difficult for David considering how much they used to edit in the subject (and should know better than to make the claim they did). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jusdafax and WP:ASPERSIONS

Sigh, I wasn't going to post here further, but since Jusdafax pinged me twice I'll briefly respond to the hounding (I don't like my section length, but it could be worse for being an active editor in the subject of a 3+ month ArbCom request). In short, Jusdafax had a warning logged in the AE sanction log for casting aspersions (a principle from the original GMO case) for their battleground needling in GMO topics in association with David's original AE case.[171]. It's an enforcement action regardless of how you try to split it, shouldn't be a red herring from why the warning happened, WP:SANCTION is clear to look at the logs, and it does seem like hounding to me when they try to paint such a small detail into "hostility", "locking down the topic", etc. against their warning.

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

Statement by JzG

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

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

Statement by Mr Ernie

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

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

Statement by Nosebagbear

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

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

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

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

Statement update post-proposal

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

Statement by Jusdafax

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

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

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

• Update, May 12, 2020 - I agree with Capeo that this now nearly two-month-old request is indeed "really not fair to David," who shows exemplary patience with the long-lasting process here. However, Capeo provides no diffs regarding DT's editing, and argues that DT should essentially be permanently topic banned, despite the fact that "David has been prolifically and constructively contributing." I would ask, what else exactly does David Tornheim have to do? DT has repeatedly proved his worth to Wikipedia in the nearly four years since he got his only block. Give the guy some credit, assume good faith, and let's move on. Jusdafax (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Update, June 15, 2020 - I am encouraged by the motion, the several additional favorable comments and by David Tornheim's further clarification yesterday, which is clear and precise, with appropriate diffs and reasoning. He exhibits both outstanding patience and prudence during this several month's-long process. A request for adminship lasts a week. His request here has now dragged on for almost a quarter of a year. I submit David Tornheim has more than passed the test, and I salute him and those supporting the end to his years of sanctions. Jusdafax (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding erroneous statements here and elsewhere by Kingofaces43

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Kingofaces43 Pinging. Jusdafax (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

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

Statement by Atsme

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

Statement by SandyGeorgia

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse. Katie^talk 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• David Tornheim, can you comment on what kind of edits you plan to make in this topic area? Typically when topic bans are lifted we would want to see that the appellant (a) understands the reason for their ban, (b) can demonstrate a history of making productive edits in other areas, and (c) has a plan for doing things differently going forward. You claim in your request that you haven't made any edits in the GMO topic area since that ban was lifted, so why does it need to be lifted further? How would doing so benefit the project? – bradv🍁 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• David Tornheim Like Bradv, I'd like to hear what kind of editing you plan to do if the ban is lifted. I'm also curious to know why you haven't returned to editing GMO topics since the reduction in your topic ban scope; normally that would be a good path towards demonstrating that the remaining restriction is unnecessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Upon reading David's replies and the comments by others, I am agreeing with Jusdafax that lifting the ban after four years might be beneficial to the project. I also think David is sufficiently warned that any return to old behavior will swiftly result in sanctions again. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry this has sat for so long. I was going to go on about how busy I've been but it really is inexcusable for a simple request to sit for this long. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Genetically modified organisms

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

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

Majority reference

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

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. This has been open for quite a while now, and it wouldn't be fair to archive it without considering a motion. With regard to my question above, the assertion that all GMO topics may be related to glyphosate is a compelling explanation for why David Tornheim hasn't taken advantage of the reduced topic ban. – bradv🍁 02:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

   In response to some of the comments above I'll clarify my comment a bit further. I am by no means claiming that all GMO topics are related to glyphosate, as I am not qualified to make such a determination. However, the assertion that some admins may consider the entire topic area to be related to "glyphosate, broadly construed" is a reasonable explanation for why David Tornheim might be cautious about editing in this area, and why he has thus far avoided it. Additionally, looking at this from the other perspective, the topic ban has been in place for 4 years and no one has presented a compelling argument here for why this particular editor continues to pose a risk. The concerns I expressed in my original comment above have been answered. – bradv🍁 16:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Per my comment above and bradv. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
3. I was on the fence here, because I really would have liked to see some editing in the topic area when we loosened the restrictions last time. However, I also can respect wishing to leave a wide berth around one's restrictions, which is often wise. Let's give this a shot, and if disruption occurs the sanctions can always be reimposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
5. It is a well referenced area. if problems occur then it can be dealt with readily Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Weak support, which is why it's taken me this long to cast a vote, but four-plus years is a long time. Although I can see the counterarguments, I'm persuaded that we shouldn't hold it against an editor that he's stayed far away from the edges of his topic-ban, when that ordinarily is just what we counsel topic-banned editors to do. I urge David Tornheim to show the same caution if he now returns to editing on GMOs and related issues: start with less controversial aspects, use the best sources, avoid reverts, and engage in civil discussion where needed. If problems recur, discretionary sanctions remain available against this as against any other editor; I sincerely hope that will not prove necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
8. With the understanding that if there are further problems in this area, the ban will be rapidly re-instanted and it will be extremely difficult to appeal it again,and there could be further sanctions. I say this in the sincere hope that it won't come to that and there will be no such problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. With apologies for the long delay, and thanks to the additional comments that have helped me understand this topic area. David, the narrowing of your TBAN from GMOs to glyphosate was really your opportunity to show that you can contribute to this topic without the problems from before reoccurring. I've seen you around at AfD and the Teahouse many times, so I know you're a productive and sensible editor, but contributing to contentious and fringe topics has its own set of challenges. If you can do some editing on GMOs and come back in a few months, I'm sure I could support this, but absent that evidence I think it's better to be safe than sorry. – Joe (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Given the time that's elapsed since this discussion began, I'm going to wait another couple of days for community input on the new proposed motion before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (August 2020)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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 ProcrastinatingReader at 21:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

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

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

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

• That the scope of the 1RR remedy be changed to "genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed"

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Apologies in advance for the upcoming wikilawyering. In the GMO case, in 2015, the Committee authorised DS and 1RR with the same scope, "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". That was amended in this motion, as a result of a clarification request, and the scope was narrowed to "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." That motion only changed the scope for the DS; the 1RR remedy retains the old scope. I suppose if one wanted to wikilawyer this, the 1RR remedy currently has a broader scope than the DS itself. I'm assuming that this was an oversight, rather than intentional?

Statement by Kingofaces43

I was part of drafting both the original ArbCom and the clarification request language on the non-arb editor/subject matter expert side of things. To clarify for ProcrastinatingReader, the second motion did not functionally narrow the DS. It just clarified that yes, agricultural companies related to the locus of the dispute, genetically modified organisms and/or pesticides, were included in the DS. There was no intended change in scope, just tweaking the wording to prevent wikilawyering on scope that as going on at the time. "Agricultural biotechnology" that was also dropped and just treated as being lumped in with GMO in terms of meaning assuming broadly construed would handle the rest. "Commercially produced agricultural chemicals" was basically added to avoid a really WP:BEANS situation of someone saying water was covered by the DS. In short, a lot of care went into clarification on precise wording as opposed to scope changes.

I'd also be curious where ProcrastinatingReader came across this in terms of if there's an area that needs to be looked at further where this became an actual issue, or if they're just being preemptive. I haven't seen anything pop up on my watchlist, so I'll definitely be glad if there isn't a fire to put out.

Functionally, there's no real difference between the two right now since the motion clarifies that the companies are part of the "broadly construed" language of the original, but that also means there's no harm in updating the 1RR language to match the motion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• On an initial reading the request seems logical, but awaiting additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Absent arguments against doing so, harmonizing the two seems appropriate to eliminate confusion. DGG: you voted on that 2015 amendment. –xeno^talk 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• no objection either. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sounds sensible. I've proposed a motion below. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Genetically modified organisms: motion

Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:

Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. 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

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
2. The reason for the amendment is to match the scope of 1RR with the scope of the discretionary sanctions covering the same subject area. –xeno^talk 12:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Per the request above and per Xeno. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Per above. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 21:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
7. Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
9. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

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.