Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 15 December 2015

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Motion: BASC reform (November 2015)

Original motion

Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Original announcement

BASC scutwork

Okay, its been 20 days ... I cleaned up User:Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee and Misplaced Pages:Banning policy for ya. I'd have done User:Arbitration Committee too, but since Risker saw fit to apply one of the pointless full protections in 2009 , some one else will have to remove the BASC reference on that.

Is there a committee plan to find and update other references to BASC? NE Ent 13:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the "pointlesss". My understanding is that User:Arbitration Committee is primarily for providing contact information, and users unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages process could unknowingly confuse it with a venue for discussion. — Ched :  ?  15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, @NE Ent:. The clerks have done some, so has Doug Weller. I'll remind them to scour the shire for further references,  Roger Davies 16:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• The protection wasn't pointless. It was to prevent others, including autoconfirmed but seriously misbehaving editors, from modifying the pages or attempting to carry out discussions with Arbcom through those pages. One could say the pages are the user equivalent of a high risk template. The page is "owned" by the Arbitration Committee, just as are User:Oversight and User:Checkuser and User:Arbcom. The committee took control of those usernames back in 2009 at the suggestion of an editor who had created one of the accounts to prevent impersonation. Those issues are still valid today, they're all role accounts so are blocked, and it's really not that hard to come here and make requests when they need to be updated every six years or so. Risker (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's pointless. In the two years User:Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee sat unprotected exactly zero "unfamiliar" users mistook it for a place to contact the subcommittee, the only "unauthorized" edit (except mine) was pretty vandalism that was so unimportant it took two weeks for anyone to notice . Altering the page would have zero impact on the project; it's just not that important. NE Ent 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oversight permissions removed due to inactivity

Original announcement

@Doug Weller: The signature links for most of the supporting arbs seem broken with random letters or numbers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the with suppression? NE Ent 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The arb-wiki has special logins (to encourage security), with random letters after the username. It looks like this motion was voted on at the Arbwiki and copied across with the random letters included, thereby smashing that security. Could I suggest that the arbs change their signatures on the arb wiki to be their standard wiki signature, to prevent that happening in future? I thought that was standard procedure all ready. Worm(talk) 12:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The provisions of Misplaced Pages:Oversight#Policy do not justify suppression. If there is a security concern, the logical response would be to close existing account "arb xyz123" and create "arb (string from random.org)". NE Ent 11:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that a username for another site, which was not made public intentionally, falls squarely into "Removal of non-public personal information", and therefore suppression is the correct solution. Worm(talk) 11:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this solution would be preferable. Suppression seems reasonable (per WTT), though I am also not terribly concerned about the leak of these slightly-modified usernames, as they are useless without also knowing the account passwords. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• And the two CheckUsers (Coren & Deskana) who are also inactive? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We'll need another motion for that. Good idea about sigs on Arbwiki. Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I do wish I had known this was so close to being done anyway, Ron seems like a nice enough guy and I didn't want to besmirch him in any way, but... well you but what, he never used the tool. Anyhoo, thanks for handling it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

CU tools restored to User:Beeblebrox

Original announcement

Pls correct the link in the announcement. Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the committee for their attention to these two matters. I'll try not to be sucha pain in the ass for the whole rest of the year... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why hasn't anyone from ArbCom (or a clerk authorized to act on their behalf) requested the technical implementation of this motion? I posted a notice about the motion on the meta permissions board, but apparently I don't have the necessary authorization and the request has to be officially made by ArbCom. Biblioworm 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Biblioworm: I've emailed the arbs quickly. I'm not sure if clerks are authorized to request it, though, either on meta or by the Committee. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh Someones Left Sock (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh,  Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I emailed Beeblebrox at 9:58 last night UTC telling him about the motion and apologising for being too tired to implement it. I also posted the same to the list. As it is I got the link wrong posting it here! Sorry about the 4 hour delay. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, why could the stewards not action Biblioworm's request which cross-referenced to Doug's post to the noticeboard? It seems overly bureaucratic to require an Arbitrator to post to meta, when they have already announced the decision here... WJBscribe (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this bureaucrat is unimpressed ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not an expanding bureaucrat? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's the holiday season. All bureaucrats are expanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• When the steward rejected the initial request, I was thinking everything that WJB stated just above... Biblioworm 16:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just ask Billinghurst. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Back when I was both a steward and a clerk, User:Risker told me that it was general procedure that only arbs make the request, due to some past issues where it wasn't clear that the request was made on behalf of the committee. I didn't fulfill enwiki requests, but if I were to, I would probably require the same since if I screwed up, the largest Wikimedia site would now be angry with me... --Rschen7754 18:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Precisely, Rschen7754. Enwiki's arbcom had to ask the stewards to only act on requests from Arbcom because there were users who were putting in requests that were incorrect, incomplete, had not been properly vetted or approved. This also became more appropriate as rules for access were tightened; for example, it used to be acceptable for former checkusers to request tools back at any time, but that "right" of automatic return ended when Arbcom established minimal activity requirements. It appears, from what I can see, that most of those steps are still in place. It seems this has been formalized in the Steward Handbook as well, at least for Oversight, although I note the line is missing for Checkuser. Risker (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but what's the point of this requirement? If we have a post from an arbitrator stating that "User X is to be made a checkuser per ArbCom vote", why do we need an arbitrator to relay the message the Stewards? Surely any editor can make the request (backed up by a diff to the original announcement by an arbitrator of course) on meta? I'm not seeing any risk, just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy...
If an Arb posted to this board saying that "User X is to be desysopped per ArbCom vote", I would action the statement without requiring an arbitrator to cross-post to WP:BN to formally ask the bureaucrats to remove the rights. WJBscribe (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that we have seen examples in the past where editors did do that, thinking they were doing it right, and messing it up to the point that stewards were always clarifying with arbcom. In other words, it was more work when it was done by other users than when it was done by arbitrators following all of the steps. It becomes a particular pain to the stewards when there are a lot of them going through (i.e., at the end of each year); back in the day, others kept posting requests without the necessary information, without Arbcom even approving the appointments in some cases. Ensuring that privacy-related tools are only made accessible through controlled mechanisms is a feature, not a bug. Risker (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is (long held) policy. ArbCom tells stewards to whom and when we are to allocate CU and Oversight tools. Simplicity and clarity are very important when handling out these highly restricted tools. If enWP wishes to put forward a proposal to have the policy amended, then please go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

New trainee clerks (December 2015)

Original announcement (Mdann52)

Original announcement (Kharkiv07)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

Original announcement

• Thank goodness this thing is over with! Unlike most instances when there are DS, this case has both DS and 1RR for pages in the topic area. There is a template for pages covered under The Troubles case, that makes clear that there is 1RR in addition to DS. I'd like to suggest that someone who (unlike me) is good with templates, perhaps one of the clerks, should create a similar template that could be put on talk pages covered by GMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the template that I was talking about, that could easily be modified for use here: Template:Troubles restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: If this isn't done in about 12 hours, ping me and I'll do it (in my capacity as an editor, not a clerk). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks! That's great. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@L235 and Tryptofish: How's Template:ARBGMO notification. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thank you so much for doing this! And also thank you for the hatting below. I've carefully read the template, and please bear with me in my ex-college professor picky proofreading.

1. Beginning of second paragraph: "Discretionary sanctions are", not "is".
2. I kind of like the way Template:Troubles restriction explains at more length and in a more user-friendly way the idea of 1RR. The new draft treats 1RR much more briefly, and only at the end. Perhaps it would be helpful to expand a bit more on 1RR, especially for new editors who may not be familiar with the idea.
3. I just realized that we actually need two templates. The one you created is for putting on editors' user talk pages. We also need one to put at the top of article talk pages.

Again, thanks. And by the way, the events of the past two days indicate that such alerts to editors are urgently needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• This sucks. That's my take. And no one still has ever explained to me why I was named a party by Jytdog, when not a word of testimony was subsequently offered regarding me (chilling effect) and when Admin JzG/Guy, who had to be slapped with an interaction ban with SageRad due to JzG's outrageous harassment, escapes scott-free. I call bullshit. That's right. Bull shit. Jusdafax 05:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Most of these remedies are suboptimal and will do more harm than good in the long run. I don't think the Committee as a whole recognizes the crux of the problem and I am skeptical about whether most arbitrators still have the time, or even the interest, to deal with this again. Although I recognize some good-faith efforts, the overall outcome of this case has finally convinced me that the current Arbitration Committee is short-sighted, indecisive, unwilling to resolve the most entrenched disputes on Misplaced Pages, and ultimately a negative asset to the project. -RoseL2P (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The most entrenched disputes in WP are usually content disputes, as is the case here. Arb com cannot deal with them directly, and can only deal with the conduct arising from them. Since the content dispute in some cases will obviously continue, it is predictable that related conduct problems will arise. It is in that sense true we cannot deal with the fundamental issues, but such is the inevitable consequence of open editing and WP fundamental policy of having no central authority to deal definitively with content. I am quite sure the community would overwhelmingly and immediately reject any attempt of ours to put ourself into such a position. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Misplaced Pages has become the most important place on the internet to get your POV reflected. Creationists, cold fusionists, fans of quack medicines, anti-GMO, animal rights and dozens of other activists are looking to make Misplaced Pages reflect their beliefs instead of reality. Protectors of the project bur out and melt down, the cranks keep on coming. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And DrChrissy has just made Genetically Modified Livestock lol. Just to skirt GMOs. I warned you ArbCom. In the end the community is going to end up having to do what you didn't. Capeo (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The arbitration decision on DrChrissy says he is topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants (not organisms). It is reasonable for him to create Genetically modified livestock as an article he can edit. Though the topic ban on agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted seems to be a killer. What is that meant to cover? Is water an agricultural chemical, broadly interpreted? I suppose Sandstein would say yes. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The continual painting of anyone who is critical of the agrochemical or biotech industry as equivalent to "quack" and "fringe" and "anti-science" is for one thing inaccurate and for another, odious and prejudicial. It's nasty language and j resent it highly. It's a continuous propaganda move that's propagated by a vitriolic and vocal minority here. I reject it. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to further correct @Capeo:'s incorrect mind-reading of my creating Genetically modified livestock. I noticed there was already an article on Genetically modified crops so I thought one on livestock would be a nice sister-article, and also allow separate progression of the laboratory animal articles e.g. (Genetically modified mouse), thus forming a nice suite of articles.DrChrissy 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

enetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals broadly construed. That's an extremely broad swath of content, especially the agricultural chemicals one. Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• All I can say is I told you so! Kingofaces43 has started reverting out content from his now-topic-banned opponents and templated me for edit warring immediately after I made one edit on Glyphosate - and still has the gall to accuse me of edit warring and creating drama, threatening AE after I made one edit. Arbs should have dealt with him.Minor4th 05:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. you totally dropped the ball on JzG too. There's always the possibility of a request for amendment to deal with him since y'all decided that it would be procedurally improper to make any findings about him after refusing to add him as a party after several requests. I'm so disappointed. Minor4th 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see he also templated MontanaBW for edit warring when she had made a single edit to the same article. And the beat goes on ... Minor4th 05:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Same scummy tactics. They will do anything to anyone to get what they want. Jusdafax 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

KingOfAces43 and Yobol, with their anti science smears and continued aggressive edits as well as related bullying of others has to stop. prokaryotes (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Making use of my admittedly very poor tea leaf-reading abilities, I think that the results of the recent ArbCom election mean that, when some form of GMO-2 emerges after the new year, the new membership of the Committee will be equipped to do a much better job of seeing through the noise, and actually dealing with it, than the outgoing membership was. What that means is that the loudest complainers in the discussion just above should be a lot more worried than they actually are, but I guess they don't see it the way that I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"After the new year"? That long? You're an optimist! Geogene (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only referring to when the terms of the outgoing Arbs end and the terms of the newly elected Arbs begin! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a party to the case, and pretty much the poster child of the banned editors, to state my position here in this dialogue.

In so many words, i echo Jusdafax in calling "bullshit" on the case, on so many levels. Judgments were shallow and biased. Arbitrators are tasked with judging people's behavior, not the content. For one thing, it seems there is a pervasive bias to assume that anyone editing against the general industry interests is "fringe" and "anti-GMO" and "activist" and "POV pushing" and "anti-science" etc... a general litany of prejudice exists. Let us admit this clearly. It's a slanted field to begin with, and there's a bias present. The judgment even resulted in an aspersion by one arbitrator against me in the judgment itself, when Seraphimblade said that i accuse anyone who disagrees with me on content of bullying. That is simply not true at all, and it's sadly emblematic of the prejudice that i feel against me and any other editor who has dared to work on content in a way that is not favorable to the agrochemical industry. This is such a strange state of affairs, and there is so much that remains unexamined, and needs to be unpacked here. I hope it will happen.

Let me point out that i am not inherently "anti-GMO". I've worked in labs, in microbial ecology, and worked with genetic knockout strains and such things. I understand genetic modification, and i'm not against it inherently. I'm very much on the side of science -- and of using it in an unbiased way. I've weighed in on the glyphosate page, for instance, to properly use secondary sources. I see the "other side" so to speak (those who wish to sanitize the glyphosate article for instance) as pushing a POV often moreso. It's obvious to me. And yet arbitrators and many others still speak of "anti-GMO editors" and "fringe" and "anti-science" when often those spoken of are anything but, are in fact very pro-science. Justice will not be found in this atmosphere of constant aspersion by prejudicial remarks. Science is neutral (while it can be gamed just like regulation and governance). Science is not allied with me, nor with Jytdog or Kingofaces43. It is what it is.

This case was a huge disappointment to me. I never asked to be party to it, but when it started i admit i had some hope that the issues would work out, and that justice would be done. What i've seen is a kangaroo court, though... a cabal with a few dissenting voices (including arbs) who stood up for principles and evidence, but the general current being a McCarthyism against those who are critical about whitewashing of the whole topic area.

I have called out editors who would be seen as "on my side" sometimes, and i've reverted edits that would make glyphosate look bad, for instance, because they were not right. I am not here to right great wrongs in the sense it's usually meant, but only to write great articles. Reality is its own arbiter, if the process has integrity. Unfortunately, the process here at Misplaced Pages has proven to not have integrity, and to be eminently able to be manipulated by those who work the system. The "proper channels" of dispute resolution failed me. They do not work. There is systemic bias, and a heavy gang of editors who take it upon themselves to make sure that the power structure supports their side, instead of supporting integrity, and creating a good editing environment for everyone who is willing to be civil and respect sources.

There is so much promise here at Misplaced Pages, as a place where people of many points of view can work together cooperatively, learning from each other, giving and taking, expanding our own worldviews by interacting with people of many perspectives. But that promise is being wasted, and the readers are being let down, because of the pervasive power gaming that is going on here.

We need to take a meta-level look at what is wrong, and work on fixing it. SageRad (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hey old ArbCom, I am sure I speak for such users as Keilana and Kelapstick when I say thanks for taking care of this. As in, so we don't have to. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be suffering from over-optimism, @Drmies:. As I expect you know, scientists have an ethical obligation to respect science without regard to interest or influence, and failure to uphold that obligation or neglecting to see it upheld can and will end a career. A reading of the two passages Old ArbCom cites as having "articulated a clear POV" appear, to my fresh eye, to articulate this obligation, to which every scientist subscribes. They are expressed firmly and not entirely amicably, but ethical obligations ought to be firm, not flimsy, the context was in any case not amicable, and in any case ArbCom has clearly held in AE (and AE2, and Lightbreather) that even the appearance of amicability can be dispensed with. No one would say the C**** remark was amicable. There may be backstory here that Old Arbcom has not explained well -- that’s been their habit, to be sure. But if not, this one’s bound to land back in your new laps momentarily. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, Drmies, you shouldn't get all excited yet. This case was not properly handled or completely resolved and parties that should have been included, weren't -- while this case took care of some serious issues that needed to be dealt with, I"m afraid the Arbs lost interest around the evidence phase and never regained enough interest to see the case to a meaningful conclusion. The behaviors that landed us at Arb have started afresh once the case was closed. So, yeah, there will be a GMO2 on your watch - bet on it. q:) Minor4th 08:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me--I'm urgently wanted in Timbuktu during January and February, so good luck to everyone. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals

Is this a ban from pages that deal with either one, or a ban from pages that deal only with both? Obviously DuPont is covered, as it relates to both, but Agricultural lime concentrates on an agricultural chemical without mentioning GMOs, and the article about the GMOs known as GloFish doesn't mention agricultural chemicals. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The wording was bad. Near the end of the case I warned that they needed to better clarify the scope and wording. I also said they should specifically include wording in regards to companies that manufacture these products as well because a significant portion of the conflict revolved around Monsanto yet we already have one of the topic banned actors in the case editing in regards to Monsanto. Capeo (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just let every company write their own article? That way, they could present a perfect brochure-like image to the world via Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Better idea: why don't we have them written by editors that don't have an ax to grind? Capeo (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A third idea: represent reality whether it's favorable or unfavorable to any company or any chemical or any topic at all. Allow multiple points of view to reconcile through good dialogue. Adhere to wp:npov truly, not some biased version of that concept. If a company knowingly sold a harmful chemical, let it be in the article. If it didn't then don't. Simple. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a very big difference between being in the article and being given undue weight. Capeo (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course i understand that. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire case suffers unfortunately from poor wording in the first draft of the PD combined with a failure to revise the wording for the final decision. But having followed the case, I'm confident that the intended meaning of the full phrase – "genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" – is with a boolean "or" rather than "and". Thus, it covers pages about GMOs, pages about agri biotech, and pages about ag chemicals, as well as pages about combinations thereof – but it is not restricted only to combinations of all three. As for GloFish, the advent of GMO salmon farming means that "broadly construed" should be understood broadly. As for agricultural lime, there were problems with multiple pesticide pages that did not mention GMOs, so again, it would be prudent for editors to construe it broadly. If any of the Arbs who made the decision are not too exhausted to comment, it would be good if they would check whether I got that right. And yes, Drmies, you should brace yourself for some sort of second act. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened to "agricultural biotechnology"? Was it omitted by accident or removed intentionally? While you two were leaving these comments, I was expanding my question. See below for the whole thing. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, you are right. It's in the DS, but not in the topic bans for individual editors. I'm thinking it's an accident, and requests for clarification or amendment are sure to follow. Nonetheless, I think it would be common sense for affected editors not to test the boundaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. I have obviously been thinking what this ArbCom case means to me. The 1RR applies to "Agricultural Biotechnology" broadly construed. All of you should look at the article Agricultural biotechnology and see what this includes. At least one of the topic areas has had its 1RR breached (I suspect unknowingly) today. Some of the medics will become very worried! DrChrissy 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened to "agricultural biotechnology"? Was it omitted by accident or removed intentionally? Either way, it's helpful, as use of scientific tools and techniques, including genetic engineering, molecular markers, molecular diagnostics, vaccines, and tissue culture, to modify living organisms: plants, animals, and microorganisms could embrace everything from selective breeding to Jonathan Edwards, a victim of an early vaccination attempt gone badly. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biotechnology as: “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products for specific use” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). This definition includes medical and industrial applications as well as many of the tools and techniques that are commonplace in agriculture and food production.DrChrissy 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As this case continued to drag on and on I kept getting an uncomfortable feeling re the "agricultural chemicals" wording, thinking "will it be said later that the banned editors are banned from all ag chem articles?" Each time I pushed back my fears because the case was about GM chems - even the heading of this section reads Genetically modified organisms case closed. I really do pray that I was not wrong about that... Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, I noticed the potential problem with 1RR for agricultural biotechnology a while ago. I think that some editors just became so focused on getting punishment for others, the bigger picture was not seen. Now we are all under 1RR for the Fermentation, Selective breeding articles, etc, etc. I feel sorry for the person who has to put 1RR templates on all the articles.DrChrissy 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is worth linking to here. If not? Feel free to ignore or delete. — Ched :  ?  17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's well worth linking to, although one will probably suffer no time loss in waiting for an answer if one waits until the new members take office.

That said (and I should probably have my head examined for coming to ArbCom's defense, all things considered), I really do not think that anyone who exercises common sense will have any kind of problem with respect to topics of "agricultural biotechnology" that might fall outside of either "genetically modified organisms" or "agricultural chemicals", as to whether or not it is within case scope. But please notice that I said "anyone who exercises common sense", which is not the same thing as "anyone". If someone chooses to discard common sense, well what will happen should be pretty predictable (humor about fermentation notwithstanding). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, the problem is that common sense does not prevail when people are so bloody-minded to play gotcha. Remember I told you about an editor/admin who told me to count the words relating to human medicine and laboratory animals to see if using a source would be in breach of my topic ban. This mentality will occur under the agricultural biotechnology 1RR which now exists across Misplaced Pages. Can I bring some popcorn and hide under that rock with you? ;-) DrChrissy 19:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that concern. I think the explicit carve-out for you with respect to animals is one of the things that they got right in the decision, and it should help you there. Anything that is animal, not plant, not protist, is probably OK for you. Anything remotely overlapping with GMO plant, GMO plant agriculture, or agricultural chemical, you should play it safe. If you go near a borderline, then someone playing gotcha will have enough credibility to inflict some grief on you. But if you stay extra far away from boundaries, anyone playing gotcha will look silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The best way for me to understand is to ask a specific question: Will DrChrissy be able to edit the organophosphate articles? Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the indent if you are asking me, but I'd say it would be prudent not to edit it, especially with regard to any issues of safety or controversy. But that's really a question for the Arbs, if any of them would be willing to answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This whole thread is certainly not just about me, but if ArbCom are going to look at clarification of my ban, I wonder if this includes Genetically modified organism and other articles where animals are covered but also other organisms covered by my ban. I'm not looking to make edits about organisms covered by my ban, I am simply seeking clarification about articles I am allowed to edit.DrChrissy 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And it's not about me either, so I feel awkward about answering, but I also want to, because that question is an easy one and I have no confidence that you will get a timely response from the Arbs. It's a no-brainer: you cannot touch that page or its talk, even if it's a section only about animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A proposed compromise

I can see from the ongoing discussion above, and from discussions at pages such as User talk:Petrarchan47, that the ArbCom case may have addressed some behavioral issues but did not address the underlying conflict between pro-GMO/pro-industry/pro-whateveryouwanttocallit, and anti-GMO factions within Misplaced Pages. Arguments have been made again and again both in favor of and against GMOs, to the point that we're all going around in circles across multiple talk pages (and within content articles), and I think it's safe to say most editors are firmly entrenched in their ideas, opinions, and what WP articles need to represent. Well, we're going to have to find a way to work together despite our differences, and make sure we don't burn ourselves out or conduct ourselves unprofessionally as was done previously. Let's see if we can figure out something here.

It seems that much of the argument - if you ignore the clear behavioral problems - boil down to what should be considered WP:UNDUE or WP:POV pushing when it comes to editing articles. I don't think anyone - again, outside of those editors who were censured - believes that anti-GMO scientific evidence, or discussion of the existence of anti-GMO opinions despite lack of scientific evidence, should be censored in its entirety. It's simply a matter of how those opinions are expressed within the article: not as undisputed fact, and not such that they take up 80% of the article. So, let me propose something like the following as a very generic guideline, to of course be modified based on the subject matter at hand, and known facts:

• 50% of article = Objective, uncontroversial content (chemical formula, date and method of origin, intended use, history, etc.)
• 25% of article = Commentary on scientific opinion regarding efficacy, human/animal/environmental/etc. safety, and the like (majority opinion)
• 15% of article = Commentary on scientific opinion regarding the same (minority opinion response)
• 10% of article = Response to minority opinion

I think that something like this would ensure that neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO discussions overwhelm the articles, that both opinions are expressed, that neither opinion is expressed as undisputed fact, that neither side is given UNDUE, and that (per WP policy) we all stick to what is known and the implications thereof. It also ensures that we keep to the most important facts only, without getting bogged down in the minutiae of the arguments we have spouted again and again.

OK, time to shoot holes in this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that this is a very good faith proposal, but ArbCom really isn't the right place for the discussion, because ArbCom (officially) doesn't decide content issues, only conduct. If you want, you can bring it up at an article talk page, or, if you want to apply it to multiple articles, you could try Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. (But frankly, I'm pessimistic that you will get wide agreement about this stuff.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The auto-posts on various users' talk pages instructed we, the involved parties, to discuss the ArbCom case post-mortem on this page. Article talk pages would not be sufficient as we would end up with numerous conflicting discussions, when we need a general guiding principle for the entire subject. This page may not, technically, be the "correct" place for such a discussion, but it is clearly the most centralized place for one, outside of "Requests for Mediation", which I would prefer not to use unless friendly attempts at this discussion fail. Regarding your last comment: I, too, am pessimistic, but it's worth a try. We NEED to find a way to work together. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)