Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:53, 26 May 2016

Aircorns comments

Rules

I do think the large list of rules is a bit off putting. Many could be omitted or shortened. We are pretty much requiring every commenting editor to read these so brevity should be a goal. If this is to be successful we need to encourage new editors to comment. Personally, I would keep the following rules:

• Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, all editors are required to maintain a proper level of decorum. Unnecessary rudeness, hostility, casting aspersions, and battleground mentality will not be tolerated here, in the interest of arriving at a clear, fair-minded consensus. Inappropriate conduct may be met with warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in this RfC as the administrator deems necessary. To foster a collaborative atmosphere, editors are encouraged not to bring statements made here to Arbitration Enforcement, but rather to leave it to the patrolling admins.

The first sentence seem unnecessary. I would just start with the "All editors..."

I think I ripped this from an Arbitration remedy, but I'm fine with cutting the first sentence. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• The sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about a specific question concerning article content. It is not a venue for personal opinions about GMOs in general, nor a place to relitigate past disputes.

• Please do not make changes in proposals that have already been posted. Anyone is permitted to post additional proposals, below the existing proposals.

• Threaded discussion is prohibited on the RfC page. To comment in the RfC, you must create your own section within the Comments section, placing your username in the section header. Within your own section, you may present your opinions on the proposals, and briefly pose questions to other editors or respond to questions from other editors. Do not make any edits in any other editor's section. A section may be edited only by the editor to whom it corresponds, and by enforcing administrators. Editors are encouraged to discuss and collaborate with one another on the RfC Talk page, where threaded discussion is permitted and there are no word limits.

• In each comment section, each editor is strictly limited to 800 words. There will be no exceptions. Excessively long statements will be hatted until shortened.

• If we fail to achieve a consensus or at least move closer towards one, this topic area will likely end up at Arbcom again. Nobody wants that. The RfC will be closed by a panel of three uninvolved admins. Three shall be the number of administrators, and the number of the administrators shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Since I will be helping mediate here, I recuse myself from being a closing admin. This should probably be revised after we have the 3 people, to simply name them.

The introductory sentences are speculation and unnecessary. I am assuming everything after the bolded portion is a joke. If you are serious about including it, please reconsider.

Again, the beginning can go. The last part is indeed a joke, a reference to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Some levity might help, but I don't have strong feelings about this. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand the intent. I just think it seems a bit out of place in a rules section and just provides more reading for participants. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• The consensus reached (if any) will be imposed as a Discretionary Sanction on the topic area, broadly construed. It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales.

I would take out Jimbo Wales, that will just annoy editors.

This wording was taken from my old General Sanctions work in the Climate Change area, but looking back the current Discretionary Sanctions policy does not mention Jimbo. He can go. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My reasons for leaving out the other rules:

• All editors who participate in this RfC will receive a Discretionary Sanctions notice on their user talk page. This is purely procedural and not intended to indicate any wrongdoing; it is merely a notification that this topic area is subject to sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee.

Overkill. Just use an edit notice and header at the top of the rfc

I understand what you're saying, but the RFC is contingent on this staying in. If I am expected to moderate it under Arbcom DS, every participant needs to have a discretionary Sanctions notice. The policy is clear that sanctions cannot be issued to someone who has not been notified in that exact manner. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Close to 40 editors participated in the last one and hopefully we get similar numbers again. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nobody is required to participate in this RfC, and anybody may cease participation at any time for any reason. If you have received a notification about this RfC, it is because someone believes you may have something to contribute. However, it is in everyone's best interest that we solicit a wide range of opinions so that we may achieve a strong consensus.

Not sure what this is trying to achieve. It seems obvious that you can come and go as you please. Almost seems to be encouraging canvassing.

This was taken from my old Mediation work. Some form of it should stay, but I would be fine combining it with the following principle. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

One bit that raised my eyebrows was the "If you have received a notification about this RfC, it is because someone believes you may have something to contribute" sentence. I am sure it was not the intention, but it seemed to imply that it is okay for participants to notify selected editors about the RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

I would wait for this to be an issue. We are getting experienced editors to close it so I don't think an influx of new spa accounts will be too much of a problem anyway.

This is fairly standard wording for Canvassing. We could combine it with the statement above. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC is strictly about article content, not about user conduct. WP:RFC/U was retired years ago. If it becomes about user conduct, Arbcom will likely get involved, and nobody wants that. If you believe that a user is violating policy or the rules set forth by Arbcom or by this page, and you cannot work it out between yourselves, please speak to an Enforcement admin. If you believe an admin is behaving inappropriately, their decisions may be appealed to WP:ANI, WP:AE or Arbcom directly.

We have already hammered this in with the first two rules. If we really need it I would add it to one of them. If we do use it I would leave out the history of rfc/u. If user conduct is an issue I would expect the moderators to decide the relevance.

This does seem unnecessary and could be folded into the first two rules. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC will run for the full 30 days, unless additional time is needed to judge consensus. Because this is such a contentious area, closing early as per WP:SNOW is highly discouraged.

Pre selected closer makes this moot.

I agree, but it still needs to be stated for the benefit of participating editors, to keep them informed of how it will work. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How about just adding that the decision on when to close the rfc will be left up to the closers in the closers rule above? AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Finally, if you have issue with my own conduct or with these rules, I request that you please discuss with me on my own user talk page before escalating. I am always willing to listen to a reasonable argument.

Maybe this could be used, but it just came across a bit authoritarian to me. Of course editors should talk to you or any other editor they are in dispute with, but I am not sure this should be made a rule.

I'm sure we can move this into my opening statement. It isn't a requirement, but more a polite request. The Wordsmith 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that would work better. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I should have thanked you first off for being willing to take this on (laserbrain too). It is something many editors would not do. I am happy enough to just have my opinion heard here. Whatever rules you keep in the RFC I will participate and follow. I will make one more general statement though. I don't really know you, but from some of your replies here and elsewhere you seem to be heavily involved in mediation. Those skills will come in handy no doubt. However, one key difference that I see between the two is that in mediation all the parties are already heavily involved, whereas in a rfc we really want new people. A list of rules is more than appropriate in the first case, but my main fear here is that in a rfc this will drive away the new opinions we need. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think Aircorn makes a lot of good points, and I largely agree with where the discussion stands following The Wordsmith's replies.
  • I support cutting the first sentence, about editors sometimes making mistakes.
  • I would like the three closers to be identified before the RfC opens, and I think that entire paragraph should just be replaced by naming them and saying that they will determine the consensus. The later part about SNOW could just be folded into that.
  • I'm ambivalent about DS notices versus an edit notice. I agree with Aircorn that it can be a little intimidating, but I'm also sympathetic to what The Wordsmith said about needing to be able to enforce DS. There is a rule that DS sanctions can only come after the user is made aware of the DS. I added a link to the ArbCom edit notice (which emphasizes 1RR, which isn't really relevant to an RfC), but I'm not sure what is best.
  • I feel strongly that the rule about not-a-vote should stay. It's verbatim from the template that is often used on RfC pages. It's entirely possible that we will get new users showing up in response to external websites directing them here.
  • About the RfC/U part, I would cut the beginning, and start it at "If you believe that..."
  • I like the idea of The Wordsmith making an opening statement. In that case, the "Nobody is required" and the "Finally, if you have an issue with my" parts could be moved into that. There is a lot to be said for making the list of rules shorter and crisper, while also having a more personal statement from the supervising admin.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I see that Aircorn just pointed out that the language about notifications about the RfC can be misunderstood as endorsing, in effect, canvassing, and I agree with Aircorn that this language needs to be changed or deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• In the interests in keeping things moving along, I just made an edit in which I tried to implement what I think we have agreed about here. Of course, it is still subject to further, um, wordsmithing, by The Wordsmith. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Advertising

This is one area that I don't feel has been well enough covered. I think we should all agree, or at least have a say, on where or how this rfc is advertised. It is important to not only avoid canvassing, but also to avoid any appearance of canvassing. I will mention a few options below. Some I would endorse, others I won't, while others I am ambivalent about. I think all need to at least be raised as a possibility though.

Obviously it will be listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, but are there any other headings it should be under? Politics/law and society could be justified given the wording of some of the proposals. WP:CENT is an option, although I am not sure it has enough project wide important for that. WP:WikiProject Genetics is the obvious wikiproject to notify, others may be WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, WP:WikiProject Food and drink and WP:WikiProject Agriculture. Other possible locations could include Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

If we do personal talk page invites I would suggest that we be very careful about who gets notified, as it is easy to be accused of canvassing when doing this. There could be a case made to notify every editor (minus the now topic banned ones) who commented at the previous RFC. There may also be a case to notify everyone that took part in the ARBCOM case, although that seems a bit too much.

One other option which I will include for completeness, but don't endorse, is watchlist notification. I think we have annoyed enough editors with ARB, ANI and AE filings without also spamming watchlists as well.

A final related consideration is where the rfc will be hosted. At one of the affected articles talk pages or at a dedicated sub-page. A link to the discussion should be made from all known affected articles. If we are to chose an article I would suggest Talk:Genetically modified crops (as that is where most of the proposals were formulated) or Talk:Genetically modified food controversies (as that is where the previous RFCs took place). AIRcorn (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should pin this down ahead of time. I am strongly in favor of using CENT. I also think that a watchlist notice would be a good idea, because this rises to the level of satisfying that amount of importance. Maybe there could be some notices at the Village Pump?? And there could be a notice put on the article talk page of each page that has the language that is affected. All the editors who have been active on the article talk page have already gotten notices from David T, and I'm ambivalent about whether The Wordsmith needs to renotify them/us when the RfC opens. But I don't like the idea of any further personal notifications, because there will be appearances of favoritism. I oppose notifications of WikiProjects or Noticeboards, because it will be very difficult to avoid bias. We want a representative editor population (which is why I'm OK with a watchlist notice). As for the page location, I think that it must be a dedicated RfC page, with its own talk page, and not be the talk page of any article. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

CENT is good, not sure about the watchlist. I agree that notifying Wikiprojects may lead to bias, but a notice on AN and Village Pump would be appropriate. As to its final location, I was planning on moving it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. The Wordsmith 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine with most of that. I still don't like the idea of the watchlist notification though. I can see that annoying many editors. We would have to request it at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details and a quick scan of the archives would suggest a low chance of it being granted (it seems like they use project wide significance as a rough bar). The only relevant village pump is Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous), which coincidentally has started a discussion about RFC notifications. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, the way that I see it, we would not have the notice go on for very long. And the fact that this particular RfC is going to result in something that will be subject to strict discretionary sanctions places it in a special situation, where reaching out to the community as a whole becomes particularly important. If memory serves, there was a watchlist notice for the Jerusalem RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the Jerusalem one had a watchlist notification then there may be precedent. It is not a canvassing issue so I don't have strong objections. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that it would probably be enough to run the notice for approximately 3 or 4 days at the beginning of the RfC, not longer. I don't think that that would be spammy or annoying. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

After thinking further, I've changed my mind a bit, and I now believe that the watchlist notice ought to run for something more like approximately 7 days. What got me thinking that way is the concern expressed in the talk thread below, about whether to scrap the RfC, that there is a danger that the RfC could be dominated by editors who are already involved and that we might not get enough "fresh eyes". The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it is desirable that we get as many participating editors as possible, and that consideration greatly outweighs any sensitivity about "spamming". Also, the watchlist notice about the page mover proposal has been running for quite some time, and I don't think it has been at all disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are going the watchlist route then seven days makes more sense than 3 or 4. There is no point excluding the once a week editors. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The only other Wikiproject I can think of worth mentioning would be WP:MED. It may be redundant to a degree with WP:MEDRS notification there, but I have the feeling some people may watchlist the Wikiproject and not MEDRS. Not a big deal if it isn't included as I agree MEDRS is the core page that should get a notification of the two. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Above, Aircorn suggested Maths, science, and technology as an RfC area for listing, and I agree that it should be the primary listing. But I also think that a dual listing at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law would be appropriate and helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Background

I would like to turn the Previous attempts at resolution section into a background section with prose. A type of introduction to the problem and why we are having a third rfc on the topic. It will link back to all the same discussions as that section does already, but will hopefully be easier for new editors to this area to understand what has been going on. I will have a go tonight (in about five or so hours) and leave a draft below unless there are any strong objections. AIRcorn (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay a first draft trying to catelog the history. Lots of links for interested parties to follow, but hopefully participants can get the gist without having to. As always comment, suggestions and the like welcome.

The sentence "There is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat..." was first added to the lead of Genetically modified food controversies in December 2010. The first discussion on the wording of the sentence occurred in October 2012. That discussion lead to the use of "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food". Since May 2013 the statement was debated repeatable through the talk page here, here, here and here until the first RFC was started in July. The RFC was closed with "Statement is reasonable".

Various discussions on the makeup, sourcing and validity of the sentence continued (1 2 3,4 5 6 7 8 9) till eventually a second RFC was initiated in May 2015. That RFC closed as "No consensus". After the RFC some of the sentences were changed from "scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement". Behavioral issues resulted in an Arbitration case opening two months after the RFC closed leading to editors being topic banned and discretionary sanctions being applied to related articles. The debate regarding the scientific consensus restarted in January 2016 and various proposals to improve the sentence were developed. Following a request for an arbcom sanctioned RFC it was decided to run this mediated and supervised RFC to determine what phrasing to use for the scientific opinion on the safety of GMO food currently on the market.

I was virtually absent from the topic area for ~2 years, missing the ANIs, 2nd RFC and most of the Arb case, so I have little personal experience with that era. I may have missed some key links or developments, I am more confident of my recollection of the early stages of this phrases history, but if anyone wants a second opinion on those events then I would suggest pinging User:ImperfectlyInformed as they are still around, used to be active in this area and predate my involvement. AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the "previous attempts at resolution" sounds like it came out of the mediation process. I don't have a problem with simply having the list of links as it is now. I feel like there would be two problems with replacing it with narrative text. The first problem would be tl;dr. The second, and more difficult, problem would be concerns about getting the POV of the text to be acceptable to everyone involved. When you look at how involved editors talk about the discussions that came just after the previous RfC, you will see that there is so much jockeying to frame it in particular ways that I think it would prove insoluble. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to view this RFC from the point of view of new editors to the topic. I know when I respond to ones I am unfamiliar with it is good to have some sort of background as to how the dispute came about. The list of links currently in the article have no context, don't show the timescale, are not intuitively labeled, are missing some important ones (RFC number 1 for example) and require new editors to actually follow and decipher them to even get the basic understanding of the dispute. I have confidence that we can write a concise, neutral account as long as we avoid any interpretation of the links. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What about a compromise. Keep the list, but make it more informative and presentable. Example:

• Addition of broad consensus sentence (December 2010)
• First talk page discussion on sentence wording (October 2012)
• First RFC (July 2013)
• Second RFC (May 2015)
• Arbcom case (September 2015) decision (December 2015)
• Discussion and formation of proposals (February 2016)
• Request for third RFC (May 2016)

You can add or remove as you see fit. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the draft page pretty much along these lines, but I kept the list short by not adding any more links to it, which I think is consistent with discussion here about making the RfC more approachable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

I don't want to drag this out any longer than necessary so will just make these last few comments.

• The Policies, guidelines and essays seems a bit long. Not sure how BLP applies, why we highlight NPOV as well as a couple of subsections under NPOV or whether we need to mention discretionary sanctions again (with the header, potential edit notice and personal notices).
• Can we clarify that the 800 word limit includes replies. My reading is that is does, but it might be good to say so specifically.
• I agree with the current setup that requires editors to keep all their comments in their own section is a good idea and will make it easier for the closers.

AIRcorn (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed we had a switch from two user subsections with 500 and 250 words (initial comment and responses to other editor's points) to just a single section with 800 words. I kind of like this new idea of just having 800 words total and just leaving it at that for simplicity's sake as it discourages formal replying.

Editors will have to budget how much they stick to presenting their own case versus responding to points from other editors. That can limit the bludgeon issues we had last time, but it can also make it difficult to respond to multiple editors introducing different ideas after someone initially makes their post. Debunking a point often takes more text than the original point itself afterall. I think that's just the "happy" medium we'll have to work with though and stick to having strong initial statements that outline the content at hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

About the word limits, I would prefer that there be a single limit of 800 that includes replies and everything, and that was my intent. However, there is nothing magical about the number 800, so I would be receptive to replacing it with a larger number. But whatever number it is, it needs to be firm. As for needing more space for replies, there will also be an RfC talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

800 words

As a follow-up of my own, I'd like to check with other editors: is 800 the best number of words for the word count limit? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Substantially the same as Proposal 1, but with a better causal connection to my reading:

Currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, and GM food is tested on a case-by-case basis before its introduction. Nonetheless, in spite of this scientific consensus on safety, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

jps (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and put it on the RfC page. By the way, let me say to everyone here that The Wordsmith has said that it's OK for editors to make edits to the draft RfC page while it is still in the draft stage. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 6 is unacceptable. The language that GMO's are tested on a case-by-case basis is not supported by *any* of the three sources. In fact, in places like the U.S. case-by-case testing is not required: See . Regarding the three footnotes:

• The WHO says that GM foods should be tested on a case-by-case basis.
• The Haslberger(2003) article mentions changes to the Codex_Alimentarius, but the Codex is optional. (See ).
• The BMA like the WHO said that GMO foods should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

The AMA says the same thing . The real question is why our articles are not honest about this and any attempt to fix it is thwarted? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim, the RFC itself is when you state what proposal you favor. This talk page is for hammering out the rules and how the RFC will be run. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggest discussing the possibility of scrapping the entire GMO Rfc

I just skimmed this portentous document of an Rfc. My first impression is one of deep revulsion. I strongly suggest we first have a wide discussion regarding scrapping this entire approach, which, again at first look, appears to be designed to be so intimidating as to preclude participation by all but the most dogmatic of Wikipedians, and arguably give a result favorable to the pro GMO editors, whose motives are easily discernible from their lengthy edit histories in this topic. Jusdafax 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This plan for an RfC came about following my request to ArbCom for some sort of RfC. As was discussed there, the alternative to an RfC would be to request a full GMO-2 case at ArbCom. If there are any concerns about the RfC design, it would be very helpful to state them specifically, and to see if we can address them. It would be helpful if The Wordsmith and Laser brain, as the supervising administrators, would indicate how they would like to proceed on this, before editors become too bogged down in arguing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case as Tryptofish noted. It would be helpful to get your feedback on what you don't like about it. It seems reasonable to me, and the rule-set is there to give it teeth and make sure we're not circling around to the same issue 10 days after it closes. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the sentiment, but would humbly suggest that you write a WP:TLDR summary to include that would encourage people to participate. Basically, the question is, do any of the proposals rise to the standards necessary to replace the current text? If you'd like, you could even write a little blurb explaining the likely motivation for each of the phrasings. You could even create a voting guide, if you like. jps (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the references back to ArbCom, here in this section, and in the proposed RfC instructions. What would an ArbCom GMO-2 case be about? --Tsavage (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is here. As for your second question, the answer isn't definitively settled, but presumably they would be asked to look again at those involved editors who were not topic banned previously, with regard to how there is not yet a consensus about the question that this RfC asks. I think that it's obviously better for everybody to have this RfC instead, but if hypothetically some editors refused to go along with the RfC process without working constructively to help fix anything that needs to be fixed, either ArbCom or Arbitration Enforcement would end up having to deal with those (hypothetical) editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

List of affected pages

As was briefly discussed previously at User talk:The Wordsmith, the original list of pages that include the affected language, listed in the "Locus of the dispute" section of the draft RfC, was not complete. I think it may be important not to leave any pages out, in the event that discretionary sanctions may be applied to all affected pages. I've just added all the other pages that I could find. I ask that please would other editors look around and check whether there are any further pages that need to be added to the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments

1. The Rules have been edited quite a bit from the version I read a little over a week ago, they appear clearer and more concise, however, these instructions in my opinion still overshadow the actual content of the RfC, and beg the question from potential participants, "What am I getting myself into?" It is also unclear as to where the authority for mandating these very specific requirements originates (looking at it from a participant's POV). A well-formed RfC question, and diligent and unbiased monitoring of the proceedings, which are under Discretionary Sanctions, should be sufficient assurance of smooth running (it's excellent that we have volunteers, in Wordsmith and Laser-brain, for this monitoring task).

If editors agree that a substantial preamble is necessary, I suggest something simpler and more inclusive, along the lines of:

PLEASE NOTE: Articles and discussion in the GMO subject area are currently under Discretionary Sanctions (WP:ACDS), under which individual Administrators can use reasonable judgement to act directly against disruptive activity (see the DS notice at the top of this page). For this RfC, to avoid disruption through back-and-forth debates and long discourses ("walls of text"), and to make the overall discussion easy to follow in full by everyone, participants are asked to observe a couple of basic guidelines:

1. Editors are encouraged to post comments in their own subsections, and to post a maximum of 800 words overall - this will be maintained as necessary by moving comments to the authors' sections, and collapsing ("hatting") the portion of comments that exceed the word limit.

2. The RfC will run for the full standard period of 30 days, and may be extended if that appears necessary, and will be finally evaluated for consensus ("closed") by a pre-selected group of three volunteering editors who have been previously uninvolved in editing and discussing GM content on Misplaced Pages (i.e. presumed to be reasonably independent of the preceding GM content debates).

This seems a case where judicious monitoring action during the RfC will speak louder than preliminary warning words.

2. The RfC question - This is a Request for Comment concerning how to indicate the scientific views on the safety of genetically modified crops for human consumption. - seems incredibly broad for an RfC. Editors are being asked to look at an entire subject area that has been severely condensed into single paragraphs of summary language, while no corresponding fully expanded coverage exists in any of the articles where this statement is to appear. From what I've observed, the long-standing contentious issue is simply determining whether what we can describe in Misplaced Pages's voice as a scientific consensus (WP:RS/AC) exists for any aspects of GM food safety, and if so, for which exactly - it's about choice of a particular descriptive phrase, scientific consensus, NOT a debate over whether or not GM food is safe to eat according to reliable sources. As it stands, with the statements and citations in each proposal, we are asking participants to make themselves familiar with the entire GM food consumption safety subject, which seems unreasonable and unlikely. One proposal (#5) even includes non-food safety considerations. A much tighter RfC focus would lead to more productive editor input.

A well-formed, well-run (monitored), well-closed RfC should lead to unambiguous results - we just need to make sure going in that the question is clear. --Tsavage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree on point one and like your wording. I said similar things above about the long list of rules and the potential that they will scare away new voices. The discretionary sanction notice is non-negotiable though so we should probably explain this somewhere so editors are not surprised when they get it. I like that your wording highlights the important differences between this and a "normal" rfc. I think this plus an intro from the moderators would suffice as an intro to this rfc. However, ultimately what wording to use should be decided by The Wordsmith and Laserbrain as they are the ones willing to take on the monitoring. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have an issue with the current wording of the RFC question. Saying there is scientific consensus is one way to indicate the scientific view. The proposals that don't use that phrasing indicate it in other ways. While I agree that some of them go into other non-scientific and even non-safety areas, I see this more as a way to frame the scientific view. It puts the scientific view in perspective. FWIW, I was one of those that suggested the public view should be presented alongside the scientific one. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Point 2 is an issue with scope. The question is reasonable in the unlikely event that every participant has a good understanding of the subject basics, otherwise, the work required to get up to speed is entirely unrealistic, and comments will largely be votes: "Well, I like the sound of this better than that."

We're looking for reliable, independent sourcing for a statement of scientific consensus, as in WP:RS/AC, because such a statement is usually subjective and editorially emphasizes its conclusion. The subject is the scientific opinion in the GM field, on the safety of those GM foods that have been approved by regulatory agencies (i.e. currently available) for human consumption, a reference that requires unpacking to be fully understood, and when worded broadly, may be misinterpreted by the general reader as a blanket scientific endorsement of GM food and technology.

Asking participants to decide on an article's worth of subject matter at one shot is unrealistic, and seems an inappropriate use of an RfC to mandate content. Prop #5 includes arguments for other benefits - if Prop #5 "wins," do those statements, in addition to safety, gain some sort of a protected content status as well?

The last scientific consensus RfC was extremely poorly formed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again. A more straightforward proposition may be:

• Per WP:RS/AC, is there sufficient reliable sourcing to say in Misplaced Pages's voice that a scientific consensus exists for the safety for human consumption of GM food that has been approved and is available to consumers?

...or perhaps the broader...

• Per WP:RS/AC, is there sufficient reliable sourcing to say in Misplaced Pages's voice that a scientific consensus exists for the safety of GM food for human consumption?

This followed by the proposals. That really gets to the heart of the contention that has been plaguing multiple GM food articles for years. It is also directly based on core content policy: easy verifiability, neutral wording, and no synthesis - if it says it in the text, it should clearly say the same in the source, plain for anyone to see.

Aircorn: I generally agree with all of your comments on this page. The sticky point seems to be on the view that scientific consensus is essentially promotional language that requires solid, independent sourcing, and seeking alternative wording is NOT an attempt to water down or obscure safety facts or evidence, but to use objective, neutral language to present them. --Tsavage (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternative wording actually is a problem with WP:PSCI policy in mind as it says we cannot obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community when it is saying there is a consensus (especially when source after source explicitly uses the term scientific consensus or uses language agreeing with those consensus statements). I for one am not going to try to litigate actual content on this talk as others have done (that's for the RfC), but what I described is mostly why we included the policies, guidelines, etc. section to make sure people are familiar with these very relevant policies. Even though this is an Arb-Com mediated RfC, we cannot supersede the authority of relevant polices, so we need to make sure respondents are familiar with them.

I do agree though that we need to give editors some direction and something easier for the closers to assess on what we're actually looking for. The first question is the crux of the whole thing. Is there a scientific consensus on the subject. There are other policies to cite besides just RS/AC, so it's better just to say relevant policies and guidelines related to scientific consensus. The second is which of the proposals is the best content choice to answer that question. Short and to the point is best here, so I've added what should be something everyone can agree on as a bare bones set of directions in this edit. Basically a yes or no on the consensus question, followed by at least one favored proposal with justification afterwards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The above edit I made overall stuck since being proposed, but underwent a major change that appears to be out of line with what we've overall moved towards in this discussion. It appears comments on that were not posted to this page, but on an admin talk page instead just for reference of anyone watchlisting this page. Summarizing that discussion on my part, this previous version doesn't appear to have any supposed neutrality issues that would warrant not mentioning the locus of this dispute. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about the revert. (I'll also note that I made some revisions to your original posting of the two question, albeit not substantive, and that your diff above does include the changes that I made.) I think that the question about scientific consensus is helpful in identifying what the RfC is about, for editors coming to the RfC. On the other hand, I do not object to making some changes, such that the status quo wording (as in a proposal of "no change") is offered as an option. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't consider your changes substantially different from mine, so I consider that something we agreed on. I'm not so sure about including a no change proposal this late in the RfC formulation, but I also don't think it's absolutely needed. If there's no consensus on question two, we can talk about status quo or going back to the drawing board. For now though, we want to focus on breaking the back of the dispute with how respondents answer question 1. Once that's done, follow up issues will be easier to handle. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good point: that whatever the community decides regarding whether there is or is not a scientific consensus should point to the direction about the status quo, and to some extent is redundant with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Choice of Closing Admins

COI concerns: It is hard to ascertain whether anyone involved in GMO articles edits with a financial motivation. As we saw with WifiOne (), anonymous paid editors can be very crafty in avoiding scrutiny and gaining positions of power at Misplaced Pages.

With billions at stake, the GM industry spent ~$100 Million fighting U.S. GMO labeling laws ().

The industry could easily afford to hire a team of full-time anonymous Pro-GM editors like WiFiOne to make sure the articles reflect their views in each article lede, in the same way that BP was able to write 44% of its article, including the Deepwater horizon oil spill .

Misplaced Pages's policies of anonymity combined with WP:AGF and ArbCom's GMO ruling protect editors from criticisms for similar behavior.

In this high stakes RfC, I suggest that the three closing admins make a declaration that they have no direct or indirect financial or fiduciary conflict of interest (COI) by participating in this RfC. Such COI might include, for example, employment or contracting for a GM company, holding a GM patent, doing GM research, or working at a PR firm. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. This is a specious argument. We will not have uninvolved Misplaced Pages administrators swearing loyalty oaths. If they meet the criteria of WP:INVOLVED, there's no need to question their offwiki lives. The Wordsmith 03:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI. Also posted here --David Tornheim (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith or Laser Brain, there's already been quite a bit of testing of the water in terms of casting aspersions about editors above already even though we had an ArbCom principle explicitly stating not to do things like this. David now saying in the above edit they link, "industry could easily afford to hire a team of full-time anonymous Pro-GM editors" is a direct violation of that principle beyond just testing the boundaries. Back when we were crafting the principle wording with arbs, it was meant to make it clear that going as far as David just did in aspersions was not acceptable without actual evidence of a COI (even just vaguely referring to a group of editors), and that action to prevent further disruption would be warranted against editors who insist on alluding to shills and these general boogeyman tactics.

I mentioned it before that I'm going to leave it up to you guys to pursue action rather than me trying to push anything (mostly just trying to ignore this behavior), but can we get a bit more strict on enforcing the aspersion principle here and at the RfC? Considering people have already gotten away with more than they should have at this page in terms of what the principle was intended for, things will probably get worse when the RfC starts. This is one of the main behavior reasons we requested admin supervision for this RfC so we could focus on the content and not these kinds of distractions certain editors like to inject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your point is taken, Kingofaces43, and I assure you that while it's thin ice here on the talk page (and I do mean very thin ice, David Tornheim), any such aspersions will be removed from the RFC and participants sanctioned if they persist. As for David's request, we will use the guideline at WP:UNINVOLVED as we do everywhere else. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm inclined to let this one instance slide, but I want to make it clear that further aspersions and Shill Gambits will not be tolerated under any circumstances. They will be summarily removed, and if the editors persist then they will be removed as well. The Wordsmith 13:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New source

As noted by other editors (, ), the National Academy of Sciences has come out with a major new source on this subject. I've just added it to Proposal 1 (citation 9). @RAMRashan: @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I also took the liberty of adding it to Proposal 5 (citation 8) and Proposal 6 (citation 5). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem with this RfC idea

Each source, new and old, should go through the normal process of addition to the body of the article(s) in question. Each source needs to go through a discussion first, most likely, and perhaps some or most will require their own RfC. There will be discussion over validity, weight, potential bias, and wording, as with any contentious material.

This RfC concept is asking us to consider an almost incomprehensible amount of information, and instead of making content creation a group effort, we are forced into "voting" for what has to be less than neutral presentation. It is highly likely the material will be biased if written by one editor, or those who always work together. If written by the entire group in a more common-sense fashion, taking each source at a time, the presentation will be the most encyclopedic.

The concept of hosting a safety consensus statement without actually elaborating on the content in the body came from Jytdog in 2012. It turned out not to be a good idea, the giant RfC found that there were inaccuracies in the reinterpretation given by WP. The WHO, for instance, was misquoted, and there was not sufficient support for the wording. I think it's a bad idea to try and recreate what has been shown to be mistake.

Does anyone have feedback as to why we don't - instead of this RfC - set about adding material to the encyclopedia, and developing a 'statement' from that, when completed? petrarchan47คุก 03:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, thank you, thank you for this fine posting, which brilliantly articulates what my concerns are. I have half remembered the history that the previous Rfc was a Jytdog concept that was, to word it charitibly, found flawed by the community. I don't recall participating in that Rfc but might be wrong, and need to look up the Rfc for reference. The ominous language used against David here ("thin ice," "filibuster" etc.) has left me with a bad taste, and I have hesitated to press my proposal to junk the Rfc. But I second your statement most emphatically. As you note, the concept of the proposed Rfc is deeply broken. Jusdafax 04:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about wording of questions

I'm starting a conversation here because David Tornheim expressed concern about the wording of the RFC questions (not the proposals) here and I want to try to keep discussion in one place. Please review that section for background. Copying my remark from there: The more I read the two key questions the more I'm wondering why we even need two questions. If both "sides" accept the posit that the current wording is unworkable, can't we just say something like, "Which of the following proposals should replace the current wording?" I'm not sure why we need to roll more language than that into the questions. The admins who close the RFC can certainly ascertain from participant comments whether they have considered sources and normal encyclopedic guidelines. I'm in favor of simplifying language of the RFC wherever possible so participants aren't confounded before they even get to the proposals. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)