Tryptofish (talk | contribs) |
Laser brain (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
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. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
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. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 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 {{u|The Wordsmith}} and {{u|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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:31, 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 {{u|The Wordsmith}} and {{u|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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 01:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:55, 12 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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The first sentence seem unnecessary. I would just start with the "All editors..."
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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would take out Jimbo Wales, that will just annoy editors.
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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Overkill. Just use an edit notice and header at the top of the rfc
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 WordsmithTalk to me 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)
- 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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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 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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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 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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pre selected closer makes this moot.
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 WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. The WordsmithTalk to me 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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), which coincidentally has started a discussion about RFC notifications. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:08, 4 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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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,[1][2][3][4] and GM food is tested on a case-by-case basis before its introduction.[5][6][7] Nonetheless, in spite of this scientific consensus on safety,[8][9][10][11] members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[12][13][14][15] 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.[16][17][18][19]
Citations
|
---|
|
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)
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)