David Tornheim (talk | contribs) →Arbitrary section break: thanks to Doug Weller |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →GMO RfC language transfer: calm talk |
||
Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
::::You've been warned about your own [[WP:TEND]] and battleground behavior in this topic where you take almost any opportunity to call for sanctions of editors supporting the scientific consensus, and when editors opposing the consensus finally are warned about their behavior issues, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrarchan47&oldid=723424273#Aspersions_at_GMO_RFC attack those admins] or those reporting it. It's really time to knock that posturing off while we're trying to focus on content. I highly suggest striking your direct personal attack of "triumphalist euphoria" though in that sense. There could be potential for that from someone in general just like how there could be battleground behavior where other editors would want to lash out against certain editors because they didn't get the RfC result they wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and I haven't seen direct evidence of either case from a specific editor yet to justify such a claim beyond aspersions. We don't "win" or "lose" here, and that should have been apparent from my comments here so far. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 01:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
::::You've been warned about your own [[WP:TEND]] and battleground behavior in this topic where you take almost any opportunity to call for sanctions of editors supporting the scientific consensus, and when editors opposing the consensus finally are warned about their behavior issues, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrarchan47&oldid=723424273#Aspersions_at_GMO_RFC attack those admins] or those reporting it. It's really time to knock that posturing off while we're trying to focus on content. I highly suggest striking your direct personal attack of "triumphalist euphoria" though in that sense. There could be potential for that from someone in general just like how there could be battleground behavior where other editors would want to lash out against certain editors because they didn't get the RfC result they wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], and I haven't seen direct evidence of either case from a specific editor yet to justify such a claim beyond aspersions. We don't "win" or "lose" here, and that should have been apparent from my comments here so far. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 01:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::Your attempt to make this about me is both transparent and puerile. Editors commenting here, ''including one of the Rfc closing admins,'' have noted your edits are dubious and slanted. I agree with them. I believe the community at large, given a review of your evident lengthy obsession with the GMO topic, is likely to agree. I stand by my comment, as your reply shows nothing but the very battleground mentality you decry. You are, as noted here, by any standard, the definition of disruptive. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 02:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
:::::Your attempt to make this about me is both transparent and puerile. Editors commenting here, ''including one of the Rfc closing admins,'' have noted your edits are dubious and slanted. I agree with them. I believe the community at large, given a review of your evident lengthy obsession with the GMO topic, is likely to agree. I stand by my comment, as your reply shows nothing but the very battleground mentality you decry. You are, as noted here, by any standard, the definition of disruptive. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 02:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}I urge editors to calm down. As I indicated below, most of the changes that are in dispute have very little impact one way or the other, in terms of the POV balance. They are largely matters of transition into and out of the RfC-mandated language. The way that this discussion on Coffee's talk page was begun, it made it sound like a POV-war. It really isn't. {{Ping|KrakatoaKatie}} when one reads what actually happened, things are a lot less dire than what first meets the eye in the discussion here. As far as I can tell, neither Kingofaces nor David really did anything to shift the POV of the pages in a significant way. It's just a matter of some poor judgment followed by some over-reaction. Nobody needs to be blocked, banned, or burned at the stake. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Arbitrary section break=== |
===Arbitrary section break=== |
Revision as of 18:32, 10 July 2016
- Aaabbb11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See User talk:EdJohnston#Banned users at AE. Two editors are saying there is an irregularity in the closure of the complaint about Aaabbb11. The AE was opened by User:PCPP, who is banned from all editing about Falun Gong, so should not be filing at AE. When I gave my opinion in favor of a ban, I was influenced by the June 2015 AN3 case, by the rather lame response that Aaabbb11 made to the AE, and by the lack of cooperation he seemed to show in the discussion at Talk:Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. (The other editors sounded like they were negotiating and thinking the issues through, while he did not. See all his disagreements with User:Gatoclass who was on the page to evaluate a DYK). Due to the procedural defect, I'm thinking that a rerun of the AE might be considered. If you agree, you could just undo your closure, mark it as declined since PCPP doesn't have standing to file, and wait and see if anyone who isn't banned wants to refile. (Or you could refile it yourself as a new request if you think it is justified). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: I don't think it's required in our banning policies to do this (as the ban they're talking about for PCPP was AE as well, and it's really up to us if this was in violation or not), but I will vacate the close nonetheless. I'll leave it up to you or another administrator to decline it, as I simply don't think that's required when there's a valid request. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
SwitzerLAN
Sorry I made a mistake. I will move it now in the Sandbox. After my edits, I'll move it in the official path. :) Sorry again. ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyOneCookie (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
How to fix RfC comment when hatted
Hi there Coffee, can you advise? It says I should not touch the comments now that you have hatted them. I was planning to remove the excess. petrarchan47คุก 22:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: You can disregard the template's internal message to not modify it. It skipped my mind that was even in the template. Please feel free to modify your comments and then remove the template once complete. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, sounds good. Thanks. To my knowledge we have until the end of July 6th. If I'm mistaken please let us know on the RfC talk page. petrarchan47คุก 23:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: Correct, at — or shortly after — 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC) either myself or The Wordsmith will lock down the RFC and its talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, sounds good. Thanks. To my knowledge we have until the end of July 6th. If I'm mistaken please let us know on the RfC talk page. petrarchan47คุก 23:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: I'm confused too. My word count was 720 when I copied and pasted into word, when you hatted my comment. Can you tell me how you got >800, please? What tool are you using? Before it was okay. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: I simply copy and pasted the content, including section headers, into the tool listed in the rules. I may have missed your "hidden" comments before, but the rule applies to them as well. I am not permitted to make exceptions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- What about RS citations/footnotes? Are those included in the count too? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- The inline citations are, the references not so much. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused. What is the difference between an inline citation and a reference? For example, if the text is:
- The inline citations are, the references not so much. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- What about RS citations/footnotes? Are those included in the count too? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- (1) Domingo[1]
citations
|
---|
|
- What is the word count? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- In this case the word count is just 3, the 1 the word Domingo and the [1] citation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helps. I think I should be okay now. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- In this case the word count is just 3, the 1 the word Domingo and the [1] citation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- What is the word count? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging participants
Hi Coffee, in earlier conversations, admins said that all participants would be alerted near the end of the RfC. Since it asks us to compare all proposals, those who commented early on need to reassess in light of changes and additions. Has everyone been pinged? I believe it was Wordsmith who said this would be worked out. petrarchan47คุก 09:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Why
you don't think before blocking???--84.160.169.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Block evasion
I have reason to believe that 84.160.169.20 is a sockpuppet for Anaxagoras13 that is continuing to make reverts to the Copa América Centenario article even when blocked. Thank you for your time concerning the matter. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great action, your are really a man. What about answering the question? It takes 3 reverts to be blocked, I only reverted 2 times, so apparently you have a problem counting to 3.--84.138.43.189 (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:5F:3E57:242C:7D03:CEF0:134F:2806 (talk)
- You've guessed it; the sock-puppeting continues. IP 2003:5F:3E0B:EF4E:E43E:5271:48BC:6404. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, he guessed it and you guessed it and I guessed it. No wonder after a blocking without a reason.--2003:5F:3E0B:EF5B:649C:518C:1EF5:D394 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Dilemma
Hi Coffee. You changed the edit notice on Donald Trump after disputed content was added a fourth time (without consensus). The material is not a WP:BLP violation, but is arguably inaccurate, and opinions are roughly evenly split on whether it should be included. Under normal circumstances it would be removed until a consensus is established for including it. Because of the timing of the edit notice, no editor can remove it without obtaining firm consensus. This has created a dilemma whereby the article now contains potentially inaccurate information about a US Presidential candidate, that never had consensus for inclusion, and that cannot be removed until the DS is lifted. Obviously this runs afoul of WP:NOCON.
I think you should administratively remove this material, thereby re-establishing the status quo. Please let me know your thoughts.- MrX 13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
RfC comment
As we reach the last minutes, could you or The Wordsmith please see this comment [1] by Jusdafax. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Redacted your comment and his comment as inappropriate and commenting on the person rather than the RfC. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, but you are making a false equivalence. I can go along with that, in the interests of bringing the RfC to an undramatic close. But I think it's a stretch to equate my describing comments that tell the closers what the close should be as lobbying, with what was said to me in reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Khojaly Massacre recognition
Hi there Coffee. (by the way I could need one right now) :) … I just came across the discussion about deleting the article Khojaly Massacre recognition. You have stated that there was "no consensus". However as far as I see the conclusion was to eather delete or merge it (mainly to delete it), but definitely not to keep it, which is the current stage of affairs. How do you suggest to proceed? Thanks and have a nice coffee! Regards, Markus2685 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Revisions in article about short selling
Hello Coffee. Please forgive me for any mistakes I may make since I'm completely new to this. I wanted to bring your attention to revisions in the article on short selling (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_(finance)&action=history). I agree with the edit that you made to retain a balanced point of view, but some user(s) appear to be taking away the balanced viewpoint to only include the affirmation and sources that say short selling is immoral. I changed them back but wasn't sure what to do in the event that this keeps going back and forth (e.g. some sort of dispute resolution). If you wanted to look into this that would be great. If not, that's also completely understandable. I just thought you may want to know or that it may be important to you and the broader community. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience. 201.157.157.179 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your moderation of the recent GMO RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
GMO RfC language transfer
@The Wordsmith:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Nakon:, @Deor: I am quite troubled by the way Kingofaces43 has replaced the language that resulted from the RfC to the applicable articles: In at least 3 5 articles--including 2 leads--he deleted additional material without notice, and used an edit note that implies that NONE of his edit could be reversed or changed under threat of sanctions. The edit note suggests the entirety of the edit was specifically authorized by the ArbCom committee. This is very misleading.
The RfC says here that this is the language to be revised is:
- There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.
King removed such language and replaced it by Proposal 1, which is fine. But he has additionally removed material not specified in the RfC and did not put in notice of the removal and added the misleading edit note I described above. Often the removed material is critical of GMOs, so the removals are POV. I have restored the deleted material in those threefive articles, and will continue looking:
(1) Genetically modified crops lead (added 03:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC))
- additional text deleted:
- However, opponents have objected to GM crops on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.
- deleted by King: [2]
- edit note:
- Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.
- restored by me: [3]
(2) Biotechnology
- additional text deleted:
- GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, if not used in excess.[1] However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.
- deleted by King: [4]
- edit note:
- Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.
- restored by me: [5]
- additional text deleted:
- Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.[2]
- deleted by King: [6]
- edit note:
- Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.
- restored by me: [7]
(4) Denialism
- additional text deleted:
- However, opponents have objected to GM foods on grounds including safety.
- deleted by King: [8]
- edit note:
- Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.
- restored by me: [9]
(5) Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms lead (inserted 21:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
- additional text deleted:
- There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.[3][4][5] Some scientists and advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund, have however called for additional and more rigorous testing for GM food.[4]
- deleted by King: [10]
- edit note:
- Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.
- restored by me: [11]
- This is already creating problems as I have been accused of "going against the RfC consensus" by restoring the additional material that King deleted. [12] by 107.77.212.117. (added: 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC))
I will continuing reviewing King's replacements of the RfC language. I request that King be admonished for these misleading POV edits that have a misleading edit note, and be directed to only revise the sentence that was the subject of the RfC if such an edit note is to be used in the future with any of the other articles of the RfC.
--David Tornheim (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC) [more examples added 03:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)]
citations
|
---|
|
Pinging @Esquivalience:, who did made the change correctly to Genetically modified food controversies without deleting additional material. [13], but did not include all of Proposition 1. However, I see Esquivalience did do something similar to King at Genetically modified organism and deleted a good portion of a paragraph, but at least added a notice at the talk page "Posting on talk page regarding the third paragraph." [14]. I restored additionally deleted material [15]. I would add the rest of Prop.1 to GM controversies, but I need to rest. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something – and I didn't – there was no language in the RFC authorizing deletion of any supplementary text. Kingoffaces43 has some explaining to do. It amazes me how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices. Katietalk 11:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm out for most of the day, so I won't be able to respond for awhile. Katie, I'd ask that you strike your language that I'm somehow trying to "twist" things. Each article has a slightly different iteration of how the previous language involving the scientific consensus was handled within the paragraph(s) and my edits were a good-faith attempt to implement the language while dealing with that. The RfC was meant to replace the general chunks of text relating to the consensus including how to appropriately weight what the "opponents" (typically the general public) say. That was done in proposal 1's language. If I left some of these things in the replacement, I was also risking changing the meaning of the RfC results, so it's a damned if you, damned if you don't situation depending on how someone wants to spin it.
- With that in mind, the specific text changes mentioned by David were done with the expectation that I would be facing something admonishable if I had integrated them into the new language too. I also had the expectation that editors would discuss where to readd some of this text that's tangential to the safety consensus.
ecological benefits, if not used in excess
is one example I eventually intended to place elsewhere. I'll stop by later today if we need to delve into more of the history of what the RfC was applying to, but I was taking an overall cautious approach with the edits. There were bound to be hiccups either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- With that in mind, the specific text changes mentioned by David were done with the expectation that I would be facing something admonishable if I had integrated them into the new language too. I also had the expectation that editors would discuss where to readd some of this text that's tangential to the safety consensus.
- Strongly agree with Katie. And the language used seems appropriate to me. David Tornheim is to be saluted for his monitoring of the situation, and taking action. Kingofaces43 has gone way too far, so much so that WP:TEND is now in play. A preventitave block by an admin should be considered, until such time as Kingofaces indicates a willingness to edit in collaboration and not overshoot his edits in a state of seeming triumphalist euphoria. Jusdafax 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- The thing about a preventative blocks is that there needs to be something to prevent. There was no wrongdoing on my part to even suggest a punitive block (which we don't do here), and I've been patiently waiting for clarification ever since without any sort of edit warring, etc. It's rather silly to even suggest a preventative block.
- You've been warned about your own WP:TEND and battleground behavior in this topic where you take almost any opportunity to call for sanctions of editors supporting the scientific consensus, and when editors opposing the consensus finally are warned about their behavior issues, you attack those admins or those reporting it. It's really time to knock that posturing off while we're trying to focus on content. I highly suggest striking your direct personal attack of "triumphalist euphoria" though in that sense. There could be potential for that from someone in general just like how there could be battleground behavior where other editors would want to lash out against certain editors because they didn't get the RfC result they wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I haven't seen direct evidence of either case from a specific editor yet to justify such a claim beyond aspersions. We don't "win" or "lose" here, and that should have been apparent from my comments here so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your attempt to make this about me is both transparent and puerile. Editors commenting here, including one of the Rfc closing admins, have noted your edits are dubious and slanted. I agree with them. I believe the community at large, given a review of your evident lengthy obsession with the GMO topic, is likely to agree. I stand by my comment, as your reply shows nothing but the very battleground mentality you decry. You are, as noted here, by any standard, the definition of disruptive. Jusdafax 02:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- You've been warned about your own WP:TEND and battleground behavior in this topic where you take almost any opportunity to call for sanctions of editors supporting the scientific consensus, and when editors opposing the consensus finally are warned about their behavior issues, you attack those admins or those reporting it. It's really time to knock that posturing off while we're trying to focus on content. I highly suggest striking your direct personal attack of "triumphalist euphoria" though in that sense. There could be potential for that from someone in general just like how there could be battleground behavior where other editors would want to lash out against certain editors because they didn't get the RfC result they wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I haven't seen direct evidence of either case from a specific editor yet to justify such a claim beyond aspersions. We don't "win" or "lose" here, and that should have been apparent from my comments here so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
- I was quite concerned when I saw this, and I have gone back and carefully examined the edits at the three pages identified by David. It seems to me that the situation is more complicated than what at first meets the eye.
- (1). Biotechnology:
- Here is the text of the relevant paragraph prior to the end of the RfC [16]:
There is a general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[42][43][44][45][46] GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, if not used in excess.[47] However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.
- Here it is after Kingofaces' edit [17]
There is a scientific consensus[42][43][44][45] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[46][47][48][49][50] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[51][52][53] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[54][55][56][57] 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.[58][59][60][61]
- And here it is now, after David's edit [18]:
There is a scientific consensus[42][43][44][45] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[46][47][48][49][50] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[51][52][53] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[54][55][56][57] 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.[58][59][60][61]GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, if not used in excess.[62] However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.
- I see it as rather subjective, and I'm not particularly seeing any intentional "twisting" by either Kingofaces or by David. One can interpret the RfC rules either way, and I don't think that either way is inherently unreasonable. I can see David's concern that the edit had taken out a list of critics' concerns, but I can also see how Kingofaces could believe that the list of criticisms was implicitly part of the language that was being replaced (note that the community rejected some proposals that had language similar to what Kingofaces deleted).
- (2). March Against Monsanto:
- It's a somewhat similar pattern. Here is the end result [19]:
However, there is a scientific consensus[19][20][21][22] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[23][24][25][26][27] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[28][29][30] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[31][32][33][34] 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.[35][36][37][38]Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.[39]
- Kingofaces added the word "However" at the beginning of the RfC language, and David did not remove it. It seems to me that there should not be any changing of the language, but in this case it does not look like anything done in bad faith, just an ill-advised attempt at providing better continuity. David added back the part about labeling in the US. There are two ways to look at this: that Kingofaces was correct that the sentence in the RfC material about regulation country-by-country should replace that language, and that David was also correct that the RfC language does not specifically mention the US, and that US regulation is relevant to a page about a US protest.
- (3). Denialism:
- This strikes me as a more ambiguous case. David made this restoration of what Kingofaces had deleted: [20]. It's a single sentence about safety, and it does seem to me that Kingofaces was correct that it was expressly superceded by the RfC consensus about safety. I don't see what the value was in adding it back, given what comes directly after on the page. (David also followed that edit by another revert, albeit of content that was not about GMOs: [21]. It strikes me as testing the boundaries of 1RR, although it probably does not quite amount to a violation, given that the first edit was only a partial revert, and the second was in a different subject area of the page. But it's close.)
- Taken together, I think that "However" should be deleted at the March page, and I have mixed feelings about the restored sentence at Denialism, but I don't really see enough evidence of bad faith here to make a big deal about, and I don't see anything else that needs to be changed from what it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- After posting that, I remembered that David had also noted the pages edited by Esquivalience. David seems to be saying that Esquivalience only added part of Proposal 1 at Genetically modified food controversies, [22], but I can't find anything missing, so I'm not sure what to make of that. At Genetically modified organism, [23], here is the material that Esquivalience deleted and David put back:
No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food.[167][168][169][170] Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA. In a May 2014 article in The Economist it was argued that, while GM foods could potentially help feed 842 million malnourished people globally, laws such as those being considered by Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, could have the unintended consequence of interrupting the process of spreading GM technologies to impoverished countries that suffer with food security problems.[167]
- It seems to me that some of that actually is a much bigger deal than anything that Kingofaces did. That is clearly separate material. On the other hand, I also think that it's possible that it could have been an error when making the edit, rather than an intentional deletion. That would be a pretty easy mistake to make. Alternatively, I can also see how the first sentence and the beginning of the second sentence could reasonably be considered part of what is to be replaced by the RfC language. But I do wonder why David appears to consider that to be no big deal while complaining about what Kingofaces did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, but I see now (missed it before) that there is discussion about that content at Talk:Genetically modified organism#Third paragraph in Genetically modified organism#Controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let's assume for a moment that integrating the language into the relevant sections isn't covered by DS. That work still needs to be done because as pointed out by Tryptofish above, there are then redundant pieces of text and pieces that were not supported in the RfC for inclusion with the consensus "suite". If part of my edits weren't covered by the DS, then worst case scenario is that someone made normal content edits alongside the implementation of the RfC close, so these calls for heads to roll is rather silly. We definitely need clarification on what is exactly covered though for future reference, but I do agree that there is no raging fire to put out here in terms of current editor actions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Some of what you and Esquivalience deleted was redundant, but your deletions went far beyond that, deleting an entire sentence in the lead of GMO crops with numerous concerns about GMOs that have nothing to do with food safety [24], and using a misleading edit note making it appear that the RfC allowed you to delete all criticisms of GMOs under the auspices of ArbCom and that reverting you was punishable by ArbCom DS. Such POV deletions are unacceptable. One of the closing admins. correctly pointed out that this is an example of "how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices." [25] --David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm having difficulty keeping up with what is going on, but I can see that David is restoring deleted language at some more pages, and an IP editor is reverting David. I'm giving up on figuring this out for now, but it does look like the situation is unstable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've quite frankly been sitting things out too because of this tempest in a teacup situation after my initial edits. All we really need here is clarification on what the DS should actually apply to when it comes to integrating the RfC results (I'm not really sure how or if they do), but that honestly doesn't really affect the situation at hand all that much either if they don't. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- You make a mess of things by deleting material under the auspices of ArbCom and the RfC that you were not authorized to delete. When it is pointed out to you, you do not acknowledge the problem, apologize and clean up the mess. Instead you expect others like me to spend hours cleaning up your mess, while you "sit things out". Not only that, you tell a closing admin, who correctly pointed out that your behavior is an example of "how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices," [26] that she should retract her correct assessment of the situation [27]. Even Tryptofish who usually defends you says your behavior is "quite concerning" [28][29]--David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- With respect to
you were not authorized to delete
, I think you need to make up your mind. If the RfC (and DS) had a scope within some text I deleted, then I was "authorized" by the RfC to do so and it couldn't be reverted. If the DS do not pertain to those certain parts of the text, then I made edits that can be reverted (as you did) and discussed as part of the integration. In that case, the RfC cannot prevent an editor from deleting (or restoring) something as part of the normal editing process. I've made it clear a few times now that I expected the latter case (and this talk section should've been 20x shorter). Either way, the integration needed to happen, so no one should be crying foul that it happened and that we're at the point where we should be figuring out additional relevant content tweaks instead of all this posturing that I'm up to something nefarious.
- With respect to
- You make a mess of things by deleting material under the auspices of ArbCom and the RfC that you were not authorized to delete. When it is pointed out to you, you do not acknowledge the problem, apologize and clean up the mess. Instead you expect others like me to spend hours cleaning up your mess, while you "sit things out". Not only that, you tell a closing admin, who correctly pointed out that your behavior is an example of "how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices," [26] that she should retract her correct assessment of the situation [27]. Even Tryptofish who usually defends you says your behavior is "quite concerning" [28][29]--David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've quite frankly been sitting things out too because of this tempest in a teacup situation after my initial edits. All we really need here is clarification on what the DS should actually apply to when it comes to integrating the RfC results (I'm not really sure how or if they do), but that honestly doesn't really affect the situation at hand all that much either if they don't. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- As for "sitting things out" I was referring specifically to the drama-fest that's being whipped up towards me and the ramped up battleground behavior we're seeing here (especially the incorrect picture you paint of me above). I'm not going to participate in that and instead am focusing on content. The question has been raised on what exactly the DS pertain to in this context, so I'm waiting for an answer from the admins before going back into the content discussion at the articles. Unless the DS actually do apply, I was expecting to handle the content discussion at the articles without needing to come here, but here we are instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just a note about the IP accusing David Tornheim of going against consensus. I believe that the person behind this account is using several IP addresses (although several people with the same agenda is possible I guess) at Musahiban (they seem think that they are, today, a royal family allied somehow with Israel and descended from King Saul). I've had some unpleasant but pathetic threats made against me. All the IP addresses making these threats on my talk page and disruptively editing are from the same area of California, as is this one who I've reverted today at Musahiban. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I thought the revert looked suspicious. Only ~20 edits and already knows about the GMO RfC? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just a note about the IP accusing David Tornheim of going against consensus. I believe that the person behind this account is using several IP addresses (although several people with the same agenda is possible I guess) at Musahiban (they seem think that they are, today, a royal family allied somehow with Israel and descended from King Saul). I've had some unpleasant but pathetic threats made against me. All the IP addresses making these threats on my talk page and disruptively editing are from the same area of California, as is this one who I've reverted today at Musahiban. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
ani which you are mentioned in
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)