→Statement by Kingofaces43: great idea to move ahead with the supervised RfC |
|||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
=== Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
=== Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
||
* Why do you need us to hold an RFC? Can't the community enforce a consensus like it normally does? I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of deciding which RFCs are binding and which are not. It's a novel solution, but not one that I think should be elevated to binding policy by us. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* |
|||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 19:08, 26 March 2016
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Carl Hewitt
Initiated by Prof. Carl Hewitt at 03:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- [1]
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Prof. Carl Hewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- CarlHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt
Edit talk pages of articles to make suggestions for improvement and participate in discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning articles for which I have contributed to talk pages.Carl (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by CBM
I would like to encourage Arbcom to discuss amendments to the original arbitration remedy that make article improvement and maintenance more straightforward. The persistent editing of particular articles and talk pages by numerous logged-out IP addresses, together with an inability of Dr. Hewitt to edit under a logged-in account because of an indefinite block [2], make article maintenance challenging. In particular, editors cannot assume that the IP edits are by Dr. Hewitt, nor can they assume that the edits are not by Dr. Hewitt, which makes communication challenging. If Dr. Hewitt were permitted to edit from a logged-in account verified by Arbcom to be controlled by him, it might facilitate article improvement by making it clear who is proposing particular edits. Unfortunately, the continued presence of tendentious IP edits even on the recent Village Pump thread suggests that longer-term semiprotection may still be necessary on the affected articles [3] [4] [5]. I think Arbcom may be able to strike a balance that, at least, allows us to clearly separate edits by Dr. Hewitt from edits by IP addresses. (I will be traveling from March 21 to March 25, and my responses my be delayed.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in Death
@Callanecc, CarlHewitt was blocked for abusively using socks - primarily to get around his Arbcom-mandated topic ban on autobigraphical editing. That would generally be seen as an arbcom-enforcement action even if it is not directly listed as such, rather than a normal admin action. Are you saying that because it was a block for socking, its not an Arb-enforcement? The cause was his socking to get round his arbcom-restrictions. If those restrictions didnt exist, he wouldnt have socked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MuZemike
I believe I have not made any error back in 2009 with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive#Report date October 21 2009, 01:29 (UTC) (when I was an SPI clerk, issuing the blocks based on the CheckUser's findings); the blocks were found to be in violation of the ArbCom remedy back in 2006 (and modified a year later in 2007 to specifically address the situations brought up in the various sock puppet cases).
That being said, if the current ArbCom wishes to amend the request given more modern circumstances, I have no opinion (nor any opposition) on it, provided WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:COI continue to be strictly followed. However, historically that has been more easily said than done, including the talk page usage. --MuZemike 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ruud Koot
(Disclaimer: I was one of the filing parties in the original ArbCom case.)
I think it would be preferable to have Hewitt edit under a single account instead of a multitude of accounts and IP addresses. However:
- Hewitt would have to do so voluntarily, as enforcing this is not really possible.
- Formally he is still under an ArbCom restriction against autobiographical editing and has been blocked multiple times violating this restriction and for sockpuppeteering.
- Over the past decade I've seen little change in his behaviour. I.e., he is still exclusively interested in autobiographical editing, not in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
- Over the years Hewitt has been continuing to disrupt the talk pages of several articles, which has been mostly handled by semi-protection. This would no longer be effective once his account would become autoconfirmed. I'm not really sure how long this single account would last, for this reason.
Given the amount of time that has passed since the original case, I think it would be useful if the ArbCom at least said something on this matter. —Ruud 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, students have reported that Ruud has not been a neutral party in these matters in how he has behaved over the past decade.
- Consequently, consideration should be given to the question as to whether he should recuse himself.
- PS. I hate to bring this up since it is rehashing old stuff that should be put behind us. So I suggest that everyone just stop.
- It looks like there are at least 4 challenges:
- The article Carl Hewitt is very obsolete.
- The article Actor model is lacking some critical references.
- There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness.
- The article Logic programming is missing a critical reference.
- Since I am an active participant in the above academic discussions, it is not clear how I can most constructively contribute to Wikipedia. However, the above articles are currently inadequate.
- It would be highly desirable to attract more academic experts to contribute to Wikipedia in the highly technical subjects of these articles.
- I am not looking to have my views or contributions unduly or unfairly represented. Carl (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved)
I'm opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion of 500/30 restrictions on those articles. All or almost all of the IP disruption they've seen has come from Prof. Hewitt and/or his associates. If the sanctions on Prof. Hewitt are relaxed and that disruption continues/resumes, then relaxing the sanctions has failed in its purpose, so in that situation the sanctions should be put back in place. Many high quality contributions to those articles (and math articles in general) have come from other IP's. And while the drastic 500/30 remedy might have been justified in extraordinarily inflamed disputes like Gamergate, it shouldn't be resorted to for comparatively minor stuff like this.
I'm dubious towards Prof. Hewitt's appeal for various reasons including some of the content issues he mentions in his statement, but as everyone says, it's been a long time, so I'll stay neutral. Trovatore, Arthur Rubin, or Wvbailey might have something to say or know of some others to invite. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Fixed notification diff for CBM. Amortias (T)(C) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cleaned/formatted request. @Prof. Carl Hewitt: Please edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Information about amendment request and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt with information about your request or it may be summarily rejected by the Committee. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion
- It looks to me that User:CarlHewitt is blocked from editing for sockpuppetry not as an arbitration enforcement action or by the Committee but normal administrative enforcement. If that's the case then the block needs to appealed on User talk:CarlHewitt, or if access to that account has been lost, on User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt - see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. I am not willing to consider amending the case until Professor Hewitt has returned to active editing using an account. Given that the block is not under the control of ArbCom (it wasn't arbitration enforcement or a Committee decision) I'd rather let the community handle this first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- In a sense yes Only in death does duty end. They weren't actually blocked as an arb enforcement action. But I see your point regarding the reason for the block. My concern here is that this block can be overturned by any admin so it's not exactly within our jurisdiction. Likewise (historically) ArbCom will generally only overturn arb enforcement actions when there are serious process issues involved (rather than standard appeals). I'd be more willing to see this go to another venue (AE/AN/user talk page) to appeal the block and continue with the current sanctions, plus any other sanctions admins dealing with the unblock see fit. However given the historical changes both to practice and terminology I'm willing (if my colleagues would like to) handle this here with amendments to the case and a possible unblock (but I'd like MuZemike's opinion as the blocking admin too). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm willing to treat this as effectively an AE appeal, assuming my colleagues agree. To me the key question, regardless of paperwork matters, is whether others in the topic area agree that this is the best path forward to minimize disruption, so I would like to see further feedback about that. If so, I'd suggest restrictions along the lines of: 1) restricted to a single account only (I don't much care which one); 2) absolutely no editing logged out; 3) restricted to editing only article talk pages, user talk pages, his own userspace, and project discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- This has gone on long enough, time to try something different. There is a lot of bad behavior in the history of the article, but talk pages should be a space for the subjects of articles to address article content, just like we allow any corporation in the world to request changes to their articles on talk pages. I endorse Opabinia regalis' suggestions, with two additional restrictions:
- A prohibition on professor Hewitt from making unsubstantiated personal allegations regarding other editors. He's already made one on this page, and while we want him to be able to address his concerns, we don't want the talk page to become a space for fights regarding old grudges. He can bring his complaints to WP:AE or to the Committee.
- A 500/30 restriction on Carl Hewitt, Actor model, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems to keep away the hordes of disruptive anonymous editors. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
Amendment request: Infoboxes
Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Suspend all remedies concerning Andy (Pigsonthewing), original and after review, as no longer needed to prevent "disruption".
Statement by Gerda Arendt
Today is Bach's birthday. Three years ago I suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, as some may still remember. I believe that the personal restrictions and remedies for Andy (Pigsonthewing) don't serve a purpose. He has not commented in any recent infobox discussion (and there have not been many). The suspension could happen immediately or on parole.
We remember with thanks Viva-Verdi, who added infoboxes to all operas by Giuseppe Verdi - one of the areas of conflict in the 2013 infoboxes case -, before he died a year ago. Long live his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion style: I met Andy in the discussion about Samuel Barber. I was on the other side back in 2012, but liked his style, with a grain of humour ("Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I voted, I chose candidates who I thought would make arbitration simpler. I thank the committee for not accepting any full case in 2016, but finding other solutions. It wasn't Andy who wants the sanctions lifted, - he may have forgotten about them. I think they serve no purpose, and will try to explain in a simple example. Andy created an article on a classical composer which is now a featured article. I conclude that there is no infobox conflict. If there is no conflict, we - the members of the community - don't need to keep one person restricted. Can we keep this simple, for a change? I like the approach of DGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Pigsonthewing
@GorillaWarfare: Since you ask: it would beggar belief for anyone to suggest I would want, or would ever have wanted, otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
Andy can be maddeningly persistent on the tiniest of things, but this restriction has outlived its usefulness. His work as Wikipedia-In-Residence makes tiptoeing round the infobox issue an obvious problem. I'd support replacement with some kind of restriction that allows him to add and edit infoboxes, but not to argue about them. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Collect's point I think addresses the core problem here, pace Rschen. Jbhunley also nails it. Andy has boundless energy, a remarkable commitment to the project, and exhibits good humour and good faith. He is, in short, a thoroughly decent bloke as well as being a prolific editor and ambassador for the project. However, he gets bees in his bonnet, as I think he would probably acknowledge. That's the source of all the problems. Most of what he does is uncontroversial and good, the problems occur only when something he sees as obvious - almost always in metadata curation, not content - is disputed or questioned by others. A restriction on argument will solve the problem, a restriction on any addition or discussion of infoboxen is more than is required given that in most cases proposals for or addition of infoboxes are simply not controversial. Most people actually don't care overmuch one way or the other. Obviously a targeted rampage of infobox additions would be a problem, but if Andy is editing an article - an eventuality that is always, IMO, a good thing for the project, given his attention to sources - I really don't see why adding an infobox would be an intolerable act. And if it's reverted then fine, he needs to walk away, and we can watch and help make sure he does that. Obviously if any of his long-term adversaries were to stalk him reverting additions then we'd pick that up as well. He has friends who will give him counsel, I really do think we should reduce the restrictions For Great Justice. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Olive
Sanctions should have an expiry date. I haven't seen anything that indicates Andy cannot operate without sanctions. Lifting the sanctions then, is a next logical step. As well, we cannot conflate an editing/discussion style with sanctionable behavior. One is a emotional response to something we don't like; while a sanction is specifically a perceived transgression of our policies and guidelines. They are very different and should be dealt with as such. If we started sanctioning editors because we don't like their discussion style, we could become very short of editors in a hurry. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC))
- If possible could arbs outline why they decline the case. We should be aiding editors to become fully operational again. Unless they are given feed back on their behavior they can't know how they are perceived or how to improve.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC))
Statement by Montanabw
Time for these restrictions to go; they should expire, and the reality is that we have an editor who has extensive experience and knowledge being subjected to a set of rules suitable for 5 year olds. I favor the proposal. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Rschen7754
Given this discussion on Wikidata, where Pigsonthewing had his property creation rights revoked a few days ago, I do not see a good reason why the sanctions should be lifted, specifically the one about disrupting discussions. --Rschen7754 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ritchie333
If I had to pick a specific problem with Andy Mabbett, it would be that he doesn't do a great job of explaining himself, particularly when he thinks he's right. But that's hardly crime of the century, is it? Drop his restriction back to parole, infoboxes are not the product of Satan's rear end and do serve a legitimate purpose in the right context. Then again, I find WikiData as exciting as watching grass grow, so don't take my view as gospel or anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Jbhunley
Based on their need to respond to nearly every comment which is counter to their view in this [6] VPP discussion about the religion=
infobox parameter I can see how they could rapidly become disruptive in an infobox discussion. Because of that remedy 4.3.2 should stay in place. Remedy 4.3.1, the wholesale inability to add infoboxes, should be relaxed or removed but 4.3.2 is needed to rapidly curtail disruption which may occur as a result. JbhTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
The terse statement from Andy seems more than sufficient to accept that he would like restrictions in this area lifted. I have no idea what could be more "substantive" than his clear statement, alas. I suggest he is cognizant of the desirability of avoiding confrontations regarding actual existence of infoboxen (Wagnerian declension of the word), but all ArbCom needs do is by motion state "the restrictions are lifted, but all involved shall be cognizant and edit regarding infoboxes in accord with such cognizance." Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I would generally encourage these kinds of requests be filed by the person affected by the remedy, but in lieu of that, I'll at least wait to opine until Pigsonthewing leaves a statement here indicating he would actually like these remedies lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Decline --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Decline absent a substantive statement from the editor in question. Personally, I won't take any step involving the bizarrely apoplectic infobox wars without being extremely thorough. While I am impressed by the statements of support by numerous other editors, I think a statement from the editor himself is required before we can consider any modification, however minor or appropriate it may or may not be. Strike my vote if a statement is posted. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled that in only a few hours I've already received two objections to the idea that someone seeking having their sanctions removed should make a substantive statement about why they should be lifted and what they would do following their removal. This is standard procedure. Requests and appeals accompanied without such statements are routinely rejected by the community and the Committee. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I expect I'll be in the minority on this one, but I'd be willing to revise these. We do, however, need some further input from Pigsonthewing; what would be useful is a clear statement of how, specifically, he would like to see the restrictions modified - the answer may be "I want them removed entirely", but let's try to find something that might actually get consensus in favor. From the comments above it sounds like we could consider modifying remedy 1.1 to allow adding an infobox but restrict reverting if it is removed, or to allow adding an infobox when it arises specifically in the course of WiR/outreach activities. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tentatively support The simplest thing would just be a trial, making it clear that the sanction will be reimposed if problems resume. I would have been willing to consider this whether or not the individual sanctioned had asked for it; there are imaginable situations where a person might not want their sanctions changed or even brought up again for discussion, but the actual request here does not seem to fall in that category. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to consider revising the restriction (whether Opabinia's suggestion or suspending it for a while), however before doing that I'd like some further input from Pigsonthewing about what where he sees this going (removing it entirely doesn't look like it'll get consensus) and that he is cognisant of the past issues and how he intends to avoid them (which may be where a compromise restriction comes from). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd likely support something along the lines of removing review remedy 1.1 (plus 3 as it'll be moot) and keeping 2.1, but adding a restriction (possibly suspended) which prohibits Andy from re-adding an infobox to an article if one has been removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would be fine with removing 1.1 and 3. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms
Initiated by Tryptofish at 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Tryptofish
An unresolved locus of dispute remaining after the case concerns how Wikipedia should describe the views of scientists about the safety or lack of safety of eating foods derived from GMOs. Many pages within the case scope include a sentence or two, usually in the lead but sometimes in other sections, that are similar in wording. For example, the lead of Genetically modified crops says: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.
Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording, but disagree about how to revise it. This is probably the most intractable question that remains.
Previously, ArbCom successfully dealt with an entrenched dispute at Jerusalem by establishing by motion (motion 1, motion 2) a community RfC (link) with a binding consensus. Here, I request that ArbCom enact by motion a similar binding community RfC to resolve this dispute about GMOs.
As with the previous case, ArbCom should appoint a panel of three uninvolved, experienced editors to determine the consensus at the end of the RfC, and ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.
In the previous case, ArbCom also named a "moderator". Here, there should be at least one uninvolved, experienced administrator appointed as a "moderator" or "supervisor". There will be some differences from the last case here. The editors who are most involved in the dispute have already created four proposals that seem to represent the main options that the community should evaluate in the RfC; these four proposals can be seen at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Of course, anyone can present additional proposals during the course of the RfC. Thus, there is no need for a moderated discussion prior to the RfC this time. Instead, the moderator/supervisor will need to oversee the construction of the RfC page and determine when the RfC is ready to be opened. Also, it is vitally important that this RfC not succumb to the disorganization and tl;dr of previous RfCs about GMOs (link). Therefore, the moderator/supervisor must be assertive and effective throughout the RfC in preventing badgering and in refactoring excessive threaded discussion that amounts to filibustering, in addition to enforcing the existing DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by David Tornheim
I did participate in the discussion about Tryptofish's plans for RfC. I was under the impression this would be an RfC similar to the other two that preceded it. I do not remember any indication that there was a plan to take it to ArbCom. I wish Tryptofish had first suggested this plan at the talk page rather than going straight here without telling us first this was his/her plan, or giving us the opportunity to discuss the proposed instructions above.
I am strongly opposed to making the content of the RfC fixed for three years. GMO's are fairly recent and regulation of them is still developing and constantly changing, varying widely by country.[1] Only recently 16 countries informed the E.U. of their desire to opt-out of accepting the E.U.'s GMO approvals [7]. Despite the large number of studies very little is known about long term effects on health. [8], [9]. [10]. A major review article cited 150 times according to Google Scholar by toxicologist Jose Domingo (2011) stated "more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public." [2] Our duty is to report the state of the art, and it could easily change. If this were about something as stable and accepted as Netwon's laws of motion or Maxwell's Equations, or the alphabet, fixing the content for greater than 1 year would unlikely present any foreseeable problems. The fact that GMO's are so new and evolving is why there are disagreements. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center. March 2014.
- ^ Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
Statement by Aircorn
This has been the major sticking point with editors from all sides of the debate for a few years now and in my opinion having some form of binding resolution about the scientific opinion on GMOs would calm this contentious area down considerably. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
List of articles where the "scientific consensus" or "scientific agreement" statement is made:
- Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section)
- Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section)
- Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section)
- Genetically modified organism (controversy section)
- Genetically modified maize (controversy section)
- March Against Monsanto (background section)
- The Non-GMO Project (mission section)
- Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (lead)
There may be more, but at least it gives an idea of the current scope. I guess if this goes ahead it would be binding on appropriate new articles (for example Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms). AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @David. We need some time limit otherwise things will just degenerate straight after the RFC finishes. Maybe there should be some caveat for reassessment if major new information presents itself, but as any new study would have to go through the normal scientific processes (which can take a long time) before it leads to a change in consensus three years seems reasonable. A version of the current statement has been in the article for longer than three years anyway. Also the use of ARBcom was discussed previously (see Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_2#Potential RFC) AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43
Tryptofish has done a great job trying to organize this RfC and has been upfront from the start that we'd ask for ArbCom's help in implementing it from the start.[11]. No one involved can act surprised about this.
This really is the backbone of the GMO dispute where numerous editors have tried to fight tooth and nail to claim there isn't a scientific consensus on GMO safety. Often we get cherry-picked fringe sources trying to dispute the consensus just like in climate change denial. These WP:ADVOCACY actions trying to further a fringe point of view to this degree technically should be sanctioned as ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that advocacy related to fringe theories needs to be dealt with to calm subject areas (which also contradicts the claim that is only a content dispute and admins/ArbCom can't do anything in that realm).
In reality though, it's extremely tough for uninvolved admins to gauge advocacy, so we get "proxy" topic bans when those editors really stick their heads out there and edit war, engage in personal attacks, etc. as we can see at WP:AE since the GMO case closed. A lot of advocacy editors keep under the radar though as long-term advocacy doesn't get handled well at AE. Further solidifying the scientific consensus language should be a longer-term solution than trying to tackle editor advocacy directly, but we do need both to settle the topic area like other parallel cases such as climate change.
Tryptofish pointed out the problem with the last RfC where some would WP:BLUDGEON the RfC process with walls of text trying to cast doubt on the consensus while expert editors trying to respond to that only further compounds the lengthiness. Word limits might cause more problems though, so the only thing I can suggest for an appointed admin watching the RfC besides obvious uncivil behavior is to keep an eye out for general bludgeon and advocacy behavior. Whoever administers the RfC and admins/ArbCom in future actions should be reminded that advocacy against a scientific consensus has specifically been spelled as a sanctionable offense through ArbCom and discretionary sanctions in well known cases ranging from alt-med to climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Why do you need us to hold an RFC? Can't the community enforce a consensus like it normally does? I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of deciding which RFCs are binding and which are not. It's a novel solution, but not one that I think should be elevated to binding policy by us. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)