User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:The Wordsmith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Trout

Can you point to the edits of mine that were uncivil? I don't want to be disruptive, but WP:CIVIL policy is a dead letter. If I did something to violate actual WP policy, I want to know what. Felsic2 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you violated any policies, or else I would have succested sanctions. The trouting is a lighthearted reminder that we should all probably be a bit more polite to each other, especially in contentious areas where tensions can run high.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Where was I impolite? Felsic2 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4 (Plain White T's song)

Ironically there is no consensus fo this, and you say nothing about it. Thanks for waisting a week of my life. No need to reply. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert

Hi, The Wordsmith, sorry for my revert at AE. I didn't realize you were a reviewing admin, and thought you were just a well-meaning passerby. I'll self-revert if that's what you'd prefer. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The personal attack was directed at you. While I don't believe it has any place on Wikipedia, if you wish it to stay then I'll respect that. Thank you for your politeness. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

AE

Hi The Wordsmith, Apologies for the interruption. Looking at a couple of things at the current WP:AE discussion: Firstly, and most importantly, could I ask you to check in with Spartaz; they seem upset by the hatting of their comments in the uninvolved admin section. Secondly, I note that your comment indicates a belief that the concerns of administrative involvement have not be demonstrably shown. I would ask that you read over my statement updated a few hours ago, particularly the section directly addressed to you. I believe that the diffs in that section evidence an administrator 30/500 protecting a Talk page to prevent discussion of a potential conflict of interest by another editor; who had deleted that discussion themselves. If this does not appear as clear to you as it does to me, I am happy to answer any follow up questions. If you are still searching for evidence for the main matter being discussed, please also review the whole of my statement, which contains copious diffs. I am also happy to trim these or point out the more serious breaches. Thanks in advance for your time. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz appears to have gone on wikibreak. If he thinks anything I said or did was improper he is more than welcome to discuss it with me; I'm perfectly willing to listen to a reasonable argument why bickering belongs in that section. Perhaps I misunderstood. As to your other request, I'll review your statement again and reexamine the evidence, and respond here in a few hours. Of course, anything you could to to separate the wheat from the chaff is helpful. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmith, I have no idea what you're talking about with "sniping"--Mark Bernstein made a comment about a comment I made, and I explained. I'd appreciate if you patronized me on my talk page rather than in a public forum. You can remove your comment any time you like. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll redact my statement at your request. The Enforcement request will be closed shortly anyway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to conclude a report at WP:AN/EW

Hi. Recently you've expressed willingness to step into the Gamergate topic area. This is great! We've been pretty (understandably) scarce on active editors with the ability to issue sanctions. I'd like to ask that you look into a report I've made on the edit warring noticeboard here that concerns the GG topic area. It's been sitting there for over a week now. If you don't feel you can decide either way, that's fine, but it'd be nice for the report to have a result, regardless of what that result might be. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a look, but a) I'm expecting a shitstorm shortly due to the sanction I recently imposed, and b) I'm about to go to bed. If it can wait until tomorrow afternoon, I'd be happy to look into it for you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That'd be fine. Thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You aren't neutral in GG. You should defer to actually uninvolved admins like Gamaliel. Please overturn and restore Mark's rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.0 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that I'm not neutral? I honestly don't care about GG one way or another; I just want the chaos to end and I see a lot of bad behavior on both sides. I don't recall participating in the topic area other than enforcement and giving an occasional interpretation of Wikipedia policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You're going to get this sort of stuff with increasing regularity. I regret that it's become part of the background noise in the general topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew that would happen even before I issued the sanction. I'll probably be getting it from both entrenched sides; it won't be the first time I've stepped in to police a controversial area, and this topic looks like a polite disagreement compared to Scientology, Climate Change, Eastern Europe or Unsourced BLP mass deletions. That doesn't mean I should ignore criticism of my actions. Previous enforcing admins did exactly that, and look where we are now. I'd like to think that I'm resilient enough to handle the flames without getting burnt out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the case. Not the outcome I agree with, but far better than stagnation. I'm sorry for not taking it to AE- I legitimately didn't know that was the preferred venue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, now you know. And it is entirely possible for two editors to have a polite and reasonable disagreement on matters of policy, contrary to what many in this topic area believe. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding conduct

Since you were dealing with DHeyward's 3RR, I figured I should ask you. He has made some questionable edits in the past few days, which were mostly reverted by other editors. I'm not sure if it is something that should be ignored since they were reverted or if they should be dealt with, since the reversions were not by DHeyward. They include him referring to Gamaliel as a "Minister of Propaganda" and a cancer (which was reverted by a clerk). He also edited Gamaliel's infobox (reverted by Starke Hathaway), claiming vandals had removed {{user dem}} (The userpage history show no edits from anyone but Gamaliel for several years). Is this something you can (or would even want to) deal with, should it go to ANI or does it matter anymore since it has been removed? Torven (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see if anything is improper and sanctionable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked your diffs over. The first two are impolite, but getting heated over an Arbcom case is hardly a new phenomenon. Also, that page is outside of my jurisdiction. The Arbitration Clerks are the ones who determine what is suitable for that page. As to the infobox...well, I'm not sure what's going on there. I'll follow up with DHeyward, but on the face of it the edit doesn't seem malicious, just odd. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm overly formal, but I think any examination of DHeyward's behavior under ArbCom discretionary sanctions should happen at AE, with notification to him, rather than here without notification. Also I notice that Torven does not meet the 500/30 requirements to even edit in the GG topic area, so it is at the very least questionable whether it is proper for them to bring enforcement requests pertaining to that area in any venue. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Torven or anyone else is perfectly free to bring up a case at AE and have his diffs fully examined. However, as I interpreted his comment, he was merely asking my advice on whether or not there was something worth following up on. My opinion is that there isn't. An informal request for a second opinion doesn't need to go through the frankly Byzantine AE structure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the GG sanctions came into this discussion. The comments were far from civil, but I didn't think incivility, alone, was covered by any arbcom decision. The reason I mentioned the user page edit was because DHeyward commented on how Gamaliel was outspokenly partisan and displayed his party on his profile...then added it to the info box when he discovered that wasn't the case. Its not really an attack, but it seems like there is an unhealthy fixation on painting Gamaliel in a specific light. Torven (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

BLPTALK

Hi Wordsmith, re: your comment at the Gamergate page, please don't encourage editors to post those allegations on the talk page. BLPTALK allows links to RS, but advises that the problematic text not be posted, for obvious reasons. I don't know whether you're there as an uninvolved admin, but if you are, I'd appreciate it if we could work together on this and not against each other. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. Been ages since I've seen you around. Yes, I'm there as an uninvolved admin giving my opinions on matters of policy and enforcement. I would like very much if we could work together on that.

What I'm confused on is what part violates the policy. Since I first got my mop I've been one of the most zealous BLP defenders, but I just don't see it. Maybe you see something that I don't. My interpretation of WP:BLPTALK hinges on the sentence "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. (emphasis mine)" I get that the allegations made are contentious and controversial, and if it were citing a marginal source I would agree with you that RevDel is appropriate. However, the source given is the Washington Post, one of the most reliable and reputable newspapers I know. And since they're discussing whether or not to incorporate it into the article, it does seem related to making content choices. So, I don't see how the use of RevDel is appropriate here. If you'll notice, I didn't reinstate the edits; I just gave my opinion on them.

Of course, its entirely possible that my understanding is wrong and I'll listen to a reasonable argument to that effect. Can you please explain why you believe that the allegations are unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to content decisions? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi WS, WP:BLPTALK is the relevant part of the policy. It says (my bold):

"When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"

The editors on the page have decided (so far) not to add the claim to the article, because the target is non-notable, and the claim is damaging and perhaps false. So there is no need for an editor to write: "The paragraph from [journalist] (which talked about [claim]) has been redacted, and it is very confusing to follow the discussion." The editors there know what is being talked about; they are not confused. And the editor who posted this said he had no intention of adding it to the article, and indeed opposed doing so, so it seemed POINTy.

When handling difficult BLP issues, the aim is to minimize the spelling out of things. That only works if everyone is acting in good faith. It takes only one to makes things wobble. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I see where the discrepancy is. I'm focusing more on the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. It's a tough call. I still disagree with you that it is a violation, but to err on the side of caution I won't revert your RevDel. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Appeal notice

I have appealed to the recent sanction you imposed on me. STSC (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible topic ban violation

Since you were the admin who placed the topic ban on Bernstein for all things GamerGate-related, I noticed that he has been making comments about a Arbcom decision that was related to GamerGate here. One person pointed out that this might be violating his topic ban, which I think he might be. GamerPro64 02:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have to look into it further, but sanctions traditionally are not meant to prohibit an editor from defending themselves at Arbitration. Other editors seem to have presented evidence regarding his conduct, so that opens the door. I'll follow up on it, but unless I see something unexpected it probably isn't a violation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Though I don't find this to be defending himself as its more of him commenting on something involving Arbcom and another user. I have no real clue as to why he's speaking for Gamaliel besides Gamaliel taking a break from Wikipedia. GamerPro64 03:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark's comments at WT:ARBN have absolutely nothing to do with defending himself. They're not on the case pages, where he is not a party anyway. Gamaliel has been restricted by motion from enforcement in the GamerGate space and MarkBernstein just had to comment. How this is not a blatant, text-book violation of his topic ban is beyond me and your comment that "it would be a good idea to formally clarify whether or not this is allowed under the terms of his active sanctions" frankly beggars belief. AGF is not a suicide pact; he has not even shown any interest in whether these are tban violations. Warnings and clarifications just do not work with this guy. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your position. When I banned him from Gamergate, I did not foresee that this issue would (tangentially) end up at Arbitration again. Topic bans are not ordinarily designed to prevent participation in dispute resolution, and I did not specifically mention that in the restriction. That gives enough room for uncertainty that I'm hesitant to issue a sanction. If we make the issue crystal clear and these edits continue, then there is a valid reason to. Also, if you have further statements to make, please do so at AE rather than my talk page. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

AE regarding ArghyaIndian

Hi, The Wordsmith, I have provided enough evidence against that user on how he violated WP:ARBIPA according to my understanding. If you can go through it, i am pretty sure, you will find it compelling enough to issue a indef t-ban to him. In return, he has thrown at me everything under the sky but i do not think anything has any substance to it and i do not think the things are the way he is describing them but if you go through his WP:WALLOFTEXT and you find something compelling enough against me, please do let me know and give me an opportunity to clarify. Otherwise, i do not think i have a need or a word allowance remaining to reply to him. I will suggest cutting his statement which is over 500 word limit and then decide. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, lots of people have provided copious amounts of evidence about everything, most of it being just posturing and walls of text to obfuscate the issues. What I'm looking for is a clear, concise and succinct statement, backed up with the most explicit evidence, of why your complaint warrants the requested sanction. In my many years of dispute resolution, I've learned that truth is singular, while lies are words, words, and words. The most effective tactic to cut through it is to require brevity. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let me make it even more simpler. Just look at the first three diffs and diff number 5 and the explanation next to these four diffs. Leave everything else and see if he violated WP:ARBIPA just based on those four diffs. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That is acceptable, I will review the diffs you suggest and decide based on that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't trust Sheriff completely. ArghyaIndian is a new editor while FreeatlastChitchat is not new with a big block log. And FreeatlastChitchat has many ANI reports of harassment, personal attacks, wikihounding. ANI archive for FreeatlastChitchat will show you everything. ArghyaIndian with a clean block log don't deserve any sanction. Without naming the country you can see that this is about India-Pakistan related disputes. You made a comment about imposing topic ban on FreeatlastChitchat, for that Sheriff came to your talk page, and wants that ArghyaIndian should be topic banned. Even that WP:AE report against ArghyaIndian was made as a retaliation against WP:AE against FreeatlastChitchat. 223.176.0.231 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know why SheriffIsInTown supports FreeatlastChitchat and wants ArghyaIndian to be under Arbitration sanction. 223.176.0.231 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, to my best of the ability, I have written a statement at AE. Guidelines about how to write a statement was instructed by My very best wishes to me [1]. I cannot trim it more now.

I was not even aware of these AE and ANI noticeboards till SheriffIsInTown intentionally reported me at these noticeboards. I have not done anything wrong. I am honest and I stand by my comment.

Please do take a look at the evidences I provided. I am a newcomer. I am no sock, no meat puppet. He can report me anywhere he want to clear his suspicion. I am opposed to bully/arrogance. I have a clean block log and I don't have any interest in India-Pakistan military history. But I do have interest in India and Bangladesh related topics as the time passes, I will be able to contribute more professionally.

I have less then 6 edits to 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page/talk page combined and SheriffIsInTown reported me at AE because I voted Reject in the RFC and opposed his desperate attempt of converting an NPOV article into a POV COATRACK. Calling him a POV pusher is calling a spade a spade.

Furthermore, He is blatantly lying here. He cannot even reply to my evidences (because he don't have any excuse, this time). Please do also take a look at those three ANI links in my statement in which I replied to his every accusations. My replies alone exposed this user (as, he was blatantly lying). --ArghyaIndian (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A question

I saw that you've shown willingness to intervene in this AE request. I'm the one who listed him here previously and then he was blocked for 7 days. There are plenty of clear diffs regarding his behavioral issues (personal attacks and hounding mostly) which I can provide at your request. My hesitation is due to fact that the topic is listed in an AE page and I don't know if I can add those diffs there (which are not restricted to the mentioned enforced area). Can I add them? Tnx. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You're free to add the diffs, if you like. Depending on the relevance I can't guarantee how I will weight them, but I will at least look. Please be clear and concise with your evidence. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by relevance? What aspects are meant? Mhhossein (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

We generally only review evidence at AE that relates to the area under sanction. Diffs outside that topic area are considered in order to show a pattern, but not weighed as heavily as evidence from inside the DS umbrella. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that indef topic ban is supported by the other admin. So, there's no need to provide marginal diffs. Thank you anyway. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A report has been filed

Please be aware. - 2601:42:C104:28F0:D139:A61E:D642:7FDD (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please ignore it. NE Ent 10:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Nice to see that somebody is keeping an eye out for banned editors, but it strains credulity to believe that it would be more appropriate to revert vandalism back in to continue calling a BLP subject an inflated rubber sphere, than make the obvious quick fix. The person pointing out the obvious vandalism is largely irrelevant. Thanks, NE Ent, for taking care of that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

AE

I thought AE is the right place for reporting users but anyway, I withdrawn that report being a filer but a user reverted me stating admin will hat it themself's. I do not wanted to get block (even for a short period). Please hat that case. I wanna withdraw and promise, won't file reports based on diffs that are over one week old. Please pardon me. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'll take your statement into consideration, and see if I can get some more admins to give input. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was the editor that reverted his blanking (please see AE history), as I had an edit conflict while adding my own statement to the report Arghya filed and felt that the blanking was not in the right spirit anyway. Also, I am still concerned that Arghya has hardly addressed his casting of aspersions on others, misinterpretation of WP policy and counting revert to WP:DUCK socks as "editwar" to further his argument in a report. Even more so, the above request merely suggests WP:Wikilawyering around the fact that he will not file reports with diffs that are a week old; unrepentant on the rest. IMO, Arghya needs to stay far away from the users he thinks he can not edit with. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concerns too. I hate getting involved in these topic areas, but I'm still going to do my best to make a fair decision that takes everyone's position into account. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The topic area is a mess with many sets of socks and WP:MPOV... it is understandable. Did not want to bring any to-and-fro to your talkpage though... just a clarification on my edit conflict (which happened again with this comment and lead to my updated comment). Cheers. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I wokeup this morning thinking that I will personally request the Admins not to block Argha as I felt bad for him and thought he should be given another chance. But my my, he on one hand pretends to be sorry while withdrawing the AE but at the same time is justifying his frivolous report in the background that too on an Admin's talk. This is strange for me. Speaking truly, I actually didnt sleep well thinking someone may be blocked because of me, but after reading this iam more convinced that there is a reason WP emphasizes on assuming Good Faith, but then it does not guarantee it in return. How can someone game the system repeatidly is beyond me. I dont think Arghya's apology/withdrawal is in good faith. *shocked* —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 07:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: ArghyaIndian has been hounding certain editors for blocks/bans especially myself and that too with writing WP:WALLOFTEXT, there must be some passion behind it which I am unable to understand. This hounding of opposing editors needs to stop and he should more focus on improving encyclopedia. You can just see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheriffIsInTown for another frivolous attempt by him and then The Wordsmith is witness of his passion on WP:AE with which he was writing wall of text against me. His choice of language was very bad as well. The Wordsmith just can see a previous thread (#AE regarding ArghyaIndian) on his own talk page to see the way he was attacking me personally calling me a lier but still he was let go scott free. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

GMO RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once again, thank you very much for your gracious comments about the GMO RfC request at ArbCom. The discussion there seems to be slowing down, with an emerging consensus that it would be best for the community to try to make it work without involving ArbCom, so I would like to discuss some things with you here, in order to see if we can pin down some details to make this work. I'm also pinging Laser brain, who has also offered to help with some of the adminstrative stuff. I'd like to see if we think that the following ideas are workable. If we agree that this is promising, then I'll leave a message about it at the Arb page.

I think I would be comfortable that the RfC would work well if we could do all of the following:

Preparing the RfC: Editors need to discuss the nuts and bolts of setting up the RfC – what the RfC page would look like, how it would work, what the rules would be. You have said that you might help with mediating something like this, and I hope that you will. Would you agree to mediating it and making sure that DS are followed during that discussion?
Keeping the RfC orderly: Both you and Laser brain have said that you might be willing to strictly enforce DS and the RfC rules while the RfC is in process, along with any other uninvolved administrators who might come along. Would you each agree to do this?
Determining consensus: I think that we need to have a panel of three (3) completely uninvolved admins or experienced editors to evaluate the consensus after the RfC has ended. I think some editors will consider anyone mediating or enforcing DS to be involved. I suggest that we recruit the 3 users through a request at WP:AN, and I want them to be announced before the RfC opens. Does this sound reasonable?
Making sure the consensus does not get disrupted: I like the idea of making a rule, under DS, from the beginning, that the only way the RfC consensus can later be altered is by way of a regular RfC, open for at least 30 days. This rule should be posted as a notice on the talk page of each affected article. It should be strictly enforced under DS. Any editor may revert a non-consensus change, and such reverts need to be exempt from the 1RR rule. Will this work?

I hope this can work, and I want to make sure everything is in place from the start. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Yes, I am willing to assist in keeping the RFC orderly and in ensuring the consensus that emerges is respected. I have never edited in this topic area, nor have I been involved with anyone who does, to my knowledge. I'll leave 1 and 3 to those setting up the RFC, but I think 4 is a bit of over-litigation. The normal process of enforcing consensus applies and I don't think we need to create any special rules for new RFCs or 1RR. If a non-consensus change gets reverted and the person restores it, my tendency would be to remove them from the situation anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:@Laser brain: I would like to begin moving with all deliberate speed. In order to proceed, we need to firmly establish the following information:

The locus of the dispute and its history.
Any users that may potentially be interested in participating, from all sides of the dispute. We can put notices on the relevant article talk pages, but I find that the personal touch in reaching out to editors establishes a more courteous atmosphere.
How to choose the 3 admins that decide it. If we post to AN and get more than three responses, we need some sort of criteria. Obviously experience with dispute resolution and consensus building is important, as is having admins who are uninvolved and respected so as not to cast a cloud on their consensus. That said, a little boldness is preferable, as the RFC will certainly be complex.
Precise rules of conduct. This needs to be posted clearly at the top of the page, for all to see. It can include things like word limits in statements, civility standards, enforcement measures, and a timeline for the RFC.
The RFC format. I would suggest a 2-stage RFC: First, to solicit statements and opinions from the community on the nature of the problem, and second to narrow them down into workable proposals. For an example, please see WP:BLPRFC1 and WP:BLPRFC2, which was a FAR more complex and tendentious issue than I'm anticipating here. The 2-stage format worked, and the most rabid BLP Inclusionists (one of which currently sits on the Committee) and the rabid BLP Deletionists (including several prominent and polarizing community members) were able to more or less come to a consensus. The ultimate result is that the community's frustrations were released in BLPRFC1 and my closure of BLPRFC2 was much more productive and able to establish a framework that still exists, largely unmodified, 6 years later. I have yet to see another RFC this contentious that had a stronger or more productive result, so I'm a firm believer in that format.
Assuming the RFC results in consensus, a Discretionary Sanction could be issued stating that it should not be overturned without an equally strong consensus. I would recommend establishing a review in 6 months; see WP:BLPRFC3 for how that worked.

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! I am happy that each of you agrees to be involved in those ways. (And I'm watchlisting here.)

About points 1 and 5 in The Wordsmith's list, please see Talk:Genetically modified crops. I'm quite confident that all the editors who have strong feelings about the dispute have been participating in the discussion there, and editors have already prepared 5 proposals for the exact text and sourcing. It seems to me that we already have consensus among the disputing editors about what we want to change in the existing content, and the question is what to change it to – and the 5 proposals already capture the range of editor opinions. Although of course I believe that the community should be free to make further proposals during the RfC, what we really need is an RfC focused on choosing among the proposals. I think we are ready to go right to setting that up.

About reaching out to editors, I agree. I can start by posting at the ArbCom page, to draw attention to our discussion right here. I'm just waiting to make sure that we are settled on something that I believe can work, before I effectively tell ArbCom that they can bow out and leave it to the community. I think we can then draw up an editor list from the editors who have been commenting recently at the affected article talk pages, and that will be a straightforward process. And about agreeing ahead of time about precise rules of conduct: amen!

About getting the 3 closers at AN, I figure we should accept the first three who volunteer and who are not objected to by editors. I'm not worried about getting too many volunteers.

Now about what I said in my point 4, where Laser brain is concerned about too much formality, and The Wordsmith said point 6, I feel like this is now the one issue that may still be unsettled. ~~One of the Arbs just said (I think) that they may in fact be open to ArbCom requiring their review of subsequent changes, but I've just asked for clarification, and I want to see what they say.~~ I don't think a time period (such as 3 years) really matters, but I want something in place that will not be gamed, because believe me, people will try. If we get what Laser brain calls a non-consensus change being reverted and restored, or what The Wordsmith calls "an equally strong consensus", there will be all kinds of arguments about which version was really consensus and which was non-consensus, and about how strong is "equally" strong, which is why I think that we need to define a minimum criterion to establish that consensus has really changed, and not leave it to admins to try to figure it out after the fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) The Arb replied while I was writing this, and ArbCom does not want to enforce that. I misunderstood. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have eaten my edit, so I'll announce that I've begun setting up a skeleton at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

I've seen and watchlisted the draft RfC, and I am happy with your wording about the issue of the conditions for subsequently revisiting the consensus. I have plenty of other suggestions, and just let me know when you are ready for those. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, feel free to add to it or edit it. It is still a Userspace Draft now, so Arbcom sanctions are not yet in place. Best to have things planned out before putting it before the wider community. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to chime in and say I like the framework being set up here, especially the combination of 500 words initial statement and 250 for small responses to editors. The only thing I could see adding right now is a few additional pages to the Policies, etc. to keep in mind section. One would be WP:RS/AC policy since that deals directly with when we use the term scientific consensus in articles. WP:MEDRS also applies since we are talking about food safety in terms of reliable sources. That should cover the bases in that area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While this is in my Userspace for now, I'm not expressing Ownership of it. Please, feel free to add things you feel are necessary and propose bigger changes on the draft talkpage. Boldness and collaboration are welcome. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great, and I'll do some bold stuff shortly. I greatly appreciate the way that you have really listened to me, so thank you very much for that.

But there is one part of it that I'd like to discuss, especially because it's already been mentioned just above. I think that we can actually be a lot more generous with respect to the word limits. Editors may need to explain some complex content matters, and that's OK. If the RfC were to have been set up with the typical threaded discussion, then tl;dr would be a fatal flaw. But if someone chooses to filibuster within their own section, then all they are doing is rendering their own views tl;dr. If the DS are strict about NPA and no off-topic anything, then also having an AE-style requirement of each editor in his/her own section helps a lot with the problems I anticipate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, even a tl;dr statement is one that the closing admins are going to have to read carefully and take into account. By compressing their statement down to a word count, it forces brevity and requires editors to stay on topic. That makes it much easier for the closing admins to see their point and weigh it accordingly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As I dope-slap myself for misunderstanding something, I realize that I misinterpreted how the draft page is set up, so: here is something else worth discussing. There are two ways for editors to make their comments about the individual proposals in the RfC. (1) One is like at WP:RFC/J, where there is a section for each draft, under which editors register themselves as supporting or opposing. I now realize that's what you intended for the sections about the proposals at the bottom. And thus, the sections for editor statements, above those, are for general statements as opposed to for proposal !votes. I misinterpreted the statement sections as also being where everyone would state their preferences among the proposals. (2) But there is a second way to set up the RfC, which is what Laser brain proposed here: [2]. In other words, make it entirely like AE, with each editor having just one section, and no threaded discussion anywhere (except the talk page). So, in "Tryptofish's section", I would have to say what I want to say about each proposal, say anything else permitted at the RfC, and make any responses to other editors. I think that second way is a really good idea. That's what I was (mistakenly) talking about above. It would allow enforcement much as at AE, and make it pretty much impossible for one editor to get in the way of what another editor tries to say. We should not need separate sections for people to make grandiose statements, because they will. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to altering the format. Let's see if we can get some other editors in here to give their opinion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of Tryptofish's approach (I hadn't realized what Trypto noticed either). It should keep things much more orderly to avoid blugeoning, which is why we're looking for this help in setting up the RfC. I share similar concerns about the word limits in that it could impede explaining complex topics, but I think we also need them to prevent disruption. I'd be open to raising the response word limit potentially, but I'm not going to push that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the proposals to the draft RfC page, and I also boldly edited it per what KofA and I said just above. In my individual opinion, I think it's in pretty good shape, and perhaps ready to start notifying involved editors and to request closers at AN.

Here is a list of editors who have been commenting recently (and of course omitting the topic-banned), and I think it can be the list of editors you might want to reach out to. (It's possible however that I accidentally left someone out.) I'm not linking or notifying any names, so that you can proceed as you choose. In addition to me (Tryptofish): Aircorn, David Tornheim, Dialectric, Kingofaces43, Lfstevens, Petrarchan47, RAMRashan, Sunrise, Tsavage.

Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good to me. I'm going to seek some additional input, then begin initiating the proper RFC procedure. I hope to have it in Project space and officially open by Monday at the latest. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. Thank you very much. Please let me recommend having the three closers lined up before the RfC goes live. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment/Observation: I have been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks. I have a number of comments to make about the construction of the rules, but will need a few days to collect my thoughts. I do appreciate that The WordsSmith and Laser Brain have stepped forward. I will discuss issues about neutrality when I come back.

The most important observation for now: Very few GM editors are aware this discussion is taking place, and hence have not commented here. IMHO, there should be notices at a minimum on the GM crops article, but also the other affected articles, notifying and requesting editors to comment here on the proposed Rules of the RfC. (I regret I do not have time to help right now, as I did in the past.) So far there are only two editors who have spoken here who have worked on GM articles in the past and both have a strong bias that favors using the words "scientific consensus"--the pro-industry language. Before the rules are set for RfC #3 on whether Wikipedia will call it a "scientific consensus", I suggest we have an equal number of voices of those who opposed this language at the massive 2nd RfC on this subject--the RfC that caused that language to be changed to "general scientific agreement"--to have a chance to comment. Perhaps everyone who commented there and on the first RfC should be invited to discuss these proposed rules? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim, your comments conflate the "rules" of the RFC with the wording of the proposals. If you have a problem with the term "scientific consensus", you are free to add a proposal with your preferred wording when the RFC opens. Participating editors can comment on it as they see fit. The rules themselves are of course open to comment, but ultimately are being specified under WP:AE authority. I will advocate strongly for rules that prevent the use of WP:BLUDGEON and keep participant commentary to neat, concise sections. Once consensus is established by the RFC, I will be assisting in swift enforcement actions (to include blocks and topic bans) upon editors who attempt to contravene or relitigate the RFC question out-of-process. The Wordsmith, where are we on the timeline for posting? --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was not saying that the comments at the RfC--once it is released--should require comments from editors of any certain perspective. That would be wrong for sure. I was saying that--until I spoke here--the only comments HERE about the rules from experienced GM editors are just two editors, both who support the pro-industry statement which they want changed with this RfC. If you want to prevent people from saying the process has problems, I think it would be a good idea to solicit more input from previously involved editors, such as those from the previous two RfC's, so that you are not simply getting buy-in from editors of one perspective/bias. You can't say the process of making the rules for the RfC are transparent if editors who have GM articles on their watchlist don't know about the discussion, which appears to be the case. (I only found this discussion because I carefully searched through the AE discussion that has not even been closed and appears unresolved.) You are of course free to make up any rules you like and move forward at any speed you like without any input from experienced GM editors if you choose. But if the only input and buy-in you get on these rules is from involved editors comes from one perspective, that will increase the odds that Tryptofish's prediction that the process will be called flawed will come to fruition. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I didn't misunderstand you. I'm very much in favor of transparent processes and I agree that anyone who is interested should be given full visibility into this process and the opportunity to comment. What I am trying to say is that the RFC rules won't be litigated for extended periods of time to suit the agendas of involved editors, and not all of the rules are going to be open to negotiation because an AE mandate is behind this process. The GM community has already proven unable to moderate itself, hence why it ended up in the arbitration process to begin with. --Laser brain (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We're a bit behind; unfortunately I've been bogged down with Enforcement, Gamergate and Arbcom issues. I'd like to start seeking admins willing to close so that the RFC can go live within the next few days. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me on this. I would prefer GM editors get notice of the proposed rules and a chance to comment a week before the RfC is open. I would also like some requirements on the closing admins. to help with concerns on neutrality, that involve making some declaration of having no financial COI and connection to the GM industry, PR and research. I believe a number of editors on the GMO articles are scientists working in biology, chemistry, biotechnology and related fields that may think they have no COI and don't disclose it, while others might disagree if these anonymous editors revealed more about their paid work. I am working on a proposal for a declaration that to address those concerns while protecting anonymity of the closing admins. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering myself how close we were to starting the RfC, so I am glad that David's question has brought that up. I want to point out that one of the proposals on the RfC page (Proposal 4) was written by David. Also, in my second-to-last comment here, I listed the names of all the GM-interested editors I am aware of, including David, and I left it to The Wordsmith to decide how and when to reach out to them (but I did post a link to here at ARCA, which is what David saw). Personally, I have no problem with having a discussion among these editors about the RfC rules prior to opening the RfC, and I think it might head off some problems if we take the time to do so. Also, please let me point out that I do not consider my position about the content issues to be "pro-industry", nor am I motivated in that way. Indeed, I'd like to remind editors that one of the rulings in the ArbCom GMO case was that it may be disruptive to accuse other editors of editing on behalf of industry, without evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone that is "pro-industry" in terms of those supporting the scientific consensus language, nor can I think of anyone that has actually shown evidence of themselves being "pro-industry" from those against the consensus language (e.g. organic lobby, etc.). In my conversations with Trypto, we both seem to come from positions in real life where we're pretty skeptical of industry where warranted as far as WP:EXPERT goes. I agree that this is extremely poor behavior by David considering all the previous warnings they've had about advocacy and ax grinding behavior along with their near-boomerang in their most recent AE case. Not to mention we're on the talk page of an admin actually following the dispute. I for one have grown tried of trying to get some action to get David to stop this behavior whenever they start blatantly pushing the envelope like this, so I'll leave that up to The Wordsmith.

What I will say though is that we should direct supervising admins (and those assessing consensus) to the passed principles from the ArbCom case, especially the one titled Casting aspersions. When we developed that principle, it was meant to provide some teeth to prevent even remote shill gambit tactics to cast aspersions about editors. It's one thing to inappropriately cast loose aspersions about sources with respect to content claiming various agencies are bought off (we've seen that in this dispute too), but casting that light in any form on editors, as David's comment above is a great example of, is much more severe.

We'll want to remind admins to keep an eye out for this and more general WP:FRINGE arguments within content and sources that we tend to see with climate change denial content. The latter is going to be trickier to handle for those uninvolved, but they should be aware pseduo-agruments tend to come up in controversial topics on scientific consensus when small (but loud) groups try to dispute consensus as opposed to substantial lack of agreement in the whole scientific community that would indicate a no scientific consensus. I say that focusing solely on content both here and as an RfC respondent, but admins themselves could look the behavior of editors making those arguments under discretionary sanctions from various cases on fringe science. We can deal with the actual content details with respect to FRINGE during the RfC itself, so just a heads up really to be ready to sort through that. Beyond all that (more than I intended to write), I don't really see much that needs further discussion before beginning the RfC in terms of rules for now at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingofaces43. I have done at least 10 hours' worth of reading just in preparation to monitor the RFC for behavioral issues and help ensure the resulting consensus is respected on the page. I have familiarized myself with the ArbCom case and its involved editors and principles. --Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I kinda wish I had known about this earlier. I had stopped watching the WP:ARCA page a while ago though, so probably missed the link from there. Looking at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. Thirteen rules before the RFC has even started seems a bit extreme. We want people to participate, not scare them off before they have even read the proposals. I don't think I have ever seen an rfc start like that before. Some of them seem redundant (i.e. saying it cannot be closed before 30 days when the closers have been pre-chosen), extreme (putting discretionary sanction notices on participants pages) or unnecessary (you do not have to participate). You run the danger of losing the important rules amoung the trivial ones. Same with the list of policy, guidelines and essays. Also I see the affected pages comes from my list. I am not sure (and think I said as much when posting it) if that is the complete list. The easiest way to find the complete list would be to ask Jytdog, but that can't happen. A history would be nice instead of just a linkfarm of previous attempts. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Aircorn. I agree that we can consider trimming rules that seem to be a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure I understand why putting DS notices on participants' pages is "extreme". That's normal practice for anyone who edits in one of these topic areas. --Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the intention of the notice they come across as rather aggressive. It is the first step before you take someone to WP:AE. We want to encourage uninvolved editors to participate and that would turn me off if I wasn't already heavily involved in this topic. Also it is definitely not normal practice to put DS notices on pages of people commenting at RFCs. There are currently lots of areas where discretionary sanctions are in play and I have probably commented or edited in most of them at some point or another without getting a notice (apart from a GMO one recently). A mention at the start of the RFC and even an edit notice should suffice, save the DS notices as a warning for when behavior warrants it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there can just be a notice at the top of the page or when someone edits the RfC page. The formal notification on talk pages isn't required from my reading here. Just that some sort of formal notification or obvious awareness is needed. I imagine we'd just need something similar to when people try to edit certain tagged articles for DS in addition to notification in the general RfC rules. That would cut down on notification work too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am thinking. One of the main aims for this rfc should be to get new voices and this seems a friendlier approach. The template can still be used as a not so subtle reminder to new editors to this area if there conduct is becoming, but not quite yet, disruptive. Us regulars all know better and I would expect no such warnings or leniency if the moderators view our conduct as sub-par. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think that an edit notice may be more helpful than individual notices at editor talk pages. I also know that ArbCom has an "official" edit notice that has been placed on many of the pages in case scope, so that is probably the best notice to use for the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just added the link for that edit notice at the top of the draft RfC page. Looking at it now, I notice that it emphasizes the 1RR restriction, which may not be so appropriate for an RfC discussion, where editors will really just be self-reverting but not edit warring, at least so long as we go with the AE-style sectioning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of information, David Tornhheim has been posting notices directing editors to this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, Aircorn is correct that I simply copied his list of affected pages. In fact, looking at where David has posted, I can already see that other pages are affected too. That list definitely needs to be revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  - I don't think the list is absolutely crucial, but it is useful to give an idea of how the sentence is used and how it could potentially be used in the future. I was more worried that editors might think it is the complete list, so would be fine just mentioning that it may be incomplete. AIRcorn (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    - Actually, I think that we will need to have an accurate list of all affected pages, however much time it will take to track all the pages down, because the Discretionary Sanctions will apply to every one of those pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      - It will be tough. I just found Denialism,[3] which has the wording. An editor I have never seen before (although they have been here a long time) added it[4]. It is more prevalent than even I thought. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
        I saw that too, and I feel the same way about it. But just imagine how, after the RfC, some editor tries to do something dodgy at the Denialism page, and there ends up being an argument at AE over whether or not that editor could have know about the Discretionary Sanctions. One way or another, every page needs to be tracked down. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I know that some editors here are keen to get this on the road, but I would just like to request a little time to add my thoughts to User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. Some editors have spent so long on the proposals it would seem a shame to rush the set up of the rfc. I think other involved editors should be given the chance to as well, the last thing we want are people crying foul over the wording and advertising. However, I will ultimately accept Wordsmiths and Laserbrains call on what wording and format to use and when to take it live. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think some extra input is worth allowing a little more time. It is important we get this right. I have read your points and responded to them there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's good, thanks. Let me point out to all editors here that the RfC was really in the very early stages of drafting when editors noticed it, and my understanding all along has been that editors would be consulted before the RfC went live. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just now became aware of this discussion, and the RfC outline at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC, which I've quickly read. I'd like more time to have the opportunity to comment there on the general set-up, and, as the author of one of the proposals under consideration, to give my entry and sources a final review. Generally speaking, I don't think this specific "scientific consensus" wording issue (which is how I see it) is as complicated as it has at times been made out to be, as far as determining policy-based content - a thoughtful, well-stated close, determined by three committed closers weighing orderly input from a reasonable number of participants, should be able to provide a clean, unambiguous outcome. We should simply take care that the rules framing the RfC are easily understood and, while encouraging useful, orderly input, do not discourage the widest participation, including from those who haven't previously edited in the GMO/GM food area. For me, within the next week should be enough time to consider and reply, and I will likely do so sooner than that. Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also am newly aware of this interesting process, and agree with Tsavage and David T. regarding the framing of an Rfc. I find it helpful to question the procedure, and even the need for such an Rfc. As we all know, the way these policy-defining RfC's are worded is crucial, and to be brief, I urge caution and patience in the wake of the last year of turmoil. And to be blunt, there may be editors involved that seem to me to be obsessed with obtaining an outcome they want. I think a deep look into the motives of some editors and their histories might prove instructive. Thanks. Jus da fax 06:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am also new to this conversation, but not new to the controversy. I was deeply involved in the last RfC which found that the "GMOs are safe" statement we had been running with for years didn't actually have support. I am saddened to see that we are trying to reinvent the wheel with this RfC.

I will keep it very simple: the reason this statement has caused such turmoil for so long is that it does not exist in RS, and Wikipedia is aiming to create a statement by cherry picking sources. This goes against every basic rule of this encyclopedia.

I am very interested to see good sources summarized accurately with regard to GMO food safety. I believe this is not a difficult task especially given the new, neutral observers willing to watch over the process. However, it is impossible to start from the end point, which is what this RfC is attempting to do, even though I have complained about this nonsensical route numerous times.

In every other area of WP that I have been involved in, we always start by choosing source material based on obvious weight and reliability issues. Then we agree on how it is best summarized, and it becomes a section in an article. THEN a simple summary of that section (which is essentially the goal of this RfC, the summarizing bit) is easy to pen, anyone could do it. What isn't possible is to have an individual choose source material, summarize it, and then nutshell all of that without 'showing the work' (like in math class). So any participant in the RfC is being asked to do monumental amounts of work, much of it guesswork and blind faith in the individual editors.

Has there been a reason given from anyone as to why we don't first begin the process of agreeing on source material, then discussing how to present it in the body, before trying to summarize all of that? This is some of the most controversial, extensive and important ($$$) material WPians are asked to present. Why on earth would we go about this by skipping 2 major steps?

Wikipedia aired false information because we allowed an individual to do just what I have described, and we discovered they did not present information accurately. When editors complained about this, they were repeatedly taken to court, harassed with bullshit, and most have since retired in disgust. petrarchan47 คุ ก 07:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Hello all, This discussion about the discussion is long already! Regarding source material maybe it's helpful to note that the National Academies has just published a new report, in full and summary formats. Hot off the press! "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects"^[1]. For the record I originally came to this debate because I thought it was necessary to mention the benefits of bioengineered crops. The mention of benefits is important because any perceived risk must be balanced against benefits for a proper evaluation. But maybe I'm jumping the gun. Anyway hope the reference is useful. best regards to all RAMRashan (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

^ "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies. Retrieved 18th May 2016. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Moving Forward

I would like to make a suggestion that we move to the next steps towards having the RfC opened to the community. In regard to the editors who have expressed unhappiness over having any sort of RfC, I'd like to point out that Proposal 3 was written by Petrarchan47 and Proposal 4 was written by David Tornheim, and no one has done anything to make it difficult for them to have their proposals included. The editors who earlier asked for more time to make responses have had that time and have made their responses. It looks to me like the discussions about formulating the RfC page have quieted down. Personally, I would prefer that we go forward sooner than later. I suggest that the three closers should be recruited, and the RfC page should be finalized (including undoing any of my bold edits there), and after that, that the RfC be opened. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I do ~~not~~ object to moving forward.See below I will note that I just made a change to the 1st question of the RfC here. I would have preferred that the admins wrote the questions in an NPOV fashion rather having the possibility of disagreement on what RfC questions were to be asked. I have all along believed the question to be addressed by the RfC was what NPOV language is best represented by RS, and if any language and/or RS proposed is more accurate than what is already there. That's what I believe we had been discussing here and here that led up to this RfC. I have been afraid to express my views about the crafting of the rules with the threats I have been receiving. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC) ~~(restored to no objection 20:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC).)~~(restored iobjection 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

I've restored the question to the last agreed upon version that's been stable for some time now. The change actually made the locus of the dispute more vague as the the dispute has always centered around whether a scientific consensus exists at the various RfCs and other discussions. I wouldn't mind The Wordsmith or Laser brain giving their thoughts at this point. Simply saying if the language should be changed gets into neutrality issues because it assumes there is a currently accepted version or that something has changed recently. That runs into issues where certain editors have tried to claim the last RfC validated that the scientific consensus language should not be used when the RfC was actually a no consensus either way decision. We shouldn't be injecting any of that ambiguity or potential bias either way into the formation of this RfC, but simply state the locus of the dispute clearly for respondents and what we're looking for out of them. That doesn't give any benefit to one side or the other. It's rather difficult to say the previous version wasn't neutral in any fashion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice until after my post that this actually the WordSmith's talk page and not the RfC talk page. For reference, we worked our way towards the current wording in this discussion. I'll also point out that vague aspersions to threats is one of the kinds of drama we were hoping to remove from this RfC through supervision because some editors have been prone to that kind of behavior and inability to focus on content before. That's as far as I'll comment on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have finished with my responses so have no objection to this moving forward. I guess the next step is to find some admins willing to close the rfc. AIRcorn (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I now object (see below) to moving forward because we do not have agreement on the RfC questions per this edit. I disagree that the questions to be asked in the RfC are agreed upon. King made the change and no one commented on it.

I disagree with King's contention: "Simply saying if the language [of the GMO articles] should be changed gets into neutrality issues because it assumes there is a currently accepted version". The language in the articles is assumed to have consensus (see also WP:silence), until editors object to it. There was a consensus starting with this edit on 8/26/2015 until this edit on 1/23/2016 (about 5 months) when Aircorn, King and Tryptofish objected to the current language here (Perhaps there were objections between 8/26/2015 - 1/23/2016, but I do not recollect that). The three of you have been pushing since 1/23/2016 to get it changed to say "scientific consensus", while a number of other editors disagreed that the RS supports the change you seek. Although I certainly prefer my proposal as an NPOV treatment of the RS compared to the current language, I would rather keep the status quo language as the compromise of 8/26/2015 than change it to say "scientific consensus". If we are to agree on what the RfC questions are, I would like to see what the other editors have to say who do not agree that the language should be changed to say "scientific consensus". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) ~~(revised to no objection 20:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC) per discussion below)~~ (restored 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

There's only so long I'll allow what is looking awfully like an attempted filibuster. The RFC 'will happen. I'll be on vacation from Friday to Monday with limited internet access, but after that I see no reason not to move forward with it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Very little of this statement has anything to do with the RFC questions; we are not litigating the wording of the article right now (as I've told you previously). I concur with The Wordsmith that the RFC should move forward. We haven't received any feedback that participants won't understand what the RFC is designed to achieve, so attempting to mount a dispute campaign about it at zero-hour does strike me as filibustering. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate what The Wordsmith and Laser brain have said, and I think that early next week is a very reasonable time frame; thanks. Again, I want to point out that one of the RfC proposals was written by David, and I do not recollect him actually proposing that "no change" should also be a proposal. That said, I do not particularly object to changing the RfC page so that "no change"/status quo would also be one of the options offered to editors. However, there would need to be a precise definition of what "no change" would be, because the wording and sourcing are not identical from page to page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

^Thank you. I do not believe I have stood in the way of this RfC, except for my initial reaction of 1/23/2016 of not wanting to have yet a third RfC. I have acted in good faith, in the hope that our articles reflect the RS in an NPOV way, which is why I put hours of research into creating the proposal I have. All along I have sought to have the RfC done fairly. As I originally stated here I am fine moving forward if the two RfC questions are NPOV. I changed my position when King reverted me here. I will remove my objection if my edit is restored, or if we can find agreement/consensus on the questions, possibly through a compromise which I sense Tryptofish is willing to seek. I am happy to work to resolve disagreement on the RfC questions.

Regarding, Tryptofish's statement, "I do not recollect him actually proposing that 'no change' should also be a proposal.": I assumed all along that the question was going to be whether any of the proposals we created were better than the existing language, and if there was no consensus for revised language, then the status quo would stay. I support improving the language of the article to be more NPOV and to gain a wider consensus than for the status quo language, which is why I put hours into Proposal 4. King did not make a proposal. All along, I believed the proposals would be presented on an equal footing. Adding the preliminary question "do the preponderance of reliable sources indicate that there is scientific consensus?" changes the RfC away from the question of how to improve the language at the article to be more representative of the RS, and into a binary issue about whether there is a "scientific consensus". That question has already been asked in two previous RfC's, and there was no wiki-consensus for it at the last RfC, so why ask it again? Why not seek wider wiki-consensus, as I thought was the goal of the RfC?

Again I appreciate that Tryptofish is willing to work with me to find common ground and agreement regarding the questions to be asked in the RfC. I hope we can come to agreement before early next week for TheWordSmith's proposed roll-out. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim/Tryptofish - I'm not keen on this conversation continuing to happen on The Wordsmith's talk page, but the more I read the two key questions the more I'm wondering why we even need two questions. If both "sides" accept the posit that the current wording is unworkable, can't we just say something like, "Which of the following proposals should replace the current wording?" I'm not sure why we need to roll more language than that into the questions. The admins who close the RFC can certainly ascertain from participant comments whether they have considered sources and normal encyclopedic guidelines. I'm in favor of simplifying language of the RFC wherever possible so participants aren't confounded before they even get to the proposals. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Without having read the entirety of thread above, as a general principle, I would suggest that a desire for a wider (more editors) consensus might be a driver for the two questions approach. Editors who have not previously opined in the topic area, much less on the first question, are what we would want to help achieve consensus; they should be offered the opportunity to opine on both a need the change wording, as well as any proposed wording. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

To alleviate concerns, we already have room for additional proposals. It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow "Proposal by User:Example" with Support, Oppose and Comments as usual so that outside editors can come up with a better option if they have one and gain consensus for it. The closing admins will decide how to weigh them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Because Laser brain has taken up this discussion at the draft RfC talkpage, I'll save most of my comments for there. However, The Wordsmith, the last thing you said raised a concern for me. You seem to imply that you want to have support/oppose !votes following each proposal, rather than the AE-style format that is currently on the draft page. Did you mean it that way? My strong advice to you is that deviating from the AE format will be a recipe for disaster. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't think the 800 word limit will be enforceable without having dedicated sections in AE style. I believe this was generally agreed upon awhile back. We more or less have what we need to keep the RfC structure now as is. I would be concerned if we start backtracking, especially with some editors trying to stop the RfC already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The Wordsmith, let me explain it this way. Let's say we have !voting under each proposal. Let's say I support or oppose a proposal. Then another editor puts an indented follow-up question to me, directly under my !vote. I'll probably want to answer. And then we have threaded discussion, in the way that derailed previous efforts. So you decide no threading. But then the other editor just re-posts the question to me, within their own !vote. And I reply, within my own !vote. It will not work. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. If the question is good and more than one editor asks, then why would you not want to answer it somewhere in your 800 word limit? If there are legitimate concerns that editors make, there should be no problem addressing them in your section of the proposal(s) for which you comment on. Or let some other editor address them. If the proposals are solidly grounded in the RS, they should be somewhat self explanatory, right? I don't think the previous RfC was "derailed", except in the sense that you did not get the result you two wanted, when editors pointed out flaws in the proposed language and sourcing.

I don't think the 800 word limit is unenforceable with separate !votes per proposal. I think most editors and admins are capable of addressing it if they feel someone has written too much. It makes it much easier for the closing admins (and anyone else) to quickly assess the general tenor of the support or opposition to each proposal and reasons for it, if there is a place to vote support/oppose each of the proposals. The only disadvantage, is that !votes may be more superficial. The disadvantage is that the respondents may be more superficial in their responses. I did assume in Feb.2016 that there would be !votes in each section, but I am not opposed to having one section per editor, as seemed to be the plan TheWordSmith laid it out originally. But, I just don't see why allowing !votes for each proposal will be a "disaster". Either method should work.

One other observation: all 3 of us have gone over the word limits at some of the ArbCom boards, like AE more than once. I am confused why it is so important that other editors follow rules we do not ourselves strictly abide by? The discussion over the rules has certainly far exceeded 800 words per editor with in my estimate over half of the text contributed by Tryptofish, King, Aircorn and jps. It appears to me to be a double-standard.

My last point: I really think the admins should be making the decisions on the rules for the RfC, not us. I don't understand why we were even permitted to edit the rules directly. I think it is fine for us to comment on, object or support them, but I think assuming different "sides" can easily find a consensus on all the rules is not so likely. I would have preferred the admins assessed the input and made the changes only if they felt the changes best served the RfC. It bothers me that the rules have been re-organized and rewritten entirely by those of one "side" and one side only. I would even support going back to the very original version that TheWordSmith proposed for this reason. It was more NPOV than what we have. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to reply to all of that, because it increasingly sounds like filibustering to me, but I'll just make a few selected points. I did not participate in the previous RfC. When I have gone over word limits at ArbCom pages, I have previously gotten permission from Arbs to do so, for specific reasons. Otherwise, I obey the limits. I have edited the draft RfC page because The Wordsmith said above that he encouraged editors to do so, and with the understanding that any of my edits could be reverted. And the proposed 800 word limit has nothing to do with the pre-RfC discussions about constructing the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on my comment here, it appears we have reached an agreement about language of the two preliminary questions. I do not object to moving forward with this version of Q1. Although I do think Q1 is bulky and could be simplified, that is a minor concern, and I can live with the current language as is. I could also live with having no Q1/Q2 as suggested by laserbrain here. The issue about what status quo ante means is not a sticking point either. Nor is the issue about whether editors can !vote to each proposal. A number of us weighed in on what status quo ante means and the !vote concern. I leave it up to the admins to decide. My major sticking point was that I do not want Q1 to start looking like this again. ----David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I restored my objection because all revisions of the the language of the RfC Rules were written exclusively by one group of editors, all of who want the current language of the GMO articles to say "scientific consensus" and all of whom do not accept the current compromise language that is in the articles. I spent much time working with Tryptofish to a version of Q1 that we could both agree on. We found an agreement, but King has gone ahead and insisted on restoring his version of Q1 disregarding the agreement made between Tryptofish and me. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

About me making an agreement with David, well, I try to be agreeable, but that does not mean that no further change could take place. The essential aspect of David's concern was that the RfC should explicitly allow respondents to say that the existing language at the various pages does not need to be changed. That has been preserved. As for David objecting to asking the community about "scientific consensus", that seems to me to be an invalid objection, because the RfC leaves it up to the community how to answer the question. Kingofaces created a further compromise (not a reversion to before), and I made minor further corrections. David needs to stop trying to raise roadblocks.

I have not raised any new concern, only the same concern I raised earlier [5]:

All along, I believed the proposals would be presented on an equal footing. Adding the preliminary question "do the preponderance of reliable sources indicate that there is scientific consensus?" changes the RfC away from the question of how to improve the language at the article to be more representative of the RS, and into a binary issue about whether there is a "scientific consensus". That question has already been asked in two previous RfC's, and there was no wiki-consensus for it at the last RfC, so why ask it again? Why not seek wider wiki-consensus, as I thought was the goal of the RfC? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We came to an agreement here when you deleted the portion of Q1 that asked users if there is a "scientific consensus". I stated as long as that language did not find its way back I was okay with moving forward. Laserbrain agreed that preliminary language like this might "confound" editors [6]. Because King stuck that language back in here, I restored the objection I had from May 26. Nothing new about it. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The changes I made satisfied the concerns that stuck of all parties including David. That's why I retained the no change language David primarily wanted and made the question flow more logical instead of just reverting. Tryptofish and I have been trying to purposely work out a compromise that is neutral based on the talk page discussion as a whole (i.e., WP:CONSENSUS), while David has been repeatedly cautioned against roadblock behavior.

If someone would prefer I act from a "pro-GMO" stance and try to influence the RfC format by trying to push for as much as I can in favor of that position, I'm sure I could dream something up very different than what I'm currently proposing. I'd find something like that actually justifying such comments that not enough counter edits have been made from the "other side" to be disruptive though. It looks like it's time to call the battleground behavior above out for what it is and move on. Editors have had plenty of time and space to have their say and have arguments weighed for validity. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's time to move forward. I hope that The Wordsmith and Laser brain will now recruit the three closers and finalize the RfC page, and that the RfC will be opened to the community very soon. Otherwise, things will just fester. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Another source

Discussion very volumous! Quite intimidating to look over! Regarding sources here is another, from one of the most respected scientific societies in the world (The Royal Society, and so presumably reflecting scientific consensus). Nice and accessible with a very recent publication date, this month "GM plants Questions and answers" ^[1]. I do appreciate the work editors are putting into this, and hope this helps. Best regards to all RAMRashan (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

^ "GM plants Questions and answers" (PDF). The Royal Society. Retrieved 24 May 2016.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you

I think you are doing a fantastic job as an administrator of this website. For that, I offer my sincere thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, compliments are a welcome change from the harassment I get. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

question

Can you restore the United States presidential election, 2024 article to my sandbox? In the first AfD of two months ago, and less so in the second, there was a significant number of "merge" !votes to compile the content concerning the impact of 2020 census redistricting on electoral college make-up in 2024 into the article U.S. Census, which I'd like to do. LavaBaron (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Seems like a reasonable request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Salting

Would you be willing to salt United States presidential election, 2024, as several users commented in the AFD? After both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination), they were redirected and protected until after the preceding presidential election occurred (when more plausible speculation could be made knowing the incumbent). In this case it would preferably be until November 2020, though 2018 could work to coincide with one Senate election prior. A recreation and new AFD after this fall would otherwise be likely, and the burden of proof should be on overturning the consensus first. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. My sense from the way that discussion went is that it will very likely be recreated quite soon, if it isn't salted to prevent that from happening. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 14:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

" DoneThe Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

There should also be a redirect to United States presidential election left at that redlink, if we're going by the precedents mentioned by Reywas92 above. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 05:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up

As you commented on Sfarney's earlier request to WP:AE concerning my editing, I thought I should let you know that I've posted an enforcement request concerning Sfarney's editing. It's at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sfarney. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As EdJohnston reminded me on my talk page (and I literally rectified 1 minute before you closed that AE), Sfarney had never been given the proper Arb alert box. I'm not sure we can topic ban. I'm not arguing against the wisdom, just the bureaucratic aspects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to, but 30 customer calls later and I didn't get it done, I see you did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. A few things: 1) WP:ACDS specifically says that an editor can be considered "aware" if they have participated at AE in the last 12 months, which they have. 2) I didn't issue the ban under Discretionary Sanctions (WP:ARBSCI Remedy 4.1). I issued it under Remedy 5.1, a different and rarely-used option. It hasn't been invoked since 2013, but is still in force for a slightly different purpose. There is also non-public evidence in play that that Committee has been made aware of. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good enough, just wanted to share the info I had. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason that remedy is almost never used. Because its for SPAs. If you are topic banning Sfarney as an SPA for pro-scientology, you need a damn sight more evidence than has been provided. Especially since the person who raised the AE request has a long and well-published history of anti-scientology editing on wikipedia. Prioryman under his former username ChrisO was actually restricted *in that case*. You did read the finding of fact for him right? "13) ChrisO significantly edited, between August 2005[78] and September 2007, a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[80] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[81] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article; declined a CSD; and blocked the subject of the article herself. and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material". Sfarney's comments regarding the current use of unreliable sources have more legs to them than I believe you have looked into. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I stand by the ban. Despite your assertion, I have looked into the issue more than you know. I understand why you don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support it, but you don't have it all. A significant portion of the ban rationale rests on nonpublic evidence that I have privately communicated to the Arbitration Committee, and consulted an Arb confidentially with the evidence before doing anything. In fact I had forgotten about Remedy 5.1; the Arbitrator I asked for advice suggested doing that while emailing the full evidence to the rest of the Committee.

In my long history of dispute resolution I have always done my best to be fair, so please bear with me. If Sfarney wishes to appeal, I will ask the Committee to weigh in on how to proceed with. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I had been considering a post in the Sfarney AE case, but didn't get around to it before ithe AE closed. I managed to look over the WP:RSN discussions about possible use of primary sources. I also looked into the timing of the edits in question and I think the requirements of WP:AC/DS were met. (Sfarney was already giving out AE warnings to other parties on May 20, though he seemed to not be fully aware of how enforcement works. For example, he filed an arb case first and then withdrew it). Sfarney was pursuing a battle with great tenacity on the subject of R2-45. His statement at the GA review leaves little doubt on what he feels about the subject, and raises the question whether he is able to edit neutrally about Scientology. The tone of Sfarney's comments at Talk:R2-45 is over the top. He seemed very concerned about BLP, but BLP has sometimes been used in content disputes to keep well-sourced negative information out of articles. If a topic ban had been proposed under DS at AE, there were certainly some arguments for it. If Sfarney wants to appeal, then there will be a chance to review these matters in more detail. The information in the R2-45 article about L. Ron Hubbard is certainly outlandish but Howard Hughes was another person who engaged in outlandish behavior. We don't generally censor embarrassing information from articles if it agrees with what we can reliably conclude from what has been written by the press and scholars. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well thats rather the problem isnt it. Its not been widely reported by the press. Tony Ortega is self-publishing it and the other sources are equally fringe. None of which mitigates that Wordsmith just topic banned someone for being an SPA (absent any real evidence they are one) with no discussion, after being directly canvassed to the AE by the filer, who has a history of problematic anti-scientology editing. for fucks sake, Wordsmith's comment on the previous request as follows: " I have seen many "confidential" internal Scientology documents, own the Red Volumes, Green Volumes and (Incomplete) Blue Volumes, and have listened to many tapes, including some extremely rare and confidential ones. I also have much of the content of the unpublished OT IX and X levels (fascinating stuff). It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists. I have listened to the Exteriorization and Rudements tapes, and can confirm that Prioryman's edits accurately reflect their content." - someone like that should *not* be sanctioning editors in the scientology area without at least a public discussion amongst other admins. It stinks to high heaven. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  - I don't need to be canvassed to AE, I'm probably the single most active admin there. I check it at least once every other day. Also, aside from contributing some well-sourced content and a photograph to Project Chanology 8 years ago, I don't think I've participated in the topic area at all. Being knowledgeable in a topic area certainly does not make someone involved. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    - To add to that, my lack of knowledge of the area makes me a bit more hesitant, so experience certainly doesn't make one WP:involved. At the end of the day, just based on the publicly available information, The Wordsmith's actions were within policy. I trust The Wordsmith when they say they have private information that amply justified the action. It is very easy to ask an Arb to verify this if you have doubts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to ANI

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 08:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The Wordsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Prioryman (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Civility and Discretionary Sanctions

Should comments like this be encouraged? For context, Masem recently returned to the topic after being driven away by offsite and onsite bullying. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed Edit RevDel'd and user warned. Grossly unacceptable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Masem is a good editor. It bothered me to see him bullied. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor seems understanding and has reworded their statement. On an unrelated note, for some reason I thought Masem was female. Now I'm not sure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe he's a he. I have my own opinions on SPAs editing that article but that's for another time. Thanks again. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Block or ban me

You needn't bother to threaten me on my talk page, while you ignore Prioryman and the rest of the anti-Scientology gang and their flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy. But policy doesn't matter when it applies to your friends, right? Go ahead and block me or even ban me. Doesn't matter anymore. I already said I gave up, and with my cancer, you needn't worry that I'll be a problem to you, Prioryman and your friends. I've been on Wikipedia since 2007 and I tried my best to do right by Jimmy Wales and his dream of a truly neutral resource. But never you mind, go ahead and make some more threats. Doesn't matter. I'll be dead soon. Thanks, Laval (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't intend to block or ban you. However, spandex doesn't suit you, and you're really making a spectacle of yourself. I bear no ill will towards you, and I certainly didn't threaten you by telling you I was choosing not to block. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Status of a topic ban

With this edit of the ~~DS log~~ case you strike out the 5.1 but where do you announce there is a continuing topic ban? I only see it in your edit summary. Shouldn't you also post on the editor's talk page to let them know the status? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That was the offer I made several times during the appeal, but it is also logged under the Discretionary Sanctions log in addition to the 5.1 log. I'll modify the wording as appropriate, and let him know. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is funny there is a 'remedy 5.1 log' which is still on the WP:ARBSCI case page and is in a different place from the DSLOG. Probably one of those things nobody will ever find a way to fix. But now it looks better, and I am no longer confused. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What is?

User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC and why is it in user space? NE Ent 22:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See User talk:The Wordsmith#GMO RfC above as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins requested for moderated RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't actually answer the question. Is an RFC, or a draft on an RFC that will be posted in project space, or what? NE Ent 23:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent, the page is a draft, not a final version, of what is going to become a community RfC in mainspace when the drafting is finished. The subject matter is extremely contentious, so you will see a lot of evidence of dispute when you look at what is there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This was the temporary home of the moderated RFC suggested by Arbcom as an alternative to a case, while it was being drafted. It is now closed for final tweaks and getting Coffee up to speed on everything, and then Monday afternoon it will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, unprotected, and formally initiated and published as a proper RfC. If you'll notice, it has the correct templates etc at the top, just nowiki'd until it is time to open. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe stick a {{draft}} on top? since it's been discussed elsewhere. NE Ent 01:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I've updated it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

that is all I have to say at this point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country. Sorry about that." Yeah, sounds like a pretty accurate summary :P The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - usually Australia is stricter than elsewhere....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

GMOs

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did this to put to rest, once and for all, the claims that there isn't the authority under DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Just going to piggyback here, but is the RfC officially open for comment now? I probably won't be able to comment for a few days, so I'd like to post this afternoon if I can. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope it's open, having been unprotected and entered into the RfC system. I just commented, so if I jumped the gun, The Wordsmith please revert me with my apologies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been opened and is being published. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to you and Coffee for all of this. Please let me suggest that you and Coffee might want to consider making Archive 1 of the talk page of the RfC page, and archiving at least some of the older discussions to there. (I do hope that you don't feel put upon by my filing of that clarification request, but now, you have Arbs saying point blank that you have authority under DS, and I hope that will shut down some of the attempts to derail the RfC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll discuss that with him; there wer some genuinely useful discussions going on when I locked the page down. Regarding your ARCA request I was hoping not to end up there, and I chose not to respond yesterday because nobody wants to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon dealing with Arbitration. I do understand why you did it, though. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about your Sunday. I'm tempted to say welcome to my world. But I think that you have good control over how things are going as the RfC opens, and that's the most important consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that the page notice at the top of the RfC page says 1RR, per what ArbCom previously decided, but the edit notice that Coffee created (which, by the way, I think is very good) instead says 0RR. One of you ought to change the top of the page to 0RR too, to avoid confusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but I'm not sure how to change it (or if there even is a way to). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing would be to delete it and replace it with a duplicate of the edit notice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And from the department of me barraging you with talk page messages about stuff I just noticed, I see that the RfC bot displays the notice in a rather messy way at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. One way to simplify it would be for you to sign the lead sentence, the one that starts "This is a Request for Comment, conducted under...". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

All of the above has been fixed, thanks, and I think that it looks very good. Could you or Coffee please take a look at the RfC statements by Petrarchan47 (possibly off-topic about the process and relitigating past disputes) and David Tornheim (possibly making aspersions about "PR" based on the Monsanto website)? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've looked them both over. @Petrarchan47's statement seems perfectly valid, if dissenting from most others. They focus on how the various proposals meet policy. @David Tornheim's invoking Monsanto is more borderline, but still substantially addresses content, and has made his own proposal on the talkpage. I'm pleasantly surprised at all the productive discourse taking place, so I'm not going to quibble over a minor reference comparing one statement to a statement by a related corporation. I've pinged them both in case they wish to add anything here, as is polite when discussing other editors. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm obviously very deep in this, so I appreciate an objective evaluation. And yes, the RfC seems to be going gratifyingly well so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy, and I would like to request that Tryptofish begin making a habit of pinging me when mentioning me or linking to my talk page, as otherwise it feels like gossip. Thanks. I would also like to mention that this feels like Tryptofish playing sides, in a way, as he mentions David and I but not the several other editors who went against the stated guidelines, which were clear about not using the RfC to spout personal opinions about GMOs. Some of the comments are directly counter to this, but I didn't want to get too picky. I'm bothered by the fact that Tryptofish helps in a way that is very one sided and wish he would use his sharp eye in all directions equally, or consider not getting so "deep into this". petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is free to ask me for guidance regarding the RFC, one-sided or not. It is understood that the participants are not going to be unbiased; that's what Coffee and I are here for. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not that I need to tell you this, but if you (The Wordsmith) or Coffee think I post anything that is not proper, please do correct me on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies. Retrieved 18th May 2016. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

[2] "GM plants Questions and answers" (PDF). The Royal Society. Retrieved 24 May 2016.

[1]

[1]