256:
474:
121:
111:
581:
166:
36:
131:
91:
141:
101:
651:
comment space that needed an ArbCom warning label. I recognize that ArbCom-issued warnings, like the one above, are to go in
Knowledge (XXG) in places where certain topics are discussed, but a newspaper like this one should be more idealistic about free speech until and unless there is a problem with
326:
that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.
244:
The RfC has received a wide range of inputs, with most non-administrators and administrators supporting the third option, and some non-administrators and a few administrators supporting the first and second options. Proponents of the third option believe ECP would be valuable in stopping disruption,
594:
procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page
811:
The controversy about GMO is a red herring. The question is if GMO food brought us anything worthwhile. After 20 year the answer is still no or you should include all the negative consequences that it brought us. When I read about paid editors, I am sure that they are not happy to address GMO
294:
it was argued that, while GM foods could potentially help feed 842 million malnourished people globally, laws such as those being considered by
Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, could have the unintended consequence of
287:
There is a general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food. Although
338:
GMO articles faced a less-than-smooth transition afterwards, as several editors debated the best way to include the new language and replace the old. In the first few days after the RfC was closed, additional text was deleted and replaced while some editors debated whether to change language
630:
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is
205:
it presented to new editors, it was eventually approved and technically implemented, with editors being granted the "extendedconfirmed" user right after reaching the requirement. ECP was rolled out on April 5, with ArbCom passing a motion allowing administrators to use ECP to prevent
656:
be exempt from routine enforcement of topic-based ArbCom restrictions? Among the world's most reputable news sources that allow comments, I thought it was accepted as tradition that news comment sections welcome the most absurd and inflammatory nonsense that anyone imagines to post.
371:
has been opened on whether linking the accounts of paid editors to their profiles on other websites (such as Elance) is acceptable. Supporters of this exemption believe that it would help identify paid editors, while opposers contend that harassment and outing is unacceptable in all
317:
to change the current wording was opened. Moderated under tight conditions, with strict word limits and behavioral restrictions, there were 22 proposals; nearly 90 editors participated. After one month of discussion, the RfC was closed on July 7, and the first proposal prevailed:
751:
Well, it seems that I am the editor who put the template here, and I am also the editor who made that oppose, go figure. About the RfB, there's no need to revise that; I don't care and it's no big deal. As for the
Discretionary Sanctions,
288:
labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA. In a May 2014 article in
266:, a corporation that develops GMOs. The scientific community generally welcomes GMOs as improving the availability and nutrition of foods without loss of safety. But many members of the public perceive GMOs negatively.
215:
272:
554:
213:
Since that time, ECP occasionally deviated from its ArbCom use: without raising the eyebrows of many, it was used for other reasons, such as to prevent BLP violations. Within three months, an administrator
331:
313:
282:
Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of the safety of GM foods in particular has been a source of conflict. Many editors believed the then-current wording on GMO safety was inadequate and provides little context:
523:
460:
513:
218:
allowing use of ECP for any purpose, not just for ArbCom and sockpuppetry: that, with community scrutiny, administrators would be allowed to use ECP protection. The RfC gave editors three options:
528:
518:
498:
77:
508:
491:
445:, France, killing 84 people, many Wikipedians edited and disputed various aspects of the article, including the name of the article, certain details of the attack (e.g., whether it was
327:
The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
485:
55:
44:
271:
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been a controversial topic for years on
Knowledge (XXG), and one with a less than peaceful environment: a number of editors have been
201:
a new protection level called extended confirmed protection ("ECP" or "30/500", for short) with the same function. Although the proposal received some complaints regarding the
778:
and most of all, remember here we are discussing the story about the decision, and that discussions about the subject itself are best taken to the relevant discussion pages.
352:
770:
Tryptofish is correct, we can comment, but we must maintain decorum and comply with the policies and guidelines relevant to discretionary sanctions. Please remember to
724:
198:
890:
425:
813:
21:
865:
860:
855:
834:
186:(ArbCom) recently decided to implement a new type of restriction for pages on certain topics with intractable and long-running disputes, such as the
428:
in 2013. If enacted, it would be given via an RfA-like process and include full deletion rights and some other tools from the administrator toolkit.
850:
420:
845:
688:
473:
49:
35:
17:
624:
591:
825:
800:
786:
765:
742:
710:
692:
670:
303:
620:
339:
immediately before and after the RfC-mandated language. Approximately a week later, those disagreements had calmed down.
367:
756:
is not exempt from policies that apply elsewhere, but that does not mean that editors cannot give their opinions. --
190:. It barred editing from anonymous (IP) users and registered editors with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits.
450:
612:
871:
255:
684:
665:
405:
225:
To restrict use of ECP to ArbCom and for preventing sock puppetry when less restrictive protection fails,
623:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
616:
735:
706:
187:
796:
761:
639:
I am looking at this warning above, and do not recall ever seeing an ArbCom warning like this in the
323:
240:
that less restrictive protection fails and the protecting administrator informs the community at AN.
784:
602:
362:
183:
720:
680:
409:
295:
interrupting the process of spreading GM technologies to impoverished countries that suffer with
245:
while its opponents believe that it would deter newcomers and disenfranchise occasional editors.
154:
276:
202:
94:
821:
658:
550:
446:
124:
207:
729:
702:
433:
775:
771:
395:
387:
379:
104:
792:
757:
230:
194:
134:
779:
394:
decided to run this month, and, with zero opposition, promoted to the elite coterie of
884:
413:
391:
296:
290:
30:
Busy month for discussions: New ArbCom restrictions; genetically modified food safety
817:
580:
438:
114:
144:
172:
The blue padlock denoting pages protected under extended confirmed protection.
601:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in
249:
More GMO discussion: recently closed RfC on genetically modified food safety
165:
263:
424:
proposing a new user group called "moderator" has been opened after an
679:
comment section on an issue that is under discretionary sanctions...
332:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
442:
54:
575:
643:
discussion space. Do ArbCom rulings apply to discussions in
472:
357:
254:
164:
34:
229:
that the protecting administrator informs the community at
611:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
437:: After a terrorist drove a truck into crowds celebrating
675:
Well, I presume they apply to editors commenting in the
566:
559:
539:
197:
enforced the restriction. In
January 2016, an editor
564:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
275:by ArbCom for poor decorum in GMO discussion, and
279:have been implemented to stabilize GMO articles.
574:==This applies only to the section about GMOs==
210:when less restrictive protection fails to work.
320:
285:
8:
833:Explore Knowledge (XXG) history by browsing
647:? I am not aware of a history of misuse of
652:talk in the news discussion space. Should
891:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2016-07
812:performance in general starting from the
304:Genetically modified organism#Controversy
302:— Pre-RfC version of second paragraph of
814:scientifically sound paper by Greenpeace
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
567:
543:
71:
386:forgotten process. However, prolific
236:To allow use of ECP for any purpose,
29:
7:
587:Warning: active arbitration remedies
791:Thanks, that was very well-said. --
449:or not), and the notability of the
56:
28:
595:related to the contentious topic:
549:These comments are automatically
222:To restrict use of ECP to ArbCom.
579:
378:: For the last year and a half,
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
560:add the page to your watchlist
178:No ArbCom prescription needed?
1:
701:(on GMO) here, then where? --
625:contentious topics procedures
311:To help settle the question,
262:Protester advocating against
723:, Xaosflux actually did get
408:our two new administrators:
907:
613:purpose of Knowledge (XXG)
72:Busy month for discussions
826:06:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
801:23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
787:23:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
766:23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
743:22:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
711:17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
693:14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
671:14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
627:before editing this page.
277:"discretionary sanctions"
621:normal editorial process
351:: Largely fueled by the
233:(closest to status quo).
193:Initially, a series of
617:standards of behaviour
557:. To follow comments,
477:
336:
309:
259:
169:
39:
603:limited circumstances
476:
258:
188:Gamergate controversy
184:Arbitration Committee
168:
38:
553:from this article's
432:Busy week after the
324:scientific consensus
465:"Discussion report"
388:Bot Approvals Group
592:contentious topics
588:
544:Discuss this story
524:Arbitration report
478:
402:New administrators
260:
170:
45:← Back to Contents
40:
772:assume good faith
636:
635:
586:
568:purging the cache
504:Discussion report
447:Islamic terrorism
203:instruction creep
69:Discussion report
50:View Latest Issue
898:
874:
782:
776:personal attacks
738:
732:
668:
663:
583:
576:
571:
569:
563:
542:
514:Featured content
496:
488:
481:
464:
434:2016 Nice attack
426:unsuccessful RfC
360:
334:
307:
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
62:
60:
58:
906:
905:
901:
900:
899:
897:
896:
895:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
870:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
841:
830:
829:
780:
736:
730:
699:speak your mind
666:
659:
615:, any expected
608:
573:
565:
558:
547:
546:
540:+ Add a comment
538:
534:
533:
532:
529:Recent research
489:
484:
482:
479:
468:
467:
462:
456:
404:: The Signpost
356:
345:
329:
301:
268:
267:
252:
251:
216:made a proposal
180:
174:
173:
162:
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
904:
902:
894:
893:
883:
882:
869:
864:
859:
854:
849:
844:
843:
842:
832:
831:
828:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
746:
745:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
661:Blue Rasberry
634:
633:
607:
606:
598:
584:
548:
545:
537:
536:
535:
531:
526:
521:
519:Traffic report
516:
511:
506:
501:
499:News and notes
495:
483:
471:
470:
469:
459:
458:
457:
455:
454:
429:
417:
399:
373:
349:COI and outing
344:
341:
330:— Proposal 1,
328:
300:
269:
261:
253:
250:
247:
242:
241:
234:
223:
179:
176:
175:
171:
163:
160:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
903:
892:
889:
888:
886:
873:
867:
862:
857:
852:
847:
839:
837:
827:
823:
819:
815:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
785:
783:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
741:
739:
733:
726:
722:
721:Esquivalience
718:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
689:contributions
686:
682:
681:Jo-Jo Eumerus
678:
674:
673:
672:
669:
664:
662:
655:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
632:
628:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
604:
600:
599:
596:
593:
585:
582:
578:
577:
570:
561:
556:
552:
541:
530:
527:
525:
522:
520:
517:
515:
512:
510:
507:
505:
502:
500:
497:
493:
487:
480:In this issue
475:
466:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
430:
427:
423:
422:
418:
415:
411:
410:Jo-Jo Eumerus
407:
403:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
370:
369:
364:
359:
354:
350:
347:
346:
342:
340:
335:
333:
325:
319:
316:
315:
308:
305:
298:
297:food security
293:
292:
291:The Economist
284:
280:
278:
274:
265:
257:
248:
246:
239:
235:
232:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
217:
211:
209:
204:
200:
196:
191:
189:
185:
177:
167:
161:
156:
155:Esquivalience
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
836:The Signpost
835:
754:The Signpost
753:
728:
698:
697:if you cant
676:
660:
653:
648:
644:
640:
629:
610:
597:
589:
509:In the media
503:
492:all comments
486:21 July 2016
439:Bastille Day
431:
419:
401:
383:
375:
366:
353:recent block
348:
337:
321:
312:
310:
289:
286:
281:
270:
243:
237:
226:
212:
208:sockpuppetry
195:edit filters
192:
181:
159:
57:21 July 2016
872:Suggestions
731:Omni Flames
703:Ozzie10aaaa
551:transcluded
396:bureaucrats
322:There is a
816:. Thanks,
793:Tryptofish
758:Tryptofish
725:one oppose
299:problems.
273:sanctioned
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2016-07-21
866:Subscribe
781:Montanabw
619:, or any
555:talk page
451:assailant
885:Category
861:Newsroom
856:Archives
838:archives
774:, avoid
677:Signpost
654:Signpost
649:Signpost
645:Signpost
641:Signpost
631:covered.
463:Previous
414:BU Rob13
406:welcomes
392:Xaosflux
343:In brief
264:Monsanto
238:provided
227:provided
199:proposed
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
818:GerardM
390:member
376:Finally
115:Twitter
667:(talk)
421:An RfC
372:cases.
368:an RfC
363:outing
358:Jytdog
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
851:About
314:a RfC
16:<
846:Home
822:talk
797:talk
762:talk
737:talk
719:Uh,
707:talk
685:talk
590:The
443:Nice
412:and
382:was
361:for
182:The
145:Digg
441:in
384:the
380:RfB
355:of
153:By
80:—
887::
824:)
799:)
764:)
727:.
709:)
691:)
687:,
461:←
365:,
231:AN
840:.
820:(
795:(
760:(
740:)
734:(
705:(
683:(
605:)
572:.
562:.
494:)
490:(
453:.
416:.
398:.
306:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
