Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jtrevor99 (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 17 December 2015 (A proposed compromise: Yep.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:23, 17 December 2015 by Jtrevor99 (talk | contribs) (A proposed compromise: Yep.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shortcuts
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52



This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Motion: BASC reform (November 2015)

Original motion

Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Original announcement

Oversight permissions removed due to inactivity

Original announcement

@Doug Weller: The signature links for most of the supporting arbs seem broken with random letters or numbers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the with suppression? NE Ent 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The arb-wiki has special logins (to encourage security), with random letters after the username. It looks like this motion was voted on at the Arbwiki and copied across with the random letters included, thereby smashing that security. Could I suggest that the arbs change their signatures on the arb wiki to be their standard wiki signature, to prevent that happening in future? I thought that was standard procedure all ready. Worm(talk) 12:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The provisions of Misplaced Pages:Oversight#Policy do not justify suppression. If there is a security concern, the logical response would be to close existing account "arb xyz123" and create "arb (string from random.org)". NE Ent 11:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that a username for another site, which was not made public intentionally, falls squarely into "Removal of non-public personal information", and therefore suppression is the correct solution. Worm(talk) 11:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this solution would be preferable. Suppression seems reasonable (per WTT), though I am also not terribly concerned about the leak of these slightly-modified usernames, as they are useless without also knowing the account passwords. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I do wish I had known this was so close to being done anyway, Ron seems like a nice enough guy and I didn't want to besmirch him in any way, but... well you but what, he never used the tool. Anyhoo, thanks for handling it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

CU tools restored to User:Beeblebrox

Original announcement
Pls correct the link in the announcement. Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the committee for their attention to these two matters. I'll try not to be sucha pain in the ass for the whole rest of the year... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Why hasn't anyone from ArbCom (or a clerk authorized to act on their behalf) requested the technical implementation of this motion? I posted a notice about the motion on the meta permissions board, but apparently I don't have the necessary authorization and the request has to be officially made by ArbCom. Biblioworm 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh oh Someones Left Sock (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh,  Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I emailed Beeblebrox at 9:58 last night UTC telling him about the motion and apologising for being too tired to implement it. I also posted the same to the list. As it is I got the link wrong posting it here! Sorry about the 4 hour delay. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, why could the stewards not action Biblioworm's request which cross-referenced to Doug's post to the noticeboard? It seems overly bureaucratic to require an Arbitrator to post to meta, when they have already announced the decision here... WJBscribe (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, this bureaucrat is unimpressed ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not an expanding bureaucrat? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just ask Billinghurst. Mike VTalk 22:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Back when I was both a steward and a clerk, User:Risker told me that it was general procedure that only arbs make the request, due to some past issues where it wasn't clear that the request was made on behalf of the committee. I didn't fulfill enwiki requests, but if I were to, I would probably require the same since if I screwed up, the largest Wikimedia site would now be angry with me... --Rschen7754 18:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Precisely, Rschen7754. Enwiki's arbcom had to ask the stewards to only act on requests from Arbcom because there were users who were putting in requests that were incorrect, incomplete, had not been properly vetted or approved. This also became more appropriate as rules for access were tightened; for example, it used to be acceptable for former checkusers to request tools back at any time, but that "right" of automatic return ended when Arbcom established minimal activity requirements. It appears, from what I can see, that most of those steps are still in place. It seems this has been formalized in the Steward Handbook as well, at least for Oversight, although I note the line is missing for Checkuser. Risker (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, but what's the point of this requirement? If we have a post from an arbitrator stating that "User X is to be made a checkuser per ArbCom vote", why do we need an arbitrator to relay the message the Stewards? Surely any editor can make the request (backed up by a diff to the original announcement by an arbitrator of course) on meta? I'm not seeing any risk, just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy...
If an Arb posted to this board saying that "User X is to be desysopped per ArbCom vote", I would action the statement without requiring an arbitrator to cross-post to WP:BN to formally ask the bureaucrats to remove the rights. WJBscribe (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The reason is that we have seen examples in the past where editors did do that, thinking they were doing it right, and messing it up to the point that stewards were always clarifying with arbcom. In other words, it was more work when it was done by other users than when it was done by arbitrators following all of the steps. It becomes a particular pain to the stewards when there are a lot of them going through (i.e., at the end of each year); back in the day, others kept posting requests without the necessary information, without Arbcom even approving the appointments in some cases. Ensuring that privacy-related tools are only made accessible through controlled mechanisms is a feature, not a bug. Risker (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It is (long held) policy. ArbCom tells stewards to whom and when we are to allocate CU and Oversight tools. Simplicity and clarity are very important when handling out these highly restricted tools. If enWP wishes to put forward a proposal to have the policy amended, then please go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

New trainee clerks (December 2015)

Original announcement (Mdann52)
Original announcement (Kharkiv07)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

Original announcement
  • Thank goodness this thing is over with! Unlike most instances when there are DS, this case has both DS and 1RR for pages in the topic area. There is a template for pages covered under The Troubles case, that makes clear that there is 1RR in addition to DS. I'd like to suggest that someone who (unlike me) is good with templates, perhaps one of the clerks, should create a similar template that could be put on talk pages covered by GMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to the template that I was talking about, that could easily be modified for use here: Template:Troubles restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: If this isn't done in about 12 hours, ping me and I'll do it (in my capacity as an editor, not a clerk). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@L235: Thanks! That's great. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@L235 and Tryptofish: How's Template:ARBGMO notification. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Thank you so much for doing this! And also thank you for the hatting below. I've carefully read the template, and please bear with me in my ex-college professor picky proofreading.
  1. Beginning of second paragraph: "Discretionary sanctions are", not "is".
  2. I kind of like the way Template:Troubles restriction explains at more length and in a more user-friendly way the idea of 1RR. The new draft treats 1RR much more briefly, and only at the end. Perhaps it would be helpful to expand a bit more on 1RR, especially for new editors who may not be familiar with the idea.
  3. I just realized that we actually need two templates. The one you created is for putting on editors' user talk pages. We also need one to put at the top of article talk pages.
Again, thanks. And by the way, the events of the past two days indicate that such alerts to editors are urgently needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:
1. That one should be is as it's referring to the discretionary sanctions system as opposed to the discretionary sanctions themselves.
2. I've reworded the bit about 1RR a little (very similar to the amount of info in the Troubles section, but I don't want to make it too long. I'm stuck leaving it at the bottom as otherwise the alert won't have any effect.
3. I'll do one for talk pages in the next few hours.
Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we now have {{subst:ARBGMO alert}}, {{ARBGMO talk notice}} and {{Editnotice GMO 1RR}}. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that's very helpful. I just made some fixes to ARBGMO alert, so please check those. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


  • This sucks. That's my take. And no one still has ever explained to me why I was named a party by Jytdog, when not a word of testimony was subsequently offered regarding me (chilling effect) and when Admin JzG/Guy, who had to be slapped with an interaction ban with SageRad due to JzG's outrageous harassment, escapes scott-free. I call bullshit. That's right. Bull shit. Jusdafax 05:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The back and forth and grave-dancing here is not helpful. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look at the bright side, Jytdog is gone. prokaryotes (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: the edit right above mine. @Arbs: I told you so. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you meant to mention that you do not consider Jytdog's block a good block? If you reply to me don't make vague comments, i find this rather rude. prokaryotes (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not intend to be rude. I agreed with that block, as I said at that time, but that block has been lifted. What I meant was that they dropped the ball with respect to you. As I said on the PD talk page, AGK and Seraphimblade got it right, and some other Arbs should have taken a second look at you before rushing the close the case. And here you are suddenly back, barely a day after the case closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to suggest that i shouldn't comment here? prokaryotes (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you not comment, but when you do post a comment that essentially expresses the opinion that you are blameless, you should not be surprised when someone responds by expressing the opinion that you are not. (Please note that I have said nothing concerning which of those two opinions are correct.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of these remedies are suboptimal and will do more harm than good in the long run. I don't think the Committee as a whole recognizes the crux of the problem and I am skeptical about whether most arbitrators still have the time, or even the interest, to deal with this again. Although I recognize some good-faith efforts, the overall outcome of this case has finally convinced me that the current Arbitration Committee is short-sighted, indecisive, unwilling to resolve the most entrenched disputes on Misplaced Pages, and ultimately a negative asset to the project. -RoseL2P (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The most entrenched disputes in WP are usually content disputes, as is the case here. Arb com cannot deal with them directly, and can only deal with the conduct arising from them. Since the content dispute in some cases will obviously continue, it is predictable that related conduct problems will arise. It is in that sense true we cannot deal with the fundamental issues, but such is the inevitable consequence of open editing and WP fundamental policy of having no central authority to deal definitively with content. I am quite sure the community would overwhelmingly and immediately reject any attempt of ours to put ourself into such a position. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Misplaced Pages has become the most important place on the internet to get your POV reflected. Creationists, cold fusionists, fans of quack medicines, anti-GMO, animal rights and dozens of other activists are looking to make Misplaced Pages reflect their beliefs instead of reality. Protectors of the project bur out and melt down, the cranks keep on coming. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
And DrChrissy has just made Genetically Modified Livestock lol. Just to skirt GMOs. I warned you ArbCom. In the end the community is going to end up having to do what you didn't. Capeo (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The arbitration decision on DrChrissy says he is topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants (not organisms). It is reasonable for him to create Genetically modified livestock as an article he can edit. Though the topic ban on agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted seems to be a killer. What is that meant to cover? Is water an agricultural chemical, broadly interpreted? (Personal attack removed) --Epipelagic (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The continual painting of anyone who is critical of the agrochemical or biotech industry as equivalent to "quack" and "fringe" and "anti-science" is for one thing inaccurate and for another, odious and prejudicial. It's nasty language and j resent it highly. It's a continuous propaganda move that's propagated by a vitriolic and vocal minority here. I reject it. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to further correct @Capeo:'s incorrect mind-reading of my creating Genetically modified livestock. I noticed there was already an article on Genetically modified crops so I thought one on livestock would be a nice sister-article, and also allow separate progression of the laboratory animal articles e.g. (Genetically modified mouse), thus forming a nice suite of articles.DrChrissy 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

enetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals broadly construed. That's an extremely broad swath of content, especially the agricultural chemicals one. Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Calling out other editors is not productive nor needed. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • All I can say is I told you so! Kingofaces43 has started reverting out content from his now-topic-banned opponents and templated me for edit warring immediately after I made one edit on Glyphosate - and still has the gall to accuse me of edit warring and creating drama, threatening AE after I made one edit. Arbs should have dealt with him.Minor4th 05:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. you totally dropped the ball on JzG too. There's always the possibility of a request for amendment to deal with him since y'all decided that it would be procedurally improper to make any findings about him after refusing to add him as a party after several requests. I'm so disappointed. Minor4th 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I see he also templated MontanaBW for edit warring when she had made a single edit to the same article. And the beat goes on ... Minor4th 05:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Same scummy tactics. They will do anything to anyone to get what they want. Jusdafax 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
KingOfAces43 and Yobol, with their anti science smears and continued aggressive edits as well as related bullying of others has to stop. prokaryotes (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Making use of my admittedly very poor tea leaf-reading abilities, I think that the results of the recent ArbCom election mean that, when some form of GMO-2 emerges after the new year, the new membership of the Committee will be equipped to do a much better job of seeing through the noise, and actually dealing with it, than the outgoing membership was. What that means is that the loudest complainers in the discussion just above should be a lot more worried than they actually are, but I guess they don't see it the way that I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"After the new year"? That long? You're an optimist! Geogene (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm only referring to when the terms of the outgoing Arbs end and the terms of the newly elected Arbs begin! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No need for the back and forth. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shame on you, Trypto, playing the fear card. Jusdafax 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not a threat, just a statement of reality, and frankly, good advice. The just-closed case did make it pretty clear which editors did and which editors did not find themselves in the PD, and one should not expect to do the same thing a second time while anticipating a different outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a threat, very polite, very cautious, but indicative of the basic tactic used to shut up those questioning the propriety of the GMO articles and the methodology of those who seek to trivialize, belittle and intimidate the questioners. I repeat: shame on you, especially for standing up for Big Bully Jytdog. Fie. Jusdafax 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the point in a discussion when I usually pull out my trademarked response of "yes, and I smell bad, too." But I've gotta say, I can't remember the last time I heard "Fie" on-Wiki. If you really followed what I've been saying, I switched from defending Jytdog to being fed up with him a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a party to the case, and pretty much the poster child of the banned editors, to state my position here in this dialogue.

In so many words, i echo Jusdafax in calling "bullshit" on the case, on so many levels. Judgments were shallow and biased. Arbitrators are tasked with judging people's behavior, not the content. For one thing, it seems there is a pervasive bias to assume that anyone editing against the general industry interests is "fringe" and "anti-GMO" and "activist" and "POV pushing" and "anti-science" etc... a general litany of prejudice exists. Let us admit this clearly. It's a slanted field to begin with, and there's a bias present. The judgment even resulted in an aspersion by one arbitrator against me in the judgment itself, when Seraphimblade said that i accuse anyone who disagrees with me on content of bullying. That is simply not true at all, and it's sadly emblematic of the prejudice that i feel against me and any other editor who has dared to work on content in a way that is not favorable to the agrochemical industry. This is such a strange state of affairs, and there is so much that remains unexamined, and needs to be unpacked here. I hope it will happen.

Let me point out that i am not inherently "anti-GMO". I've worked in labs, in microbial ecology, and worked with genetic knockout strains and such things. I understand genetic modification, and i'm not against it inherently. I'm very much on the side of science -- and of using it in an unbiased way. I've weighed in on the glyphosate page, for instance, to properly use secondary sources. I see the "other side" so to speak (those who wish to sanitize the glyphosate article for instance) as pushing a POV often moreso. It's obvious to me. And yet arbitrators and many others still speak of "anti-GMO editors" and "fringe" and "anti-science" when often those spoken of are anything but, are in fact very pro-science. Justice will not be found in this atmosphere of constant aspersion by prejudicial remarks. Science is neutral (while it can be gamed just like regulation and governance). Science is not allied with me, nor with Jytdog or Kingofaces43. It is what it is.

This case was a huge disappointment to me. I never asked to be party to it, but when it started i admit i had some hope that the issues would work out, and that justice would be done. What i've seen is a kangaroo court, though... a cabal with a few dissenting voices (including arbs) who stood up for principles and evidence, but the general current being a McCarthyism against those who are critical about whitewashing of the whole topic area.

I have called out editors who would be seen as "on my side" sometimes, and i've reverted edits that would make glyphosate look bad, for instance, because they were not right. I am not here to right great wrongs in the sense it's usually meant, but only to write great articles. Reality is its own arbiter, if the process has integrity. Unfortunately, the process here at Misplaced Pages has proven to not have integrity, and to be eminently able to be manipulated by those who work the system. The "proper channels" of dispute resolution failed me. They do not work. There is systemic bias, and a heavy gang of editors who take it upon themselves to make sure that the power structure supports their side, instead of supporting integrity, and creating a good editing environment for everyone who is willing to be civil and respect sources.

There is so much promise here at Misplaced Pages, as a place where people of many points of view can work together cooperatively, learning from each other, giving and taking, expanding our own worldviews by interacting with people of many perspectives. But that promise is being wasted, and the readers are being let down, because of the pervasive power gaming that is going on here.

We need to take a meta-level look at what is wrong, and work on fixing it. SageRad (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No need for the back and forth here. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That last is sound advice. Speaking as somebody who has been where you are now, I suggest that you follow your own advice, and begin by looking into your own heart. If you cannot work within the system., save yourself (and many others) a good deal of grief and find a place where you can work productively. Misplaced Pages, as a community and a process is certainly not perfect, but it's working pretty well, all things considered, and calls to tear it down and start afresh are going to find very little traction here. Respect the community. Please. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Skyring, as one of the several people who has had very bad behavior toward me, including posting mocking pictures on a talk page, and pushed a strong pro-industry POV against sources, and showed serious WP:IDHT behavior while accusing me of such, and other WP:POV RAILROAD behavior, if that's what you consider "community" then i say hasten the day! There is good community within Misplaced Pages and this is what i wih to foster. There is very harmful behavior and that is what i oppose. I want Misplaced Pages to actually work according to the policies and guidelines, which i respect with all my heart. Misplaced Pages is not a social forum, it's not Facebook, it's not a place to find your community needs, but it still can be such a good hearted place, and i have felt many good feelings from working on Misplaced Pages. But more than this, it is also an arbiter of the world's knowledge of the human species, and if this is not based on integrity, then we are really lost as a species. It's not a small thing. It matters. SageRad (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to take the position that you are right and Misplaced Pages is wrong, your choice. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That's just you speaking Skyring. Not "Misplaced Pages". Not "the community". --Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you may be suffering from over-optimism, @Drmies:. As I expect you know, scientists have an ethical obligation to respect science without regard to interest or influence, and failure to uphold that obligation or neglecting to see it upheld can and will end a career. A reading of the two passages Old ArbCom cites as having "articulated a clear POV" appear, to my fresh eye, to articulate this obligation, to which every scientist subscribes. They are expressed firmly and not entirely amicably, but ethical obligations ought to be firm, not flimsy, the context was in any case not amicable, and in any case ArbCom has clearly held in AE (and AE2, and Lightbreather) that even the appearance of amicability can be dispensed with. No one would say the C**** remark was amicable. There may be backstory here that Old Arbcom has not explained well -- that’s been their habit, to be sure. But if not, this one’s bound to land back in your new laps momentarily. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Drmies, you shouldn't get all excited yet. This case was not properly handled or completely resolved and parties that should have been included, weren't -- while this case took care of some serious issues that needed to be dealt with, I"m afraid the Arbs lost interest around the evidence phase and never regained enough interest to see the case to a meaningful conclusion. The behaviors that landed us at Arb have started afresh once the case was closed. So, yeah, there will be a GMO2 on your watch - bet on it. q:) Minor4th 08:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me--I'm urgently wanted in Timbuktu during January and February, so good luck to everyone. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
We will find you, drag you back and glue your arse to your Arb chair (evil chuckle). Minor4th 03:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals

Is this a ban from pages that deal with either one, or a ban from pages that deal only with both? Obviously DuPont is covered, as it relates to both, but Agricultural lime concentrates on an agricultural chemical without mentioning GMOs, and the article about the GMOs known as GloFish doesn't mention agricultural chemicals. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The wording was bad. Near the end of the case I warned that they needed to better clarify the scope and wording. I also said they should specifically include wording in regards to companies that manufacture these products as well because a significant portion of the conflict revolved around Monsanto yet we already have one of the topic banned actors in the case editing in regards to Monsanto. Capeo (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we just let every company write their own article? That way, they could present a perfect brochure-like image to the world via Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Better idea: why don't we have them written by editors that don't have an ax to grind? Capeo (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
A third idea: represent reality whether it's favorable or unfavorable to any company or any chemical or any topic at all. Allow multiple points of view to reconcile through good dialogue. Adhere to wp:npov truly, not some biased version of that concept. If a company knowingly sold a harmful chemical, let it be in the article. If it didn't then don't. Simple. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a very big difference between being in the article and being given undue weight. Capeo (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course i understand that. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The entire case suffers unfortunately from poor wording in the first draft of the PD combined with a failure to revise the wording for the final decision. But having followed the case, I'm confident that the intended meaning of the full phrase – "genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" – is with a boolean "or" rather than "and". Thus, it covers pages about GMOs, pages about agri biotech, and pages about ag chemicals, as well as pages about combinations thereof – but it is not restricted only to combinations of all three. As for GloFish, the advent of GMO salmon farming means that "broadly construed" should be understood broadly. As for agricultural lime, there were problems with multiple pesticide pages that did not mention GMOs, so again, it would be prudent for editors to construe it broadly. If any of the Arbs who made the decision are not too exhausted to comment, it would be good if they would check whether I got that right. And yes, Drmies, you should brace yourself for some sort of second act. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What happened to "agricultural biotechnology"? Was it omitted by accident or removed intentionally? While you two were leaving these comments, I was expanding my question. See below for the whole thing. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yikes, you are right. It's in the DS, but not in the topic bans for individual editors. I'm thinking it's an accident, and requests for clarification or amendment are sure to follow. Nonetheless, I think it would be common sense for affected editors not to test the boundaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to mention that. I have obviously been thinking what this ArbCom case means to me. The 1RR applies to "Agricultural Biotechnology" broadly construed. All of you should look at the article Agricultural biotechnology and see what this includes. At least one of the topic areas has had its 1RR breached (I suspect unknowingly) today. Some of the medics will become very worried! DrChrissy 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What happened to "agricultural biotechnology"? Was it omitted by accident or removed intentionally? Either way, it's helpful, as use of scientific tools and techniques, including genetic engineering, molecular markers, molecular diagnostics, vaccines, and tissue culture, to modify living organisms: plants, animals, and microorganisms could embrace everything from selective breeding to Jonathan Edwards, a victim of an early vaccination attempt gone badly. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biotechnology as: “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products for specific use” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). This definition includes medical and industrial applications as well as many of the tools and techniques that are commonplace in agriculture and food production.DrChrissy 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
As this case continued to drag on and on I kept getting an uncomfortable feeling re the "agricultural chemicals" wording, thinking "will it be said later that the banned editors are banned from all ag chem articles?" Each time I pushed back my fears because the case was about GM chems - even the heading of this section reads Genetically modified organisms case closed. I really do pray that I was not wrong about that... Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Gandy, I noticed the potential problem with 1RR for agricultural biotechnology a while ago. I think that some editors just became so focused on getting punishment for others, the bigger picture was not seen. Now we are all under 1RR for the Fermentation, Selective breeding articles, etc, etc. I feel sorry for the person who has to put 1RR templates on all the articles.DrChrissy 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's well worth linking to, although one will probably suffer no time loss in waiting for an answer if one waits until the new members take office.
That said (and I should probably have my head examined for coming to ArbCom's defense, all things considered), I really do not think that anyone who exercises common sense will have any kind of problem with respect to topics of "agricultural biotechnology" that might fall outside of either "genetically modified organisms" or "agricultural chemicals", as to whether or not it is within case scope. But please notice that I said "anyone who exercises common sense", which is not the same thing as "anyone". If someone chooses to discard common sense, well what will happen should be pretty predictable (humor about fermentation notwithstanding). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Trypto, the problem is that common sense does not prevail when people are so bloody-minded to play gotcha. Remember I told you about an editor/admin who told me to count the words relating to human medicine and laboratory animals to see if using a source would be in breach of my topic ban. This mentality will occur under the agricultural biotechnology 1RR which now exists across Misplaced Pages. Can I bring some popcorn and hide under that rock with you? ;-) DrChrissy 19:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that concern. I think the explicit carve-out for you with respect to animals is one of the things that they got right in the decision, and it should help you there. Anything that is animal, not plant, not protist, is probably OK for you. Anything remotely overlapping with GMO plant, GMO plant agriculture, or agricultural chemical, you should play it safe. If you go near a borderline, then someone playing gotcha will have enough credibility to inflict some grief on you. But if you stay extra far away from boundaries, anyone playing gotcha will look silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The best way for me to understand is to ask a specific question: Will DrChrissy be able to edit the organophosphate articles? Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure from the indent if you are asking me, but I'd say it would be prudent not to edit it, especially with regard to any issues of safety or controversy. But that's really a question for the Arbs, if any of them would be willing to answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This whole thread is certainly not just about me, but if ArbCom are going to look at clarification of my ban, I wonder if this includes Genetically modified organism and other articles where animals are covered but also other organisms covered by my ban. I'm not looking to make edits about organisms covered by my ban, I am simply seeking clarification about articles I am allowed to edit.DrChrissy 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
And it's not about me either, so I feel awkward about answering, but I also want to, because that question is an easy one and I have no confidence that you will get a timely response from the Arbs. It's a no-brainer: you cannot touch that page or its talk, even if it's a section only about animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I actually disagree, but, I am clearly making some errors of judgement here so I will leave it well alone.DrChrissy 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just compare the page name with the case name. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
But the name is GMO - I accept that for DS and 1RR findings which apply to us all, however, I was wondering whether my topic ban, which states only one kingdom, covered the article. Let's just drop this Trypto. I accept your interpretation and will not edit the page.DrChrissy 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, I appreciate your time... It is very important to me as I have a great deal of interest in pesticides and I need any help I can get with them without fear that a GMO ruling applies to them. I would like very much to find an answer - do you know what I should do to find one? Thanks. (as for me, it would seem it would set a terrible precedent if the GMO ruling covers all ag chems) Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but Gandy - there are many ambiguities like what you mention, and I think there is going to have to be a clarification request; perhaps even an omnibus clarification requests to tighten up a number of remedies that are now subject to opposing interpretations. DrChrissy's topic ban in particular is going to cause problems and could even stoke the battleground further (not because of you, DrChrissy, but because of those who would like to see you banished from the largest possible scope of articles). Minor4th 03:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know what more to say. I'd rather that Arbs answer these questions, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was meant to cover all 3 areas, not just the interesection of them. Unless my colleagues object I'm going to switch the 'and's for 'or's. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A proposed compromise

I can see from the ongoing discussion above, and from discussions at pages such as User talk:Petrarchan47, that the ArbCom case may have addressed some behavioral issues but did not address the underlying conflict between pro-GMO/pro-industry/pro-whateveryouwanttocallit, and anti-GMO factions within Misplaced Pages. Arguments have been made again and again both in favor of and against GMOs, to the point that we're all going around in circles across multiple talk pages (and within content articles), and I think it's safe to say most editors are firmly entrenched in their ideas, opinions, and what WP articles need to represent. Well, we're going to have to find a way to work together despite our differences, and make sure we don't burn ourselves out or conduct ourselves unprofessionally as was done previously. Let's see if we can figure out something here.

It seems that much of the argument - if you ignore the clear behavioral problems - boil down to what should be considered WP:UNDUE or WP:POV pushing when it comes to editing articles. I don't think anyone - again, outside of those editors who were censured - believes that anti-GMO scientific evidence, or discussion of the existence of anti-GMO opinions despite lack of scientific evidence, should be censored in its entirety. It's simply a matter of how those opinions are expressed within the article: not as undisputed fact, and not such that they take up 80% of the article. So, let me propose something like the following as a very generic guideline, to of course be modified based on the subject matter at hand, and known facts:

  • 50% of article = Objective, uncontroversial content (chemical formula, date and method of origin, intended use, history, etc.)
  • 25% of article = Commentary on scientific opinion regarding efficacy, human/animal/environmental/etc. safety, and the like (majority opinion)
  • 15% of article = Commentary on scientific opinion regarding the same (minority opinion response)
  • 10% of article = Response to minority opinion

I think that something like this would ensure that neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO discussions overwhelm the articles, that both opinions are expressed, that neither opinion is expressed as undisputed fact, that neither side is given UNDUE, and that (per WP policy) we all stick to what is known and the implications thereof. It also ensures that we keep to the most important facts only, without getting bogged down in the minutiae of the arguments we have spouted again and again.

OK, time to shoot holes in this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that this is a very good faith proposal, but ArbCom really isn't the right place for the discussion, because ArbCom (officially) doesn't decide content issues, only conduct. If you want, you can bring it up at an article talk page, or, if you want to apply it to multiple articles, you could try Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. (But frankly, I'm pessimistic that you will get wide agreement about this stuff.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The auto-posts on various users' talk pages instructed we, the involved parties, to discuss the ArbCom case post-mortem on this page. Article talk pages would not be sufficient as we would end up with numerous conflicting discussions, when we need a general guiding principle for the entire subject. This page may not, technically, be the "correct" place for such a discussion, but it is clearly the most centralized place for one, outside of "Requests for Mediation", which I would prefer not to use unless friendly attempts at this discussion fail. Regarding your last comment: I, too, am pessimistic, but it's worth a try. We NEED to find a way to work together. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate this proposal by Jtrevor99 for discussion, but i have some fundamental issues with a couple points of it. Mainly, that it still defines two sides, and one of those sides is called "anti-GMO" and then it's clearly also identified as the "minority position" in the percentage breakdown proposal. That in itself is aggregating thousands of questions into two "sides" of polarized and stereotyped nature, and secondly, it's supposing that one of those "sides" is the majority opinion, which comes pretty close to the sort of thing that happens when pro-industry position is equated with being "pro-science".
I would like to just say that there are thousands of content questions, and science doesn't take sides. On the question of whether glyphosate-based formulations hurt frog reproduction, for instance, what does the science say? Pro-industry agenda would be to say it doesn't hurt frogs much. "Anti-GMO" activist agenda would say "It hurts frogs! Oh no, Silent Spring revisited!" But good sourcing and accurate representation of sources would say something in the middle. Let's break down the sides -- not codify rules of engagement for the "sides". I would like to note that i've been the poster-child whipping-post in this case -- somehow -- i never asked to be but somehow i was -- and i'm not even "anti-GMO" per se. I've worked in a biology lab with knockout strains of bacteria, which are genetically modified organisms. I do have concerns about runaway variants, sort of Pandora's box concerns, and also concerns about specific traits that are introduced but it's not been a focus of my editing and i'm not "anti-GMO". However, i have real world experience with the corrupt practices of the chemical industry and i see the horrible damage done by some actors in the industry, well-known and well-documented malpractice that damaged many people and ecosystems, and that's one focus of my editing -- which is allowed and ok by Misplaced Pages guidelines.
I hope it's clear what i'm getting at. It comes down to sourcing and adherence to the actual science. We can't formulize things like this. SageRad (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jtrevor99 - I appreciate your proactive attempt to find some middle ground, but I want to point out what I have observed since the case started. Back in September, POV's were pretty well divided on the line of whether or not there's a scientific consensus that GMO foods are as safe as conventional foods. The disputes now are mostly about 1. the safety/risk of ag chemicals to humans, animals and the environment, 2. the reliability of industry funded and promoted research, and the reliability of independent researchers who have published conclusions that are not favorable to the industry, and 3. attempts to either whitewash or denigrate BLP's, depending on how closely the BLP's views are aligned with our "science" bloc of editors in the topic area.

When trying to formulate proposals, I think it's important to really drill down to what is actually in dispute. Minor4th 03:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I would disagree with your assessment of the situation. I suspect what you have described is what people want the discussion to be about, but there clearly remain two sides. You need look no further than User talk:Petrarchan47, in which I was called "hilarious" and "bull****" earlier today by editors who were part of this case for daring to attempt to strike a compromise allowing both sides of the discussion to appear in equitable parts in such articles. And no, I did not return the favor; you're welcome to check diffs to confirm this. Frankly, it is not possible to work with uncivil and Jytdogesque editors like Petrarchan47 in such a way as to improve WP content, and so I am glad he has chosen to retire. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I really do think that you meant well, and good for you, for that. But you attempted an impossible task, because the problems are about conduct, not content. The user talk page to which you linked is certainly, well, unusual. A party to the case, about whom ArbCom could not make up their minds, "retired" as a registered editor, but is using their talk page, as an IP, as a sort of blog to advocate against Misplaced Pages and for the kind of stuff that got them into the case to begin with. And if you read what is there, there is little doubt that what AGK and Seraphimblade tried to tell the rest of the Committee was right. Look at that, and look at AE (just days after the case closed!) to see the other editors where ArbCom dropped the ball, and, well, I told you so. Ain't gonna be no "compromise" here, so GMO-2 will be coming soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Very true. Chalk the "proposed compromise" up to naivete, I suppose. It's a shame I'm too busy IRL to be a substantial contributor to WP, as I am passionate about this topic and hate to see what's happening, including the burnout, incivility, and (perhaps as indicated by the "retired" author who keeps coming back) drama from multiple editors. I have little tolerance for POV-pushing, whether I agree with that POV or not. This clearly is not settled, nor will it be any time soon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The same thing is happening, articles are being biased

This is a discussion about a specific article. Please move it to Talk:Vani Hari. Liz 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The same thing is happening as has always been happening. I took a look at the edit history of the Vani Hari article and i see the same polarized dynamic happening, with the anti-Hari people working steadily to return that page to a hugely biased state. I see good independent editors who wade into the page, and try to make some corrections, immediately reverted and then chastised at their talk pages. I see gang-like behavior with a clear point of view pushing dynamic. It's not what we want Misplaced Pages to be, and note well that i'm not there and it's still happening. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What you claim as 'anti-hari' is more accurately 'anti pseudo-science'. Hari is one in a long line of BLP's who make foolish unscientific pronouncements which garner far more press and controversy than their otherwise less controversial life choices. If Hari had not consistantly peddled mis-interpreted, mis-understood woo pseudoscience, then her BLP would be half as big and would be quite respectable. Practically a saint even. The 'corrections' at Hari by what you term 'good independant editors' almost are always removal of material critical of Hari and seek to lessen the criticism. To anyone who is familiar with your editing, it is unsurprising to find that pattern described as a 'correction'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
That comment shows the depth of the problem. There is a demonization of Hari by a pseudoskeptic crowd. She's not perfect but the POV pushed by those who have captured and maintain control over that page is rather extreme and certainly not NPOV. Relativity of perception is necessary to keep in mind. There's an agenda at work there and it's not NPOV. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Note to others, this discussion has been had before. Its pretty much a continuation of SageRad's agenda-driven editing. Where confronted with dissenting opinion, clearly its a POV controlling cabel. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Also I would point out before you take this any further, Vani Hari easily falls under a topic ban on GMO's broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, there you go, seeming unable to discuss this on a meta-level, as you're talking over my shoulder to the others and saying "don't listen to SageRad, he's clearly biased" whereas i'm speaking to the relativity of points of view here on a meta level. Vani Hari is a person who speaks to questions of the chemical industry in the food field, and this includes GMOs as well as glyphosate as well as Red number 5, and HFCS and everything else. She's become a lightning rod for the topic area conflict, a symbol. She's the target of a group of people like Mark Alsip, "Science Babe" and a few others, who are on the "other side" in the corner of the chemical industry. It's a clear polarized conflict, and for you to then attempt to lasso me into that conflict is to make Misplaced Pages a battleground. I do not accept it. I'm speaking for the BLP on Vani Hari to be reasonable and in line with mainstream media. There is a group of people who are hellbent on making the Misplaced Pages article on her into an attack article similar to the Fear Babe book written by a few of the anti-Hari group. That's a problem and it's against the mission of Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It cannot be discussed with you, you are topic banned from all pages related to GMO's broadly construed. You are no longer allowed to participate in discussion of GMO's, GMO advocates, GMO critics, and given 'broadly construed' and your argumentative nature you need to stay away from any page that contains the word 'GMO', What part of this do you not understand? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong about the scope and you're wrong if you think you can silence me here. Topic ban applies to articles about GMOs and agrochemicals. This forum is to dissect the conflict and I'm able to be here and discuss this. Please cease your attitude of controlling my voice. If you have anything to say about the topic then say it, or don't, but don't try to control others or silence others in this way. Not a good practice and quite offensive. It's extremely revealing to me that the side of the conflict that wishes to sanitize articles according to industry agenda is also the side that is constantly trying to silence those with dissenting voices. It's sad the Misplaced Pages has played into their hands. SageRad (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hari is the definition of WP:Lunatic Charlatans and expert RS treat her as such thus so does WP. Capeo (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You're so clearly in the minority group that is attempting to demonize her far beyond real assessments of her in the mainstream media that it would be laughable if your camp were not actually in control of the BLP about her. Sorry but there's a real problem there. There's a hostile and toxic editing environment for anyone who wishes to bring balance there, or to work in good faith there on making sure the article reflects good sources. You can cherrypick pseudoscientific planted articles all you want, it still doesn't jive with the actual mainstream media coverage of her. It takes nuance and a lack of undue bias to work on that. I'm leaning toward a favorable assessment of her while recognizing her shortcomings and occasional errors, but there are people on her article who want to see blood. I'm serious. If you take time to look at the talk page history there, you'll see people making vicious insulting remarks about her and those are the people writing the article, who have captured the article in a gang/mobbing play. That's a problem for NPOV. That's a problem for Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
To test your theory I just did a Google news search on her. Every story but one which was bio fluff piece was massively negative about her claims. All mainstream sources. Not sure what minority I'm in. Capeo (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, oh well, dont say you were not warned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Does the "you" in the above comment mean me? If so, i do not understand your meaning except to feel it as an abusive remark meant to have a chilling effect. Is that how it's meant? If not, please explain. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, there are still unresolved issues, so Drmies, I urge you to get a round-trip ticket when you head to Timbuktu. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Do recent topic bans apply to this page?

A rather curious situation is arising over at SageRad's talk page which may affect myself and others with topic bans recently issued by ArbCom. It has been stated that it is an actionable offence for those recently issued with a GMO-ban to be contributing to this ArbCom Noticeboard page to discuss the process leading to the remedies. So, why were banned editors issued with an invitation to discuss this here? If they make any comment here, they are apparently in breach of their ban. My own case is even more complex. My ban was not for all GMOs, but at least one editor has argued this still means I should not edit the Genetically modified organism article. I accepted that, but now realise that because this noticeboard has the same title, I might be accused of violating my topic ban for even posting this message.
I totally accept that it is not right for banned editors to be making new arguments or statements about the subject matter of a topic ban, but at the moment, it appears those with a ban cannot even comment about the talk pages which resulted in their ban. For example, it appears that if I was to write, "The editing atmosphere at insert talk page of article I am banned from was extremely combative", I would be in breach of my topic ban. What then is the point of this page for those who have been most seriously affected by Arbcom's decision.DrChrissy 16:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
A topic ban means to leave the area of the subject, altogether, and not to shout from the sidelines. There are a few exceptions to that, such as appealing the ban or requesting good-faith clarifications about its scope (as you're doing), but it does mean the banned editor must refrain from all general discussion of the topic and topic area on any page on Misplaced Pages, and must refrain from editing any article or portion of any article that covers the banned topic. If it's possible for you to discuss the case or other administrative processes without engaging in discussion of the topic, you remain free to do that, but just be sure not to cross that line. Seraphimblade 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Are you telling me to get out of here and that I can't speak here in dissection and autopsy of the recently deceased case in which you spoke so badly and insinuated such stuff against me? SageRad (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@SageRad: I wasn't talking to you at all, I was answering a question. You are not banned from discussing the case, or me in particular. You are banned from discussing the subjects of your topic ban on any page on Misplaced Pages, this one included. If you can discuss the case without going directly into those topics, your ban doesn't forbid that. Seraphimblade 18:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Another question, is Agent Orange covered by this topic ban? Why or why not? Is it an agricultural chemical? Are there any farms that use it? Is it used in agriculture? I'd like to know a opinions on that, with reasoning. Silencing a person is a serious thing you know. It's not a light thing to do. Speaking badly of someone is also a serious thing. Why did anything ever have to go here? Why do some people think they can judge others and silence them? How can people do that without remorse or great care? SageRad (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer to that as well. FWIW, I would not include Agent Orange or dioxins, but would probably include the two component herbicides. That may be a stupid idea but I think the boundary has to be drawn somewhere that does not drag in all environmental concerns. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
E/C@SageRad: I have asked a very specific question in this thread. It is possible that by simply posting here, you and I are inadvertently breaking our topic ban. Please could I respectfully ask you to move your posting above to a separate section. You raise good points, but I feel they may be distracting to the specific and direct question I have asked. Thanks. DrChrissy 18:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I just added a section break. I hope that solves it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Participating in AE threads or any other discussion within the bounds of your topic ban will lead to a block --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
My apolologies - I thought that because I was not discussing the page or the content, I was able to comment. I will endeavour to interpret the topic ban more broadly in the future.DrChrissy 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)