The community should be aware that this constant GMO drama could be considered distraction by Tryptofish for the fact that he, KingofAces43 and Aircorn went against the RfC findings and tried to argue for "scientific consensus" even after the community discovered this is an unsupported claim. That activity should be actionable to this day, considering the suite is under DS. I spoke to this: * * *

• Here is Tryptofish reinserting language disallowed by the RfC: *

On the misuse of sources:

According to WP:MEDRS, Domingo and Krimsky,^[1][2] being recent review articles in peer-reviewed journals, are the best sources we have with regard to GMO safety. David elucidates on these sources here.

• KingofAces43 called Domingo and Krimsky "fringe".*

• KingofAces43 incorrectly used an article that spoke to six studies, and claimed that it debunked the entirety of the aforementioned reviews (which looked at over 26 individual studies)*

• Tryptofish buried these same two sources in his RfC Proposal (#1) by using "but see also" so that it's almost impossible to find them.

These diffs show Tryptofish (and KingofAces43) should be topic-banned. I explain to Tryptofish here

these diffs show that you have suppressed the very best review articles we have on GMO safety to a "but see also" in the sources for your "GMOs are safe" proposal. Those articles say that there is lively debate in the scientific community about GMO safety, but this isn't mentioned in your proposal. So you are showing an inability to properly weigh and summarize GMO science. Further, there is a diff showing where you re-entered the term "scientific consensus" months after the RfC mandated a wording change, since this phrase does not have support in current literature. You were aware of that RfC, I have seen you refer to it many times, and you were well aware this suite is under DS.

In general, they fight anything that brings into question the safety of GMOs using bullying, walls of text, obsessive noticeboarding, and misusing sources.

Based on the behavior I have observed and illustrated above, I support JusDaFax' proposal: King and Trypto should be topic banned for being disruptive to the process of writing neutral, informative content.

Additional comment

Not only is "the other side" of the GMO safety issue being kept from WP's pages, but when I tried to simply add a note about the percentage of Americans who support GMO labeling, and mention of the USDA's new GMO labeling program, I was reverted and 'handled' on the talk page. To this day we don't tell our readers this and other basic information about the GMO issue. WP is loosing good editors due to the refusal to put an end to, or even acknowledge, this idiocy.**

Arbs, you know you're going to have to turn WP:ARBGMO2 blue eventually. May as well get it over with. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the above statement that GMO2 is needed. The solution is simple: topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces from the GMO articles and subpages under the existing discretionary sanctions.

David Tornheim and Petrarchan47 have made an excellent case just above that Trypto and King have misrepresented themselves repeatedly, abused process, and distorted sources. This is arguably bad faith editing. The diffs David and Petrar present are clear, and direct. Their case is strong, and I thank them both.

Slim Virgin aka SarahSV has also shown clearly what is going on at the current AN thread referenced above.

If further confirmation is needed, look at the edit histories of Trypto and King. Clearly these two editors see themselves as heroic defenders of the Wiki, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They are obsessive, and will do or say literally anything to get what they want.

Enough is enough.

Regardless of whether the RfC proceeds, in my view ArbCom should decide here and now to topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces and end their ongoing disruption. Im suggesting six months. Thanks.

• Additional comment - David Tornheim's backing of my above-proposed GMO topic ban for Kingofaces and Tryptofish is a seriously telling endorsement, which adds considerable weight to my contention that those two editors need a six month vacation from the subject to stop the waste of editor time. David worked patiently for many weeks with these two, and few are more qualified to testify to their tendentious and abusive editing. I thank him sincerely for his protracted attempts to bring balance to the RfC in question and the overall GMO issue, and his just-posted specific support for the proposed GMO topic ban for King and Trypto, which as I see it is long overdue. I also thank Petrarchan47 for her specific support. Jusdafax 19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the road for work with less internet access that I expected, so I won't likely have time to respond here further this week (though I'll say my part at the RfC on Monday). My understanding from the last request was that ArbCom didn't think they should intervene directly in moderating the RfC and leave it up to the community/DS. Once The Wordsmith and Laserbrain said they'd be willing to set up the RfC, arbs let that responsibility fall to those admins as that settled the request without a need for a vote. The request was closed because a solution was found. That far from implies Arbs disapproved of the RfC, especially when specific arb concerns about implementation (not simply having the RfC) were addressed. Regardless, the DS are meant to break the back of disputes in these topics without explicit ArbCom oversight on each action, and that's exactly what is being done with this RfC.

At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with an RfC that forces all editors to focus only on the content for once. That's especially when all parties had ample time to submit whatever proposed content they wanted. I could rail about various behavior issues I've had to deal with, but now isn't the time for that. That's for GMO-2 if it becomes warranted at a later date. There's a lot of absurd stuff there I've kept relatively quiet about for now even though it would likely result in boomerangs. That's because now is the time to focus on content by giving the RfC a chance under discretionary sanctions first to really sort out content to see how much it fixes.

We've got the potential for this RfC to halt the primary dispute to the point editors all sides will have to move on instead of calling for heads to roll as part of the content dispute. We might finally beat this poor horse to the point there isn't any point in editors continuing further battleground behavior. Continued distractions away from the RfC through admin boards won't help the topic right now. I for one am choosing to forgo that to focus on the RfC content, as that's what really matters here. I hope other involved editors do the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• In the March 2016 amendment request, the Arbitration Committee declined Tryptofish's request that the ArbCom hold a moderated RfC to decide on this wording. A number of us, including myself, agreed that an RfC would be a fine way to handle it, but that the ArbCom did not need to be the ones managing it. Myself, kelapstick, and DGG also agreed that we did not like the idea of mandating that a fixed time pass before the wording could be changed (the original proposal by Tryptofish said "ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.").

  I agree with David Tornheim's correction above that ArbCom did not mandate an RfC be held, but I also don't see those comments as deliberate misrepresentations. I am, however, somewhat concerned about the visibility of this RfC during its drafting phase, as it does not appear to have been widely publicized. However, I see that David Tornheim posted to the GMO article talk page (as well as a few other pages such as Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, Talk:Genetically modified organism, etc.)‎ to notify of this discussion on May 2. This was a good call, and I see that a month passed between those notifications and when Wordsmith protected the draft RfC talk page. I think that is probably sufficiently long for outside parties to have stated their opinions, though these parties should really have been notified from the getgo.

  Mandating that the result of this RfC can only be changed by another 30-day RfC is certainly unorthodox. I agree that there should be a high level of agreement to alter the wording, if the outcome of this RfC does result in consensus for a change. I also don't think that kind of agreement will come about in this topic area without a fairly strict discussion, so at the moment I am not opposed to this clause being included in the RfC. However, I'd be curious to hear my colleagues' opinions on the inclusion of this clause, and their opinions on how this jibes with current policy.

  If he is willing, I would urge Laser brain to contact the ArbCom, and perhaps also the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team, regarding the harassment he has endured recently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Any RfC can by consensus mandate some form of moratorium, either in length of time or some form of consensus, as otherwise results could be ignored or tossed aside very quickly by people with enough time, motive and energy. So maybe mandating a 9-month moratorium could bring some stability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse, for the record. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is certainly a creative use of discretionary sanctions, but, as far as I'm concerned, I find it entirely cromulent. I also have absolutely no problem with the fact that the results of the RfC will be binding for a specified term, as long as the community has a way to modify them before such term has expired, in the event consensus changes in the meantime – and, again, as far as I'm concerned, another monthlong RfC is perfectly acceptable. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems obvious to me that an RfC like this, with so much expected input and a panel of three judges (Simon Cowell is unavailable, I understand) to bless the result, would need an equally voluminous RfC to overturn it. If that's not obvious, then I'll put my wooden shoes on my head and walk out of the temple. In other words, I do not see a need to quantify or legislate a moratorium. On the other issue, whether we'll run this with DS on it, sure. I have no problem with that; it seems to me that that is the kind of thing DS is also supposed to do, with much of its language pertaining to discussion and disruption of discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am opposed to any extension of the use of Discretionary Sanctions, which I think are too often used in an unfair manner- I would rather try to avoid the use of DS. This is independent of any guess about the likely outcome. DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy with the RfC taking place and agree with Drmies (and Salvio) that the use of Discretionary Sanctions is fine here. Ambivalent about the need for to quantify or to have a definite moratorium. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Drmies and Salvio that this is fine. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx), Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, and Talk:Gdansk/Vote come to mind as "lock ins" in language via an RFC --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by George Ho at 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Rodhullandemu arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Indefinite blocking of Rodhullandemu

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roger Davies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Hasteur
• Roger Davies
• Rodhullandemu
• Casliber
• Risker
• Kirill Lokshin
• Xeno
• Newyorkbrad
• Silver seren
• Bishonen
• Jimbo Wales
• David Fuchs
• Mailer diablo
• PhilKnight
• Jclemens
• Coren

Information about amendment request

• Indefinite blocking of Rodhullandemu

• Unblock him as a regular editor, but he would no longer be an administrator he once was.

Five years have passed since Rodhullandemu was blocked indefinitely. Once he was accused of violating his block by sockpuppet, but he was cleared because another person imitated Rod's name and almost made him the bad guy. I am definitely uninvolved party because, while I was looking at contribution stats of Yesterday (Beatles song), I stumbled upon this case. Looking at case evidence against him, he made definite mistakes as an administrator. Moreover, his abuse of position could not be denied. Nevertheless, he might have been a good contributor to articles, like this one. I am not proposing that he'd be an administrator. Instead, why not let him contribute again? Again, it has been five years. Let's give him a chance, shall we?

I could not contact most or all of who have not been active in Wikipedia for at least one year or so. Feel free to contact those if you wish.

EdChem: How is five years not enough? A statement should come from him? By the way, I contacted him via email, and I gave him a link to contact the ArbCom, who blocked him. Also, Ed, what if his email is inactive at the moment?

Shall we ignore all rules to unblock him regardless? I don't see how this rule improves Wikipedia in this case.

@Johnuniq: What about giving him conditions of being unblocked? George Ho (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Have you been in contact with Rodhullandemu, and does he want to appeal? If so, a statement from him is really needed. If not, ArbCom have demonstrated before that they won't hear an appeal without the appellant, and so this will be closed without action. EdChem (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I have no view on whether the ban should be lifted nor on whether five years is enough, as you put it. I also am not arguing that a statement should come from him, I am stating that ArbCom usually refuses to act on an appeal without a statement from the appellant. The power to change ArcbCom's mind / actions is given to no editor, except through persuasion. You are free to try to persuade them, but my view of your chances is not positive. Some reasons for wanting a statement from Rod are (1) it says that there is a point in the discussion, in that if an unblock was made, would he start editing again? (2) maybe he would prefer to appeal to ArbCom quietly by email, rather than inviting the peanut gallery to offer thoughts - indeed, maybe this is already in progress. (3) (not so much here), but if appeal frequency is limited, other editors launching appeals at inopportune times could be unhelpful, or even deliberate harassment. On an IAR unblock, I think an admin doing that risks getting criticised or worse. As a scientist, my prediction is: ArbCom-ban&block + IAR-unblock → ArbCom-reblock + DesysopMotion. EdChem (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend closing this and having Rodhullandemu contact the committee via email if they wish to appeal. –xeno^talk 12:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the events unfold and they were very distressing. An arbitrator should preferably remove this request, or collapse it, and use email to determine why George Ho wants to re-expose settled wounds. If the editor concerned would like to be unblocked, they would know how to email Arbcom. I would support an unblock request from the editor as acknowledgment of the excellent work performed for the community, and to clear the record. However, some other issue should be picked if George Ho just wants to chew the fat. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).