Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-07-21/Discussion report
This applies only to the section about GMOs edit
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics 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 related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. 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 covered. |
- I am looking at this warning above, and do not recall ever seeing an ArbCom warning like this in the Signpost discussion space. Do ArbCom rulings apply to discussions in Signpost? I am not aware of a history of misuse of Signpost comment space that needed an ArbCom warning label. I recognize that ArbCom-issued warnings, like the one above, are to go in Wikipedia 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 talk in the news discussion space. Should Signpost 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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I presume they apply to editors commenting in the Signpost comment section on an issue that is under discretionary sanctions... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- if you cant speak your mind(on GMO) here, then where? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I presume they apply to editors commenting in the Signpost comment section on an issue that is under discretionary sanctions... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, Esquivalience, Xaosflux actually did get one oppose. Omni Flames (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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, The Signpost is not exempt from policies that apply elsewhere, but that does not mean that editors cannot give their opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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 assume good faith, avoid personal attacks 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. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was very well-said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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 assume good faith, avoid personal attacks 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. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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, The Signpost is not exempt from policies that apply elsewhere, but that does not mean that editors cannot give their opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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 performance in general starting from the scientifically sound paper by Greenpeace. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)