→Structural problems with this RfC: the sniping by Petrarchan really needs to stop |
No edit summary |
||
Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
On the [[Hillary Clinton]] page, two users edited without seeking consensus for removal. I reverted the first time and made a comment. The second user then reverted back, while the first user then went to the talk page. Here is the recent diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&curid=5043192&action=history I did post a comment on Tarl N's talk page to self revert. One thing to keep in mind is that when people use the rollback button, they don't see the DS Notice on the edit page. Thanks. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
On the [[Hillary Clinton]] page, two users edited without seeking consensus for removal. I reverted the first time and made a comment. The second user then reverted back, while the first user then went to the talk page. Here is the recent diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&curid=5043192&action=history I did post a comment on Tarl N's talk page to self revert. One thing to keep in mind is that when people use the rollback button, they don't see the DS Notice on the edit page. Thanks. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
:I am very aware of the discretionary sanctions on the Hillary page - this wasn't done in ignorance. The discussion about [[Political compass]] has come up before, it doesn't come close to meeting [[WP:RS]] requirements. It isn't published or reviewed, it's effectively one political reporter's personal opinion. At the absolute minimum, it's biased. My understanding of [[WP:BLP]] is that such sections have to be removed immediately. Regards, [[User:Tarl N.|Tarl N.]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.|talk]]) 19:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
:I am very aware of the discretionary sanctions on the Hillary page - this wasn't done in ignorance. The discussion about [[Political compass]] has come up before, it doesn't come close to meeting [[WP:RS]] requirements. It isn't published or reviewed, it's effectively one political reporter's personal opinion. At the absolute minimum, it's biased. My understanding of [[WP:BLP]] is that such sections have to be removed immediately. Regards, [[User:Tarl N.|Tarl N.]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.|talk]]) 19:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics 2]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> |
Revision as of 05:15, 28 June 2016
GMO RfC
Hi Coffee. Thanks for your warning to Petrarchan. I'm not sure if you've seen the conversation on The Wordsmith's page where petrarchan was already given a warning there[1] even before making those posts you redacted, but this is now their final final final warning in addition to your broad warnings to all those involved. I'm not going to push for further action at this time, but just wanted to be sure you're aware that petrarchan has had a warning in some fashion from you, Laser Brain, and The Wordsmith at this point.
What I'm mostly here for is to ask about a recent new editor to the GMO RfC, P-Pal88. They have 9 edits so far, and they somehow managed to stake out a position in the GMO RfC (their last edit) only one hour after their very first edit. Generally, accounts like this would get something akin to an SPA or very few edits tag since these tends to be socks (though not always). Not sure how that one should be handled if at all, so I just thought I'd see what you think. I don't see anything at this time that would justify a specific checkuser, but we do have a few topic-banned users. [2][3][4][5][6] Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- About that new editor, I just looked at their other contributions, and (since I've had a lot of experience with each of the topic-banned editors) there is no behavioral similarity that I can see. They also made their comment after the watchlist notice went out. I'm not commenting on anything beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree now that I've looked more too. It's mostly just the new account and very quickly entering into the GMO RfC that's a red flag for me. I don't see direct evidence of a sock. I'm not that concerned since they're saying an opinion more than discussing the content and related sources, but it's worth the quick question to Cofee nonetheless. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC question
You are right, this is the place to go with questions, thank you.
It seems that there was an addition made to the goal of the RfC, but it happened by default, and sheer oversight, not through the formal process of consideration it deserved.
This RfC is the third in a string that seek to summarize RS on the safety of GM foods/crops. I was active in the last RfC, and it was labor intensive to the extreme. For each proposal, an enormous amount of research must go into checking sources, how they are being summarized, and ultimately how they are weighed in light of the available RS as a whole, to know whether they align with PAGs, and especially with the complex WP:MEDRS in this case. I am still looking at the way sources are used in Proposition 1, and am only halfway through. Given what we are already asked to do, checking the additional sources that come with the "scope creep" is in my mind asking a bit too much, and the question remains whether this addition is a truly neutral one to begin with.
Considering the rules, it is unclear how admins will judge the RfC with additional content added to many proposals. I have to assume the admins will not extend the RfC scope beyond the content under consideration (detailed in the first paragraph of the RfC instructions). It seems the best idea would be to ask the authors of the proposals to trim the excess. We can have a separate RfC about public perception and bans if that language is ever hotly contested. Unlike the safety consensus, perception and bans has received little discussion; there is no justification for its addition to this RfC.
This additional content came about through no formal process, more of a collective blind spot, but it is impacting this very important RfC. It is not too late to remedy. At the very least, it should be clarified to editors how admins judging the results will consider the scope creep in the final analysis. Will proposals (and accompanying arguments) receive less weight for including the additional content? Will proposals and arguments supporting them receive more weight if they closely follow the RfC instructions, and keep the scope to the safety statement? Hope this makes sense. Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 02:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: Thoughts? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. It strikes me this may be something for ArbCom, perhaps a clarification request? petrarchan47คุก 05:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: Take it to ArbCom if you wish. But, keep in mind that The Wordsmith and I will be making reports on editor behavior in our statements there, and your record is less than subpar (bordering on bannable). And also note that ArbCom is not likely to make any formal conclusion whatsoever, or accept any case, due to the fact that they do not want to be directly responsible for any content decisions. I can't stop you from going there, but I advise you to not waste your time. - I read your conversation with The Wordsmith and realized that he had already answered this exact question regarding "scope creep" back on the 11th:
Regarding your thoughts on scope creep, the original scope is loosely defined as "How do we express the scientific consensus about GMO safety?". I understand that some proposals have exceeded that. However, since this is a Request for Comments, if the Commenters think the statement should be more comprehensive then that is their opinion, and for the closing administrators to interpret. I'm here to enforce user conduct, so as long as everyone is behaving (which I'm pleasantly surprised to see) my hands are somewhat tied. I can't weigh in on what types of content are appropriate as long as it is relevant to the question and not an obvious policy violation; if I did it would essentially be an administrator "supervote". My advice to you would be to be active on the talkpage and express your opinions on limiting the scope of the statement to your fellow editors.
, as I'm not of the opinion that you cannot comprehend his extremely clear response, I highly doubt you came here in good faith. I will also be reporting that fact, and The Wordsmith's full response, to the Arbitration Committee. And, I don't appreciate your use of the "ask the other parent" mechanism of approaching this situation, nor the fact that you didn't even come close to informing me that you had already been told no by the other Moderating Admin. That type of behavior is just not acceptable, and it paints your entire request in a bad light. So, please go forward if you wish, just don't be surprised when it WP:BOOMERANGs on you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: Take it to ArbCom if you wish. But, keep in mind that The Wordsmith and I will be making reports on editor behavior in our statements there, and your record is less than subpar (bordering on bannable). And also note that ArbCom is not likely to make any formal conclusion whatsoever, or accept any case, due to the fact that they do not want to be directly responsible for any content decisions. I can't stop you from going there, but I advise you to not waste your time. - I read your conversation with The Wordsmith and realized that he had already answered this exact question regarding "scope creep" back on the 11th:
- Thanks to you both. It strikes me this may be something for ArbCom, perhaps a clarification request? petrarchan47คุก 05:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47:I largely agree with Coffee. This question has been asked and answered. You didn't get the answer you were hoping for from me, and you didn't get the answer you wanted from Chet (though we have been exceptionally clear), so now you're suggesting a trip to Arbcom. Avoiding Arbcom and remanding it to the community is the whole point of this RfC. You can go to RFAR or ARCA if you like, but you still won't get the answer you want. If you get any response at all, it will likely be unfavorable to you; Arbcom tends to look poorly on WP:OTHERPARENT, especially when you didn't even inform Coffee that you had already discussed the same situation with me. I'm doing my best to assume in good faith that you simply forgot to mention it, but I must caution you that your behavior is bordering on sanctionable. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I saw the warning that Coffee made of Petrachan47 for her allegations of "scope creep" where Coffee collapsed her comment. In that comment Coffee said "[if] you cannot work it out between yourselves, please speak to an Enforcement admin at their talk page or at ANI, not here or on this RFC's talk page." Immediately after that, she opened this discussion on Coffee's page about the exact topic. In my opinion (assuming good faith), she was just following instructions by Coffee to bring the question here instead of at the talk page where she had just been scolded.
- I don't think she was trying "other parent", but simply re-asserting a concern about something she feels very strongly about at the venue she was directed to speak at. She has been very consistent in opposing the RfC for a number of reasons since it was first proposed in February 2016. I don't see a problem with her expressing the concerns to both moderators. I think it is normal for someone who feels they have a legitimate strong grievanceand feels unheard to ask for a second opinion. I think most of us who have interacted with the two moderators assume and observed moderators collaborating with each other on big decisions rather than acting unilaterally. So, I really don't feel she was abusing process by raising the concern here. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee and The Wordsmith, I was going to keep out of this discussion, but I sure hope that this doesn't have to escalate to ArbCom, so now I will butt in and point out some of the background. Proposals like Proposal 1 were already far along in the drafting process before any of the discussions about the RfC rules began, so editors knew about their content as the rules were being formulated. And it's worth considering the recent discussion at the RfC talkpage, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms#A shorter Proposal 1?. I asked about whether there was any interest in a proposal that only included that one sentence, and there wasn't much interest. In fact, David Tornheim and I discussed there how the sentence in Proposal 1 about regulation actually got there by his request, and how he continues to strongly prefer that we do include language about regulation in the proposals. In any case, the rules do not ask what language comes closest to the existing language. They ask instead what language would best take its place. Maybe the best replacement would stay within the same parameters, or maybe not. That's up to editors who respond. If the community does not like proposals that include regulation or public opinion, the community will say so. I think the best thing for editors who want the scope to remain narrow to do would be to make proposals that are narrowly framed, and see what the community decides. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Tryptofish's analysis above. Petrarchan47 was aware of Proposal 1 back when it was created in February and did not object to the "scope creep" then. She made her own Proposal 3 before the rule-making process began. The rules for the RfC were created long after the proposals--not before them. So I don't really understand why she thinks there is "scope creep" of the rules.
- My only guess, assuming good faith, was that she had long taken the position that this RfC#3 on this same language was not necessary, given that: (1) A recent extensive RfC#2 had covered the exact same language only months before (2) the lede should be based on the body, not the other way around. And because of that, perhaps, she was not aware that Proposals 1 and 4 had language about regulations (or that Proposal 1 mentioned public perception.)
- Regardless of the reasons, she was sufficiently present on the talk-page of GM crops as Proposals 1 and 4 were created, and should have known that regulations and public opinion were in the proposals. The issue should have been raised months ago during the Proposal making phase, or during the rule-making phase, not after the RfC was launched. In my opinion it is too late to raise this objection. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- David, thank you very much for backing me up on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to play "other parent", and I thank you all for giving me the benefit of the doubt. When I brought this up on the RfC talk page, I ended up with a warning, when all I said was that the added scope had not gone before the community, had not been discussed in any official way, meaning that only a couple of editors were behind the decision (whether through intent or a "collective blindspot"). I really didn't mean to point the finger or "talk about" editors, and am now very nervous about ever using the word "editor" on the RfC talk page as I am one breath away from being banned. I do believe the content crept in and no one noticed. If they had, I am certain it would have been included in the scope we are asked to cover in the RfC rules. I do think the added content could present a POV argument that further substantiates the safety claim by saying essentially that bans and calls for labeling are not based in science (a way of saying it is a fringe view).
I was not seriously active in the buildup to the RfC and only weighed in to say I disagreed with the idea entirely, because it is a violation of WP:SYNTH. I have continued to question the resistance I've seen to simply adding content from these sources rather than summarizing them according to editors' preferences. Tryptofish knows that I wasn't serious when I added my proposal because I told him, and he has even asked Wordsmith to remove it for that very reason(see below). Although I cannot prove this, I did not notice the scoop creep until after the RfC began, and indeed neither proposal I have submitted includes the added content. I stuck to the safety claim, as did the previous RfCs 1 and 2. This RfC takes a new route and I am being asked to just deal with it. But this RfC is also novel in that the proposal would be cemented in until changes passed another RfC - a first for Wikipedia with regard to science. The subject of this RfC is a statement that is hotly contested and either: worth an unspeakable amount of money to a large industry, or very damaging to that industry, depending on what the community decides. For these reasons I am disheartened that we have been hurried and shushed when raising issues. There is no reason to be in such a rush, where "too late" is considered a sufficient response, especially considering the value of the statement.
The GMO suite has not been subject to edit warring or drama over this section since ArbCom placed DS. RfC2 was the result of editors complaining correctly that the WHO was being misrepresented. After ArbCom placed DS on the suite in Nov 2015, I noticed a few editors re-adding the "scientific consensus" language that had been disallowed in RfC2. I had retired after ArbCom, but came back to complain about this since so many put so much time and energy into RfC2, and it didn't seem fair to pretend it never happened. That is the only drama or edit warring that has taken place in the past year (besides the small amount covered by ArbCom). As is common knowledge, because I have mentioned this numerous times, including at the last clarification request, the same folks who demanded the present RfC (Tryptofish, Kingofaces43 and Aircorn) and who have insinuated that it is urgent, are the same folks whose edits 'overturned' the results of RfC2, and they did it with impunity.
Whether I am being duplicitous or not doesn't change the fact that this RfC was not well thought out. In addition to other "structural issues" detailed in the subsection below, the rules of the RfC tell us only to cover the safety statement. According to the rules, any proposals which have added content would not be in alignment with the goals of the RfC and, according to PAGs, are using OR/SYNTH.
If we are allowed to include additional scope to what is clearly stated in the rules, there is nothing prohibiting us from adding anything we want, is this correct? I am asking for clarification on this - how will Admins judge this RfC is we haven't hashed this out?
In short, Wordsmith was confronted with serious questions and concerns from me, Tsavage, Sarah SV and JusDaFax in the final days that his/her RfC talk page was available, and there was a unilateral decision by Wordsmith that we hadn't asked our questions soon enough, and that the RfC would continue as scheduled. Now I am showing you that there is unfinished business, that this wasn't well thought out, that your rules don't match what the majority of participants are doing. This RfC is far too serious a matter to brush off valid concerns because they weren't asked at the right time. This is why I think the matter should go before the Arbs, as, in my understanding, Wordsmith and Coffee are tasked with focusing on behavioral issues rather than meta issues. petrarchan47คุก 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ooph, Coffee, I just saw your statement that ArbCom won't touch content issues. After reading the above, do you have a sense of the issue I am trying to raise? Does anyone have a suggestion for a neutral source of possible help? Please let me know if any of the above needs clarification, and thanks for bearing with me. petrarchan47คุก 04:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee, I came here because I need admin help, and you offered this after closing the talk page section. Regardless of how people are viewing my behavior, there are serious structural problems with this RfC that make it confusing, and will make judging impossible. Other editors are mentioning these problems in recent RfC comments. This isn't something editors can fix on the RfC talk page, this has to be handled by admins, which is why I thought Arbs were a good choice. It's strange my question is treated like a threat, and that I am in turn threatened with boomerang for my supposedly horrible behavior. It scares me to think that the impact of this RfC is lost on those who matter, those who can do something to help make sure WP doesn't make a huge mistake. What I am hearing is that there is no where to go for help on Wikipedia. petrarchan47คุก 20:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Coffee friendly ping in case this page becomes impossible to navigate. petrarchan47คุก 23:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- There were two statements that were specifically about me, that I want to correct. First of all, I did not know, and was not told, at the time that Proposal 3 was presented in a non-serious way. I had earlier said this, to another editor: [7]. Some weeks later, Petrarchan posted this: [8]. (I do not recollect my asking for a "one-liner", although I had been encouraging editors to make more proposals.) I thought at the time that it was not a very good proposal, but I did not construe it as having been made sarcastically. Indeed, I responded very much in good faith: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. When Petrarchan much later said that she was not serious in making the proposal, I was obviously unhappy to find that out, and I said so. I pointed that out to The Wordsmith. But, as to the second point that I now want to correct, I think that The Wordsmith will agree that I did not actually request that Proposal 3 be removed from the RfC. After what Coffee and The Wordsmith have said just above, I would have hoped that Petrarchan would have been more accurate in what she said about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- You might not have said specifically you wanted Proposal 3 removed, but when she said proposal 3 was not serious here, you and Kingofaces43 appeared to want some action against her based on these responses: [14], [15]. King specifically said, "one could question why it's even in the list." Given that both you and King have constantly sought action against her, me and others that speak in disagreement against you, I am not at all surprised she said you wanted it removed.
- I find it harassing and disruptive having these constant calls (direct or implied) by you and King to get editors in trouble (or more trouble) for even the most minor of missteps. It appears to me that these constant calls for punishment are not for "bad" or disruptive behavior but because of disagreements over content. We should be free to disagree about content without constant threats to be topic banned for doing so. That's why I said what I did at ArbCom. You do not see my constantly calling for having both of you to be TB'd, even though I have documented far worse behavior from both of you than what Petrarchan47 has been accused of here. Comments like these asking for the nail to be driven in even deeper are really unnecessary and harassing in my opinion: [16]. We are supposed to be working collaboratively not focusing all our efforts to get an editor we disagree with on content removed from the discussion as you two constantly have done and continue to do. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- David, it is very important to be accurate in what one says about other editors in these circumstances. First of all, I did not say anything about Kingofaces here, and I do not speak for him, nor am I accountable for anything that he says. Second, yes I said this: [17]. That is exactly as I described it above, and it is not a request to remove a proposal, nor was it specifically a request for action beyond a response, and furthermore it was entirely appropriate. It is not harassment to object when an editor has made an unhelpful proposal in a very important RfC. That proposal was not a minor misstep. What I asked for here was that my actions be described accurately, rather than be misrepresented. That is not harassment either. Also, it is false to say that you have documented misconduct by me (although perhaps you believe that you have done so). And finally, you are parsing words when you say that you have not "constantly" asked for sanctions against me: [18]. You recently asked that I be topic banned for six months because I requested the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Now you have misrepresented me: I
asked foragreed with the call by Jusdafax for a 6-month topic ban against you and King for this kind of harassment, wiki-lawyering (and for sourcing issues mentioned by Petrarchan47 here). My request is here. - At ArbCom you asked that I be topic banned because I "misrepresented sources". Roger Davies asked for a diff and you were unable to provide any, but of course King was your lone supporter. ArbCom discussion here.
- Now you have misrepresented me: I
- David, it is very important to be accurate in what one says about other editors in these circumstances. First of all, I did not say anything about Kingofaces here, and I do not speak for him, nor am I accountable for anything that he says. Second, yes I said this: [17]. That is exactly as I described it above, and it is not a request to remove a proposal, nor was it specifically a request for action beyond a response, and furthermore it was entirely appropriate. It is not harassment to object when an editor has made an unhelpful proposal in a very important RfC. That proposal was not a minor misstep. What I asked for here was that my actions be described accurately, rather than be misrepresented. That is not harassment either. Also, it is false to say that you have documented misconduct by me (although perhaps you believe that you have done so). And finally, you are parsing words when you say that you have not "constantly" asked for sanctions against me: [18]. You recently asked that I be topic banned for six months because I requested the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have not "constantly" asked for your TB, but I did ask for Boomerang for taking Prokaryotes to AE (action here). You were, of course, strongly supported by King, when you both were equally part of the problem. Aircorn was the real gentleman admitting he made a mistake and working with Prokayotores to resolve the problem. But as usual you two would not let up until your victim who disagreed on content was removed and silenced. I documented your role in the problem here and at the AE, but my comments were overlooked (TL;DR). --David Tornheim (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC))
- I think that what I have said here is accurate. The issue in the ArbCom GMO case was that I did not provide diffs on the Workshop page. But I did provide diffs on the Evidence page. Perhaps there is a reason why your accusations have been "overlooked", and why the AE case to which you refer was decided the way that it was. In any case, it is clear that the reason for opening the discussion here, to ask about altering the scope of the RfC, has been resolved, and I think that I have corrected the misstatements about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The evidence you provided against me at ArbCom had nothing to do with "misrepresenting sources". All 4 diffs you provided were all examples of a now topic-banned editor's intimidation and harassment of me for pointing out his objectionable behavior to others--behavior that got him topic banned by ArbCom in a unanimous decision. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my view David Tornheim and Petrarchan47 have effectively noted serious problems in sourcing, gaming of process and editor harassment by Tryptofish and Kingofaces43, who as I see it edit as a WP:TAGTEAM. It is my strongly-held belief that the simple solution to the ongoing disruption is to topic ban Trypto and King for the rest of this year, in effect giving them a rest from the hours and hours they put in daily on the GMO subject. Who knows, they may wind up thanking us in the end! Jusdafax 21:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my view David Tornheim and Petrarchan47 have effectively noted serious problems in sourcing, gaming of process and editor harassment by Tryptofish and Kingofaces43, who as I see it edit as a WP:TAGTEAM. It is my strongly-held belief that the simple solution to the ongoing disruption is to topic ban Trypto and King for the rest of this year, in effect giving them a rest from the hours and hours they put in daily on the GMO subject. Who knows, they may wind up thanking us in the end! Jusdafax 21:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will however, speak for myself and say my mention of Petrarchan's "not serious" proposal or involvement in the RfC buildup was simply for admins to review that behavior of being involved in the RfC and later backtracking essentially demanding we put a halt on the RfC once it got rolling. My sentiments were pretty much exactly the same as Tryptofish above. I wasn't demanding any particular action. I even bent over backwards to make that clear in all my communications to admins during the RfC, so this posturing by David really needs to stop.
- There's loads more of the pot calling the kettle black issues I'm just not going to respond to here. The admins' jobs here are to watch this behavior so we don't need to waste time holding back the slew of behavior issues that plague this topic, and both David and Petrar have already gotten warnings for their behavior, which are honestly extremely generous even if they don't realize it. The degree at which others have called travesty when editors like Petrarchan have been finally even warned for some pretty serious behavior issues is getting rather absurd (especially with what happened to Laserbrain), but it's up to admins to deal with that as they will.
- As for the RfC scope, I've already said all that needs to be said above. The admins overseeing this RfC have had their say too, so it's time to carry on with the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- ^This is exactly the kind of harassment I was talking about here in paragraph 2. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Trypto, my point was that none of you can claim that I already knew about the added scope creep, though you say above that I must have since I was active during the RfC buildup. My point is that none of my activity can be defined as serious. The section title for my "proposal" was something like "here's your one liner, Trypto". The point I was emphasizing is that we should not be summarizing this content rather than elaborating on it, as an encyclopedia is meant to, but if we do, it should be very simple and accurate. The serious comments I did make were to that effect, and to maintain my rejection of an RfC which violates SYNTH/OR. So there is no reason for anyone to assume I read your proposals at that time, and in fact I did not. I never believed this RfC would happen. I believed admins would listen to our complaints and not just close the talk page instead because of some time constraints. Frankly I've never seen anything like this. Trypto,
I do remember seeing you request that my proposal be removed, I thought it was on the last day of the talk page before the RfC began; it was just a comment, nothing formal.petrarchan47คุก 20:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm acknowledging that I have read the replies to me here. I think that I have said enough, and will leave the rest to Coffee and The Wordsmith. As a reminder to the admins, I've noted below that there is some more threaded discussion on the RfC page that you may want to take a look at. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the talk page section where you acknowledge that my proposal was not a serious submission, and my reason for bringing this up here was simply to undermine your claim that I must have known about the scope creep, since I submitted a proposal. Although I was wrong, you did not recommend it be removed (I will strike comments to the contrary). However, that wasn't the point. petrarchan47คุก 23:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly, we are not making any progress towards clarity, despite statements by Coffee and The Wordsmith that I would have thought would be rather easy to understand. As I said above, I was unaware that Proposal 3 was unserious when it was proposed, but I was aware some months later when I found out about it at the RfC talk page. There is a chronology here. I did not say that the reason you should have known about the scope was because I thought you had submitted a serious proposal, and I already explained the actual reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- The problems are structural, and I am being told ArbCom isn't the place for this, so there may be no reason for worry. I am awaiting reply from Coffee about where these problems are best handled. petrarchan47คุก 23:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I pinged you to let you know that I mentioned that your behavior in the dispute with Prokaryotes was collaborative and that of a gentleman, and that it was much appreciated. I contrasted it with that of calls of others to have him topic banned when the dispute had been resolved. We needlessly lost a good editor in that dispute. You did your best to work with him. Thank you. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Structural problems with this RfC
Coffee, these are comments on the structural problems from editors besides me, added in the days just before the decision to move forward, leaving these issues unaddressed:
... petrarchan47คุก 23:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: I'm well aware of the discussions leading to this RFC, as I took several days to familiarize myself with them once I was called upon. None, and I do mean none, of those discussions have any bearing on my decisions going forward... as ArbCom already weighed in on this RFC at length in two ARCAs (both of which you're well aware of) and their opinions are what actually matters here. Expecting them to go even further into the exact content of the proposals, is to me a clear misunderstanding of their purpose (and ironically, scope) on your part. So, let me quote from Wikipedia:Arbitration:
"The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed, and will make rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so."
- What I think you're overall issue comes down to is that you think some people will be able to improperly affect the consensus, or in other words fool the closing administrators. You may not be aware, but I personally had a hand in the selection of those admins. They are all people I fully trust to properly attain the consensus from the discussion, regardless of any issues with the scope. If you don't trust them, that is your right, but I just want you to know that very little (if anything) is going to slip past their eyes during the close. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47: I'm well aware of the discussions leading to this RFC, as I took several days to familiarize myself with them once I was called upon. None, and I do mean none, of those discussions have any bearing on my decisions going forward... as ArbCom already weighed in on this RFC at length in two ARCAs (both of which you're well aware of) and their opinions are what actually matters here. Expecting them to go even further into the exact content of the proposals, is to me a clear misunderstanding of their purpose (and ironically, scope) on your part. So, let me quote from Wikipedia:Arbitration:
- OK, I see where the disconnect is: to go forward with the RfC was not with the consensus of the community, and the above comments were meant to show that. When ArbCom put the GMO suite under DS, I figured they would be a go-to source for problems like what I am seeing. There was no consensus to have the RfC as-is, regardless of how ArbCom responded. This "statement" could very well be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of PR for the biotech industry. There was no justification to overrule the voices speaking up. There were two editors and an admin who decided our issues should be ignored. Yes, ArbCom was silent on this. But is is also true that this GMO issue has brought out some bad behavior that may influence decisions. During the GMO ArbCom there were three people who were outed, all of them on the side questioning the un-sourced safety statement. Now, Wordsmith tells us there have been emails with threats of outing, and harassment. In his statement, as Sarah SV and I noted, he essentially laid false flags by insinuating that those who questioned the RfC in the last days were sending those emails. This accusation was in my mind, irresponsible and showed bias. The Arbs were silent on this, too. But after the GMO ArbCom, Roger Davies mentioned that the Arbs are being bullied consistently, so they might be under some pressure from these same harassing emails. In other words, I don't consider Arbs to be unbiased, from my experience. My words here may not change anything (and no, I don't have any problem with your choice of admins), but I want to document what is happening at the very least.
...
- Finally, Coffee, the additional content (bans and public perception) isn't included in the RfC rules. How will admins consider this, is it a free for all, would adding something like the definition of substantial equivalence be acceptable? Thanks again, petrarchan47คุก 22:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight. The GMO industry has vast amounts of money, that is driving some editors to engage in a massive scheme of outing and email harassment in order to put what the industry wants on Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia should determine content based on the amount of money in the industry. ArbCom is not listening, or was bullied via email into allowing these problems to happen. Coffee, The Wordsmith, and Laser brain have acted against the will of the community in issuing DS, and are acting in a biased manner. Whatever the community is deciding at the RfC cannot be trusted. Did I leave anything out? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any comment to make about the fact that you, King and Aircorn edit warred the "scientific consensus" language back into WP after the RfC found there is insufficient sourcing for it? What about the fact that King used Panchin to say that no studies identifying problems with GMO crops can be considered valid? I don't know why the Arbs have overlooked these serious transgressions considering the suite is under DS, but LaserBrain did indicate that these pesky emails were causing him to change his behavior (by leaving the scene). Harassment and bias seem to go hand in hand with any major GMO scuffle on WP. This should not go ignored. Nor should the misuse of sources be swept under the rug by this constant obfuscation and talk page micromanaging. petrarchan47คุก 02:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do I have any comments to make? Why yes, thank you. It looks like you redacted some of what you had posted, so thank you I guess. And everything that you allege in your latest post is completely untrue. I'm beginning to feel like you and some others are harassing me, in that you keep repeating, again and again, vague allegations that I've been doing all kinds of horrible stuff, even though much of this is downright ludicrous, and not once have you actually made a proper complaint via appropriate channels. Instead, you keep repeating these aspersions as though repeating them enough times will make them true. It's a pity that you have been allowed to keep this up so long when there are DS in effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree that it's rather odd Petrarchan seems to think it's ok to continuously misrepresent editors (on an admin page no less) such as pointedly misquoting me at the RfC talk page[19][20] and another case pointed out by Tryptofish[21]. Not to mention the posturing in their post above this again misquoting me really does reach into aspersions territory that's just a continuation of their previous battleground behavior documented at ArbCom.[22] Petrarchan has had enough warnings to know better at this point. Either way, the RfC is going to run its course. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do I have any comments to make? Why yes, thank you. It looks like you redacted some of what you had posted, so thank you I guess. And everything that you allege in your latest post is completely untrue. I'm beginning to feel like you and some others are harassing me, in that you keep repeating, again and again, vague allegations that I've been doing all kinds of horrible stuff, even though much of this is downright ludicrous, and not once have you actually made a proper complaint via appropriate channels. Instead, you keep repeating these aspersions as though repeating them enough times will make them true. It's a pity that you have been allowed to keep this up so long when there are DS in effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any comment to make about the fact that you, King and Aircorn edit warred the "scientific consensus" language back into WP after the RfC found there is insufficient sourcing for it? What about the fact that King used Panchin to say that no studies identifying problems with GMO crops can be considered valid? I don't know why the Arbs have overlooked these serious transgressions considering the suite is under DS, but LaserBrain did indicate that these pesky emails were causing him to change his behavior (by leaving the scene). Harassment and bias seem to go hand in hand with any major GMO scuffle on WP. This should not go ignored. Nor should the misuse of sources be swept under the rug by this constant obfuscation and talk page micromanaging. petrarchan47คุก 02:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight. The GMO industry has vast amounts of money, that is driving some editors to engage in a massive scheme of outing and email harassment in order to put what the industry wants on Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia should determine content based on the amount of money in the industry. ArbCom is not listening, or was bullied via email into allowing these problems to happen. Coffee, The Wordsmith, and Laser brain have acted against the will of the community in issuing DS, and are acting in a biased manner. Whatever the community is deciding at the RfC cannot be trusted. Did I leave anything out? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
DRV Comment
I was wondering whether you could expound why you closed down the discussion as no consensus to restore this article here. TIA TushiTalk To Me 06:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kagundu: Read S Marshall and DGG's comments, then combine what they're saying, the result is that there are no actual sources that could be considered acceptable for restoration. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I read through the discussion as I also participated in it. I think @S Marshall: was arguing for a restoration of the article given the new sources cited in the sandbox where it was recreated. Did you also take into consideration what the other editors said? TushiTalk To Me 02:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I always read and consider all opinions before closing a discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have a few sources that you should have a look at in addition to the ones posted here.
- I always read and consider all opinions before closing a discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I read through the discussion as I also participated in it. I think @S Marshall: was arguing for a restoration of the article given the new sources cited in the sandbox where it was recreated. Did you also take into consideration what the other editors said? TushiTalk To Me 02:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- http://www.businessinsider.com/nextiva-ceo-tomas-gornys-rags-to-riches-life-story-2016-6
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-sanfilippo/destination-american-drea_b_9691570.html
- http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2016/03/nextiva-launches-new-analytics-tool-for-phone.html
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aj-agrawal/why-you-should-be-using-v_b_10285026.html
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sherry-gray/be-good-or-be-gone-compan_b_10327760.html
- https://www.buzzfeed.com/poojamaharshi/the-tale-of-success-of-a-broke-entrepreneuras-jo-256kt
Let me know what you think about these ones. Thanks. TushiTalk To Me 01:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Merge performed
Hi Coffee: Way back in January, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists as a merge. I have (finally) merged the content to Miss World § Miss World hosts and invited artists. This was opposed by the nominator for deletion, against the consensus of the discussion, who redirected the page without performing any merge, stating in edit summaries that there's nothing to merge (diff, diff). However, I disagree, performed the merge, formatted the table, and have begun adding sources to verify the content.
As the closer, if you're not interested, this is understandable, but writing to request assistance with further verifying and improving the section of the article. I've also notified the two merge !voters who participated in the discussion about all of this. Cheers! North America1000 09:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI / DYK
Given the tonal direction the thread has taken, I think it's appropriate if I disengage from the discussion at DYK regarding Howe Street Stairs (and, by extension Talk:Howe Street Stairs); I'm concerned, given how unexpectedly quickly it escalated and the sudden introduction of a demand I permanently quit WP due to my position in the step count vs linear distance debate on that short article, my continued participation may result in my blocking by the other party.
Since you've commented on it previously, and I directed a comment back to you, out of a preponderance of caution I thought it appropriate to let you know I wasn't checking the thread further so you didn't think I was ignoring any subsequent comment you made. I apologize, in advance, for bothering you with this note, it is not something I would normally do but this is the first time I've encountered a situation of this type as a participant. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Where has anyone asked that you "permanently quit WP"? You made the same claim in the DYK discussion, but no one seems to have gone so far at any time in the discussion. And as a participant in the discussion, I am not allowed to block you in any case. Fram (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC
This comment is in this wrong place: [23]. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Removed. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: Unfortunately, two editors have added threaded replies at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms#Comment by Paul Magnussen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done Moved to talkpage
- Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: Another threaded reply, in the same place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, thank you for [24]. Earlier, The Wordsmith moved discussion from there to the talk page: [25], whereas you deleted it, as well as deleting the entire section, to which The Wordsmith's talk page section refers. Thus, there is now a talk page section that refers to an RfC page section that no longer exists. The two of you might want to confer on how to resolve that difference in approaches. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed, thank you, Coffee. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Mention of behavior in the GMO RfC
This comment [26] by SMcCandlish mentions "uncivil rants". I believe that is not appropriate to mention behavioral problems per the rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I read the rules; it's a comment on content of what was posted, and casts no aspersions about motivations or actions, and did not attribute it to anyone in particular (I don't even remember who's comment it was) or link directly to the post or a diff of it. I just quoted what was said verbatim, and cited the page where it was said (which is outside the page to which these rules pertain anyway), should anyone have a burning desire to hunt it up. The quote is used in good faith as an example of the sort of approach to the question we should avoid, and which is obviated (as I clearly indicated) by the fact that we have a sourced article on the one thing, and nothing at all on the other. I.e., the claim of 'obsession to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus"' cannot legitimately be used as an argument against the several (the majority) of the proposals that include the "consensus" wording. I would certainly object to this being censored, though I supposed I can remove my opinion of the character of the post in question. (Done [27].) PS: For the record, I actually agree that the scientific consensus is a scientific agreement in this case, more or less, and despite a few hold-outs. but that's just OR, absent any sources for "scientific agreement" and what that might mean in a concrete sense. "Scientific consensus" is an actual term of art, with a sourceable meaning in the real world, and that specific phrase has been used in this context in RS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: thank you for your thoughtful comments at the RfC. However, please let me suggest that you remove entirely the one sentence that David refers to, the one that references the earlier discussion at ArbCom. Having watched the RfC process quite closely from beginning to present, I can fairly confidently predict that if you don't remove it, the supervising admins will remove it themselves. I recognize that you said it in good faith (and I even agree with you, not that it matters), but the rules require that comments be only about content issues. Please take what I just said as simply a friendly suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll go look at it again, and mull it over. It wouldn't bother me if it were administratively removed, without comment, but I have enough non-fans among a certain subset of admins, I probably don't need to invite an excuse to lay bogus sanctions on me. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claims about "scientific consensus". I respond here on the RfC talk page. At a later time I may explain how "scientific agreement" replaced "broad scientific consensus". It was a compromise after RfC#2 on the language. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Noted, but that has nothing to do the matter in this thread. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: thank you for your thoughtful comments at the RfC. However, please let me suggest that you remove entirely the one sentence that David refers to, the one that references the earlier discussion at ArbCom. Having watched the RfC process quite closely from beginning to present, I can fairly confidently predict that if you don't remove it, the supervising admins will remove it themselves. I recognize that you said it in good faith (and I even agree with you, not that it matters), but the rules require that comments be only about content issues. Please take what I just said as simply a friendly suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I revised again, and that should resolve it. Also replied to DT's talk post, and revised non-talk post further. Not really interested in a protracted litigation of the matter, given how sprawling that RfC is already. I'll leave it to the more GMO-focused editors to hash out which sources have more weight, especially since I've lost access to two journal sites in the same month. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that addressed my concern. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I explained the history of how the phrase "scientific agreement" got into the GM articles here on your talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you removed "uncivil rant". I did not notice before that it says "anti-GMO people (not all of whom are cranks)" in your post. I find that statement pejorative. Even the term anti-GMO alone is pejorative to make anyone who feels that more precaution should be used in safety assessments, e.g. the Precautionary principle used in Europe, is automatically an extremist and philosophically opposed to any and all GMOs no matter how useful, like a Luddite.
- I was given a stern warning here and told I was on "thin ice" and "casting aspersions" when those I was supposedly accusing had not even been chosen yet. It seems the standard for "casting aspersions" is very low.
- I don't wish you to be warned, but I would appreciate if you removed the derogatory label "anti-gmo (not all of whom are cranks)" and said something more NPOV such as "gmo critics" or "gmo skeptics" or something else to suggest people who want more caution, want to "go slow", are less enthusiastic of gmos, or less trusting about very optimistic gmo sales claims, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Fine, I removed that part, too. Since this user talk page is not subject to the RfC's bureaucratic rules, and it's a comment on verbatim-quoted content not a contributor's person or motivations, I stand here, if not at the RfC, by the observation that labeling other's suggestions as 'obsession to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus"' is clearly an uncivil rant, that casts aspersions about other editors' mental states as obsessive. I know for a fact that this is true, because AE has repeatedly taken editors to task under NPA/CIVIL/ASPERSIONS grounds for this. Dwelling on it doesn't seem pertinent at the RfC with regard to determining what the article wording should be, but it wasn't irrelevant to the meta-discussion; the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is a large part of why this has gone to ARBCOM and multiple RfCs, and people should be mindful of that. Someone who, like me, is not actually involved in these personality disputes over GMOs is in a good place to make such an observation. Moving on, I did not say or indicate anything about supporters of the precautionary principle being anti-GMO. The observation that some actually anti-GMO people aren't cranks is the opposite of pejorative, but an affirmation that multiple viewpoints exist on the matter, and that the pro-GMO view that all anti-GMO people are cranks isn't well-founded. I have my own concerns about GMOs (primary environmental) that I don't bandy about on WP. In short, I think thou dost protest too much, and seem to be looking for things to be offended about and to make people retract, instead of focusing on the content. But I removed it all anyway, so this is probably moot. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Administrator noticeboard discussion notification
I have just opened a discussion at WP:AN regarding a recent arbitration enforcement block that you imposed. The posting was made at the blocked user's request, the relevant section is here. Regards Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton
Hi, On the Hillary Clinton page, two users edited without seeking consensus for removal. I reverted the first time and made a comment. The second user then reverted back, while the first user then went to the talk page. Here is the recent diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&curid=5043192&action=history I did post a comment on Tarl N's talk page to self revert. One thing to keep in mind is that when people use the rollback button, they don't see the DS Notice on the edit page. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am very aware of the discretionary sanctions on the Hillary page - this wasn't done in ignorance. The discussion about Political compass has come up before, it doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS requirements. It isn't published or reviewed, it's effectively one political reporter's personal opinion. At the absolute minimum, it's biased. My understanding of WP:BLP is that such sections have to be removed immediately. Regards, Tarl N. (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,