→Petrarchan47: you have a section |
|||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
:{{Ping|Drmies|Sandstein}} Perhaps sleeping dogs should lie, and feel free to hat/hab this postscript. However, I agree with Drmies and I see concerning conduct in the two most recent diffs. The remaining diffs are rather older and reviewing them may be stretching too far back. By way of context, I note the respondent was a named party to the original case. [[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
:{{Ping|Drmies|Sandstein}} Perhaps sleeping dogs should lie, and feel free to hat/hab this postscript. However, I agree with Drmies and I see concerning conduct in the two most recent diffs. The remaining diffs are rather older and reviewing them may be stretching too far back. By way of context, I note the respondent was a named party to the original case. [[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
:*{{U|AGK}}, I've looked at all the diffs again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto&diff=prev&oldid=859376850 "Sanitize the coverage"] casts aspersions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=856448201 "Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information...editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto..."] does likewise, and puts words in other editors' mouths that they never said (though, it should be noted, Tryptofish's comment just above also accuses others of having an agenda). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlyphosate-based_herbicides&type=revision&diff=859703344&oldid=859699767 "NOTHERE"] is really a ridiculous charge, thus a personal attack. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlyphosate-based_herbicides&type=revision&diff=855363777&oldid=855357987 "May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page?"]--no you may not; Seraphim System had been glysophating for a week already. I believe these violate the "no casting aspersions" part. These are four recent edits. So, AGK, what do you think? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
:*{{U|AGK}}, I've looked at all the diffs again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto&diff=prev&oldid=859376850 "Sanitize the coverage"] casts aspersions [{{U|MPS1992}}, "sanitize" isn't really neutral]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=856448201 "Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information...editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto..."] does likewise, and puts words in other editors' mouths that they never said (though, it should be noted, Tryptofish's comment just above also accuses others of having an agenda). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlyphosate-based_herbicides&type=revision&diff=859703344&oldid=859699767 "NOTHERE"] is really a ridiculous charge, thus a personal attack. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlyphosate-based_herbicides&type=revision&diff=855363777&oldid=855357987 "May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page?"]--no you may not; Seraphim System had been glysophating for a week already. I believe these violate the "no casting aspersions" part. These are four recent edits. So, AGK, what do you think? [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:54, 18 September 2018
Petrarchan47
No action, at least not in this thread. Other admins remain free to take action. Sandstein 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Petrarchan47
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting aspersions :
Petrarchan47 has been around since the original GMO ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions, etc. with arbs stating There's also been a trend of going to Jimbo's talk page saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. that's very similar to The links above show just some of the sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up. Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it looks like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Petrarchan47Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Petrarchan47KingofAces43 seems a conflicted editor who accuses others of what he is doing. He has admitted a COI (his specialty is pest management) on his userpage, and his edits seem to always favor the industry, although he claims he can be a neutral editor. He is engaging in bad faith editing by misusing WP:MEDRS. In his above complaint, he refers to the wrong edit.
I've asked if he looked for newer sources, he has never responded, but instead he brings me here. In this edit Kings adds reference to the source SERA 2003. However, this source has been updated to SERA 2011. If he'd done his due diligence, he'd have found it. By relying on the older source, he minimizes concerns scientists are raising about the “inert” adjuvants and surfactants. But the science has been changing ([3],[4],[5],[6]), and he's not including that in his edits, because he relies on the older sources. MEDRS requires him to refer to updated sources.
Sera 2011 *:
Monsanto/Bayer and Wikipedia articles try to conflate Glyphosate with Roundup. KingofAces43 most recently did that here, misrepresenting the science (see Sera 2011). I confront him here. His misrepresentation follows talking points coming from Bayer, new owner of Roundup. Wikipedia should not allow this to continue. Bayer is facing over 8K lawsuits worth billions, similar to the one in California. The jury heard ”Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer” Reuters; ”Glyphosate” and ”Roundup” aren't synonymous. Wikipedia must stay fact-based especially regarding contentious issues. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Additionally:
Statement by TryptofishI'm not sure that the filing statement makes the problem sufficiently clear, but I want admins to know that the problem here is a very serious one. As I see it, the central issue is this conclusion from ArbCom: Casting aspersions. For admins unfamiliar with the history, the GMO topic area was plagued with aspersions of editors supposedly editing on behalf of Monsanto. (It's fine to say something like For NPOV the page should have more criticism of Monsanto, but it's unacceptable to say You are suppressing information on this page because you are editing on Monsanto's behalf, unless there is solid evidence presented at the proper venues.) And, just since the time of the most recent DS notice on her talk page, here are edits where Petrarchan does exactly that: [7], [8], [9], [10] (see also: [11] and [12], never answered). That's just recent stuff; she has long advocated that editors are editing on behalf of the company: "Monsanto mafia". She also considers the community consensus at WP:GMORFC to be invalid: [13]. (At that RfC, she submitted a WP:POINTy un-serious proposal: [14], [15].) The other thing I want admins to know is that Petrarchan is essentially a single-purpose account, whose purpose is to crusade against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth. If you look at her talk page, she considers herself retired from editing content, and if you look at her contributions, you will see that all she does is show up from time to time to cast these kinds of aspersions. Except for her, the GMO topic area has been blessedly quiet for over a year, but she is disrupting it. You need to understand that she is not going to change her mind about any of this. Give progressively increasing blocks, and she'll just come back after each one with the same agenda. At a minimum, you need to topic ban her from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Just now: [17], calling other editors "WP:NOTHERE". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JzGIt seems clear to me that the project would be better off if Petrarchan were separated from this area, where xhe has very strong opinions that constantly run up against NPOV and RS. Guy (Help!) Statement by VeritycheckFrom an uninvolved editor who follows this page and does not know any of the editors. Not one DIFF presented here singles out any editor on the receiving end of aspersions.Tryptofish does offer two DIFFS [22] and [23] which try to bait Petrarchan47 to make aspersions by attempting to put words into his/her mouth. This attempt on Tryptofish's part certainly doesn't make a case. On the contrary, what is far more telling is that they both go 'unanswered' showing that Petrarchan47 does not engage in aspersions. What is expressed in these DIFFS is that there may be self-interests groups at work, as is true throughout Wikipedia. Let’s not be naïve. WP:GOODFAITH faith is a philosophy not a guarantee. But bringing this back to the accusation, how about providing something more concrete if you have it. Otherwise, not only is it smoke and mirrors, but also a rather sad attempt to squelch what appears to be an important contributor who brings NPOV to the article. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MPS1992As another uninvolved editor, I would like to know if the statement "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban" -- part of a diff provided above which is being used as evidence for a topic ban now -- is something I would not be allowed to say on Wikipedia. And if so, why. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by AtsmeI don't edit in this topic area but I am familiar with some of the history. The diffs presented against Petrarchan47 are innocuous, and certainly nothing deserving of a t-ban. Petrar is not a SPA and has made significant contributions to controversial articles in the past without incident, including BP, Corexit, and Deepwater Horizon oil spill to name a few. I do hope that the points she brought up in her statement are carefully reviewed because her editing contributions over the years are evidence that she adheres strictly to NPOV and closely follows RS guidelines. The accusations against her are meritless, and if anything, a boomerang may be in order. Atsme📞📧 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DialectricI left the GMO sanctions alert notice for Petrarchan47 on August 17, 2018. All but the most recent 2 diffs submitted by Kingofaces43 predate this warning. In answering this request, a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment may be in order. I suggest arbcom clarify what falls into the category of actionable aspersions. The specific language in the GMO case principles is singular, and targeted - “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence” etc. Some difs presented by Kingofaces43 are general and do not call out any specific editors - statements like “there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto”. Dialectric (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemSome brief comments - my understanding of WP:ASPERSIONS is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. Seraphim System (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Minor4thI have not looked at these Monsanto articles in a long time, until today when I was trying to find info on the recent jury verdict and damages award against Monsanto. What struck me right off the bat was KingofAces' ownership-like behavior in these articles and his engaging in what looks like edit warring to me. I do not think the diffs provided amount to casting aspersions in the least. The diffs reflect more poorly on KoA in my opinion. Not to cast aspersions, but I wonder if KoA might be, consciously or unconsciously, using the Arb sanctions to bully away from the Monsanto and pesticide articles those editors who do not share KoA's pro-Monsanto editing behavior. Minor4th 21:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Statement be AircornI have been an involved editor in the GMO topic area for quite a few years. My point of view very much aligns with Tryptofish when it come to the science around safety and other aspects in this area. I have clashed with Petrachen in the past, particularly over the WP:GMORFC. The current dispute essentially stems from the Round-up/Glyphosate articles and while I am only tangentially interested in them, the discussions and participants are similar to what was occurring at the GMO pages when it was at its most intense. It has thankfully settled down now and as a result the articles are getting much needed improvements. There is a lot of history here that may be lost on some new editors just looking at the individual diffs presented. Edits that are viewed to favour GMOs have long been labeled as pro Monsanto and those that don't part of an anti GM agenda. I have apparently been working for Monsanto since 2010, although I am also an anti GM activist. The accusations got so persistent and nasty that the inevitable ARB case made a point about casting aspersions. It should have been clear to anyone involved in it that this was not to be tolerated anymore. Some stray thoughts
Result concerning Petrarchan47
|
- @Drmies and Sandstein: Perhaps sleeping dogs should lie, and feel free to hat/hab this postscript. However, I agree with Drmies and I see concerning conduct in the two most recent diffs. The remaining diffs are rather older and reviewing them may be stretching too far back. By way of context, I note the respondent was a named party to the original case. AGK [•] 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- AGK, I've looked at all the diffs again. "Sanitize the coverage" casts aspersions [[[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]], "sanitize" isn't really neutral]. "Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information...editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto..." does likewise, and puts words in other editors' mouths that they never said (though, it should be noted, Tryptofish's comment just above also accuses others of having an agenda). "NOTHERE" is really a ridiculous charge, thus a personal attack. "May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page?"--no you may not; Seraphim System had been glysophating for a week already. I believe these violate the "no casting aspersions" part. These are four recent edits. So, AGK, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)