User talk:DrChrissy

Push to talk

Topic ban violation

DrChrissy, with your expansion of the toxicity section of the Glyphosate article, you have, in my view, violated your topic ban. (Expansions here and here and here). In the ANI that led to your topic ban, I specifically wrote: "So the topic ban should be limited to biomedical (which includes alt-med) content about humans (including content about non-human animals if it relates to humans (e.g. toxicity tests). DrChrissy should be free to edit content about animal biomedical content that is not contextually related to human biomedical content" What you have done at Glyphosate is exactly what I anticipated. And when I asked you at the Talk page how, say, a pregnant woman would react to the content you added about "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" What will she make of that?", you replied "Don't be daft - you know very well that if I make any comment on humans I will almost certainly be in breach of my topic ban."

The reason that we would administer glyphosate by gavage to pregnant rats, or do most of the other experiments reported in tox sections of product descriptions, is to get a handle on human toxicity, including reproductive toxicity. Such experiments would be unethical outside of that context, and would not be reported in the source from which you took it.

I am asking Adjwilley or TenOfAllTrades to block you for violating your topic ban, and to clarify that the topic ban covers discussion of toxicity. I am considering further steps, but that is enough for now. I will add here that you have set up a section on glyphosate toxicity in your sandbox; this needs to be deleted, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

Should have included Beeblebrox, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (striking frog diff Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

For convenience, this is Adjwilley's carefully worded and considered closing statement for my Topic Ban.

"User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users). This modifies the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Topic ban for DrChrissy which imposed a topic ban from "biomedical articles". This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months from now, and will be logged at WP:RESTRICT."

This statement clearly indicates that animal health does not fall under the scope of my ban. My expansions have been on the subject of animal health. Moreover, the closing statement goes on to say "...so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics..." (my emphasis). How can it possibly be construed that my edits intersect with alternative medicine? The closing statement goes on further to say I am banned from human medical articles (clearly Glyphosate is not a human medical article) and MEDRS discussions (again, I clearly have not breached this). I fail to see how I have breached my topic ban according to Adjwilley's closing statement and that logged at WP:RESTRICT.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The only reason they'd do glyphosate experiments on rats in this way was a precursor to human health work, as you surely know given your position. Thus editing in this areas is - at the least - extremely incautious given your ban is to be "broadly construed". Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the closing statement again. It says "...alternative medicine, broadly construed...". It does not say "human medicine, broadly construed".DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This feels a little bit like "gotcha" to me, of I am waiting at the mouse hole for the mouse to appear. Perhaps a more productive route might be to suggest that in your opinions this violates a topic ban. Dr Chrissy believes it doesn't. The comment here is an implied suggestion for him to be more cautious and if he disagrees to ask for another opinion. No hammer needed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

A mouse probably wouldn't have been edit warring at the article in question. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

True. Rats don't like mice and vice versa.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

Alexbrn, human tox levels are determined by experiments in animals and then doing some math on the results to extrapolate to humans. The animal experiments are not precursor to any further human experiments - they are the experimental base. Little olive oil this is exactly the behavior that got DrChrissy topic banned in the first place - aggressively editing content about health and somewhat incompetently (in that first dif, DrChrissy added content that says "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." which is absurd ("X can be lethal to Y" is true of any X or Y per Paracelsus's famous saying) and to me at least made clear that the purpose of the expansion was WP:POINTY - to demonstrate that Glyphosate Is Very Dangerous Oh My. There is no lesson learned from the ban so far - he has been pushing the edge of it the entire duration, and with this he has gone clear over. It is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The third diff Jytdog provided[1] states clearly it is about toxicity in wood frogs!DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the tox work is to explore environmental effects, yes, for instance on amphibians and frogs. But you made no distinction in your edits - no effort to draw lines between environmental analysis and the baseline studies for human tox. If your intention was to honor the topic ban you would not have "gone there" at all; if you are not competent to distinguish, again, you should not have gone there at all. You are too busy extending the range of your conflict with me and not on building the encyclopedia. Really - Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for you to pursue conflict with me, DrChrissy. Please just work on stuff where you can be happy instead of seeking conflict. It will only keep getting worse for you. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear here. The relevant part of Adjwilley's closing statement states "DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions...". It does not say "human medical content", "intersects with human medical content" or anything like that whatsoever - the ban is about "articles". Adjwilley made it very clear that I was not to go anywhere near alternative medicine content, but, after considering the communities desires, stopped short of stating the same for conventional medicine. You are placing your own mis-representative interpretation on the closing statement.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jytdog are you threatening me?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no power to threaten you. I am just describing what I see as likely to happen based on my experience in WP, just as I wrote above. You are still mad at me after I insulted you. You have followed me around since then, filing ANIs that went no where and editing aggressively, and popping up arguing against me at Talk pages. That behavior at acupuncture led directly to your topic ban from human health topics. You have not changed the underlying behavior that led to the first topic ban - continuing it will lead to further restrictions; that is just how things go here. You have the choice and ability to act differently; you will of course continue to do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm at work and probably shouldn't be doling out blocks on my phone. I probably should have blocked for the last violation, but figured I'd let it slide one more time. Jytdog, do you think a 24 hour block or a clarification of the ban with "human health broadly construed" would be more helpful? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification would be great at minimum; in my view a 24 hour block would also be useful as DrChrissy keeps edge-testing, which is good for no one - not him with respect to ever getting the block lifted, and not for the community with respect to the accompanying dramah. Adjwilley Would you please also consider addressing the sandbox issue? thx. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog frankly I find this discussion with you alarming. You and other editors have pushed an editor to the limits of endurance then tell him the result of this is the way things go here. The boundaries of the topic bam are NOT clear cut and your sense of where that boundary is is an opinion not a definitive. If an editor is editing in an area that intersects with an area he is topic banned in why would we not expect that the boundary to him and to others who have been antagonistic to that editor would not coincide. And who is to say where that editor should edit or not edit. I've watched this ongoing for a long time. The acupuncture article led to a sanction of one editor were multiple editors were behaving abominably. I realize that unless one is watching all the time much cannot be seen or understood. I watched and watch all the time and still do. What I find disgusting here is the sense that editors are just waiting to get rid of someone just waiting for him to make a mistake. His toe is over the perceived line. Good sanction him, intimidate him. Adjwilley Jytdog is not neutral in all of this and is not an admin. Whatever decisions you make I hope you will make them on your own.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

I do understand that you are unhappy with Wikipedia policies and guidelines governing content about health, Littleolive oil. But why you would want to egg DrChrissy on to continue violating his community-imposed topic ban, is beyond me. That is not good for anyone, least of all him. The way to get a topic ban lifted is to stay well away from violating it and show you can be trusted if it js lifted; editing aggressively on the borderline and over the edge of the ban is exactly the wrong behavior. And I think everyone here is well aware of the history between DrChrissy and me - I described it myself and am aware of it. And every admin knows that he or she owns, and is on the hook for, whatever decision they make. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice spin, try and make it look like Littleolive oil is upset with PAG instead of pushing and pushing to have a ban redefined.AlbinoFerret 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And you also advocate for those who violate PAG on health content due to the grudge you carry from your own topic ban on e-cigs; no surprise for you to show up here. I am reckoning there will be yet more dramah from dramah-mongers. The topic ban violation is clear as day; terrible experiments like gavage-feeding feeding of pregnant rats and then cutting up them and their pups is done for 1 reason, and that is to get a handle on human reproductive toxicity. And to both of you, Adwilley cut DrChrissy slack on the food safety ban violation above, as he/she noted, and is only considering action here now due to DrChrissy pushing onward, as he/she wrote above. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict

Jytdog That is probably one of the most ignorant comments you could make. You know nothing about what I am concerned about, to assume you do based on my editing is a clear indication of your own biases. I for example I am a strong supporter of MEDRS and what that means to the health of those reading this encyclopedia. That is the kind of personal attack, and it is a personal attack, that you make with impunity which has zero legitimacy in the reality of who this editor is. I am going to ask you to retract that statement. Further Dr Chrissy is not a child to be egged on by cmts on this page discussing the behaviour he is about to be sanctioned for. The boundaries that you so glibly see him stepping over are your boundaries. What I see him explaining here is that he sees the boundaries in a different place and that he has made an effort to respect those boundaries.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

@Jytdog Again, more spin, and ABF to boot. I suggest you strike most of that post. AlbinoFerret 20:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have no more to say here; the admins will do as they will. Everything I wrote about AlbinoFerret and Littleolive oil, I can support with diffs if anybody chooses to challenge me on that; would be just more dramah but some people are into that. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• We've had this discussion before and I'll say to you again. You have no right to assume motivation of anyone. And diffs never indicate motivation. The WP world of diffs is not the world of real people and why the do what they do. The drama is yours when you accuse editors as you have me and others. Own your actions.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

@Jytdog, as Littleolive oil pointed out, your diff's, which at this point are non existent, will not prove motivation. So far all you have done is cast WP:ASPERSIONS and ABF. I do have one question, your posting here, does it have anything to do with DrChrissy reporting you on WP:AN/3? AlbinoFerret 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The diffs for LOO are easy; with regard to your motivation AlbinoFerret, an event happened (the topic ban) and it easy to show a pattern following that event, in which you generate drama (especially at drama boards and places like this) opposing mainstream health editing/editors and supporting those who edit on the fringes. Your record is absolutely clear, doing exactly what you are doing here. Even now you are distracting from the issue at hand (a classic tactic) which is DrChrissy's violation of his topic ban. (and I almost filed a 3RR on the glyphosate article myself, and would have asked for the article to be locked, and that is exactly what happened when DrChrissy filed; I don't care that he did that and am fine with the outcome) I am really done here now with this dramah. This here is about DrChriss's violation of his topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, we have no diffs, even though if they did exist cant prove a motive, especially one that doesnt exist. It must be an amazing coincidence that you posted in the ban discussion here after the WP:AN/3 section was started then...... AlbinoFerret 20:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's move along people... DrChrissy's talk page isn't the place for this discussion (if there is a place for it). ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have modified the topic ban here to explicitly include human health and medicine, and clarified that "broadly construed" applies to everything. I won't block at this point because I don't like ex post facto topic bans. If you have any questions whether a certain article or edit falls within the scope of your topic ban, be sure to ask before making the edit. In this case it's definitely easier to ask permission than forgiveness. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Adjwilley, thank you for your comments and decision - as ever, these are well considered thoughts and comments, and representative of the community, All the best.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would be safer to adjust the ban to cover all human beings in general and planet earth, broadly construed? One could see it as "an exhilarating challenge"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Adjwilley. Martinevans123 there is a big world in Wikipedia outside of human health topics. DrChrissy edited perfectly happily outside human health topics until relatively recently. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess happiness can be its own reward, but sometimes editors are spurred by happiness towards further creativity. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Breach of my topic ban? - magpie culling

User:Adjwilley On the Talk:Culling page the following link has has been made[2] on the culling of magpies. I would like to incorporate this information into the article as requested, but as the culling is to improve human health and welfare, will I be in breach of my topic ban? All the best.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Breach of my topic ban? - Toxicity of glyphosate to wildlife

User:Adjwilley I have just sourced this very informative and recent article on the toxicity of glyphosate.[3] I would like to make edits based on this article relating to wildlife, e.g. orca, alligators, deer, birds at the glyphosate article (currently under development in a sandbox). Will this be in breach of my topic ban? It seems to me that this would not, but I am mindful that a previous edit of mine on frogs in the same article was presented as "evidence" that I had breached my topic ban. All the best.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of my Talk page by Jytdog

Your constant testing of the edges of your topic ban and your pointing away from the clear breaches is noted. I will strike the frog diff above. Everything you are doing is going to make it much harder for your ban to ever be lifted. That is the path you are choosing. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) User:Jytdog I am glad you are now finally admitting that you misrepresented my edits to the community. In my book, this is a sanctionable action.DrChrissy (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC) It is a trivial mistake. I fixed it. You made so many edits that I goofed - my bad. I can admit when I make a mistake. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) That paper for example makes a continuous argument from wildlife to humans: "One of us (Hoy) has been documenting congenital malformations in Montana wildlife for the past 19 years. In this paper, we present documentation of wildlife deformities and evidence of organ damage. In addition, we obtained corresponding data for human congenital malformations and diseases in newborn infants, along with diseases in children 0-15, and all age groups (except newborn) from the US hospital discharge data. Finally, we obtained pesticide applicationhospital discharge data. Finally, we obtained pesticide application data on selected crops from the USDA. We show that congenital malformations and wildlife diseases follow the trends for dicamba, 2,4-D, chlorothalonil and glyphosate use. We also show that congenital malformations and other diseases in humans follow the trends in glyphosate use." You are stomping on the edge of your ban, not steering clear of it. In addition, that is a paper by Seneff who is widely derided as a FRINGE crank on glyphosate issues. and is published in a journal by OMICS Publishing Group, which is on Beale's list of predatory publishers. That is not a reliable source for WP. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) (redact to finish this statement. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) You of all people should know this discussion should be at the article Talk page - please take it there.DrChrissy (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC) No, it belongs here, as you continue to push the edge of your topic ban, and continue to bring poor sources as you continue to broaden your editing into areas where I work, seeking conflict. That crazy astrobiology paper, and now this. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, I have tried to remain collegiate and open to Discussion with you by allowing you access to my Talk page, even though you banned me from yours many months ago. However, your refusal to treat me with civility on here (despite your previous warning about incivility towards me) means I am forced to return the ban. Please do not post here again.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's "collegial", not "collegiate." Mr. Language Person (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I will stay off your Talk page, except to provide notice when you are violating your topic ban or other official purposes. Brining that source into the glyphosate article would violate your topic ban and fwiw would violate WP:RS. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Breach#1DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I assumed you would realise that you are banned from my userspace which of course includes my sandbox. Your edit here[4] is Breach#2.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I stayed out of the most recent topic ban violation discussion, but I'm concerned this is still attempting to test the very edges of the topic ban. That's especially the case when DrChrissy immediately went back to editing in the same area that resulted in the topic ban being clarified just after that occurred.[5] A broad topic ban means that if there is any overlap or really even a need to ask the question of whether it's related, that's an indication to stay well away from the topic, not attempt to walk a fine line. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to make edits about the toxicity of a herbicide to non-human animals. Pure and simple. My topic ban states clearly I am allowed to make edits related to animal health. I am not testing edges here - I am editing within the spirit and the statement made by the closing admin. Jytdog made the absolutely ridiculous link between human health and frogs! Do you support his link or do you agree it was misleading the community?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Given your topic ban, it seems unwise to incorporate sources which heavily discuss human medicine and health. Even if your purpose is to say "I'm using this source for its discussion of animals, and ignoring the parts about humans", you are still suggesting the insertion of a source with significant overlap to your topic ban. I'm having trouble seeing "incorporating sources about human health and medicine" as anything but a clear violation. At very best, this behavior is skirting right on the line, which is bad too. In either case, I find it somewhat troubling that you're arguing with everyone who suggests a violation, instead of recognizing the problem and switching gears. You can proceed as you'd like, but I strongly suggest that is not the right way forward.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if I want to write about laboratory rat behaviour and use a book called "Laboratory Rats and Their Uses" I am not allowed to because the book also contains information on aspects of human health? Are you suggesting that if I want to write about the behaviour and welfare of broiler hens and use a book called "Broiler Hens and The Meat-Bird Industry", I could not because there were chapters in it relating to human health. I might as well give up on this site!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course some books about animal health may discuss humans at some point, but many are likely to have significant separation between the discussion of animals and humans. Citing a chapter on animal well being in a book on animal medicine is obviously fine, even if some other chapter mentions humans later on. To contrast: this source is a short paper, and discussion of humans and animals is intertwined throughout. Probably half the paper discusses human health. Given that you are topic banned from human health and medicine, introducing a source with this focus in unwise. Yes, it's a judgement call, and what I am suggesting is that your introduction of material which cannot be reasonably untied from the subject of your topic ban is poor judgement if your goal is to avoid that topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide links showing that a topic ban covers not using particular sources, rather than simply edits to articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Frogs are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that Adjwilley be the one to respond to Dr Chrissy since that is who was addressed. Everyone has an opinion but the sanctioning admin applied the boundaries of the sanction and he should be the final word. For the rest there is a point where the constant harping on Dr Chrissy is not helpful and becomes harassment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for that Littleolive oil. For the benefits of all readers, WP:Topic ban states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area..." It says absolutely nothing about a ban on using sources of any kind.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about harps? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like as the ban is redefined, more complaints are made so that it can be redefined (widened) again. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Does this answer your question? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice one! Yes it does - thank you very much.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, we'll try and move you down that slope to the tiny bottom right-hand corner. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what I'm trying to say is you're walking a very dangerous line, and one little misstep can easily result in a block. Misread a paragraph in a source, miss a word in a paragraph, post in the wrong talk page section, reply to the wrong comment, and we'll be back here again. I suggest you find somewhere else in the "sum of all human knowledge" to edit, preferably somewhere where Jytdog doesn't edit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Adjwilley I totally take on board what you are saying here. I am working really hard to steer clear of my topic ban and despite the arguments of others, I am not attempting to test this. It might help if I explain my motivation for the recent edits I made that resulted in these complaints. I am passionate about animal welfare. When I see that studies have been done on a frequently used herbicide that potentially causes death in animals (rats), I believe this should be included in the article. The content I entered was toxicological studies. These data can be extrapolated in several ways, to humans, or non-human animals. When I entered the content, I was thinking about extrapolation to non-human animals. I deliberately did not relate the findings to humans as this would have been a very clear breach of my ban. I hear what you and others are saying and my subsequent edits in that area have been related only to wildlife. Please be reassured I am not trying to find the limits of my topic ban. My recent edits in this regard were perhaps naive, but there was absolutely no intention to be disruptive. Thank you your continued patience and help in this. I will think more carefully in the future.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Highlighting

Hi Dr Chrissy,

Would you consider making your proposal highlighted in some way, perhaps by adding green text, for clarity? petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been following the thread at AN/I with incredulous amazement. The lack of any action on the boomerang further proves the existence of the prevailing bias and double standards that, although often denied, relentlessly plagues the project with few exceptions. The disruption created by the same editors along with their attempts to silence their opposition is blatantly obvious. If all editors started filing groundless AN/I cases like what a certain select few keep doing (and getting away with) simply because they are annoyed over the edits of GF editors who dare tread on "their" articles, and who expect accuracy and compliance with NPOV, well, admins would be overwhelmed far worse than they are now. Perhaps it would prove helpful to provide a chart or table showing their recurring activity at drama boards vs an actual edit count relative to article creation/expansion including their countless reverts. It should help demonstrate the WP:OWN behavior, relentless tag-teaming, bullying and noncompliance with NPOV. The sad part is that many GF editors are fearful of being railroaded as so many of us have been by drawing attention to their disruptive behavior. How does the latter not demonstrate a double standard and favoritism toward a particular group of editors? The current AN/I contains damning evidence (diffs) and demonstrates overwhelming community consensus based on substantive arguments, not just groundless accusations as were made against DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, User:Jusdafax and others, yet no action has been taken to stop the bullying and diversionary tactics used by some of the most disruptive elements on WP. Instead, their actions and aspersions made against editors who are striving for accuracy and neutrality were defended with few exceptions, and quickly excused under the guise that they edit controversial topics. Excuse me but they are the ones who create the controversy. I commend SlimVirgin for her recognition of the unwarranted attack on DrChrissy, and I also commend Adjwilley for taking the time to research and discover the falsity in the diffs provided as evidence against Petrarchan47. That alone is deserving closer scrutiny of the accuser. Thankfully, the ridiculous claim against Jusdafax was struck, as well it should have been. At least the current AN/I demonstrated an attempt to resolve a rather serious issue that is ongoing. If a case is actually filed, we have no choice but to maintain faith in all that's good about the system, and hope the arguments will be presented well enough to properly demonstrate to the committee that it is more than a content dispute or a case of two editors with opposing views. Atsme^📞📧 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were a member of ArbCom, I would very much appreciate the chart. I would have no use for claims about "the other guys" or gang behaviour sans diffs. Is this chart something you are able to produce, Atsme? petrarchan47คุก 22:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know but I can give it a try if the case is accepted. Atsme^📞📧 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I seem to remember AlbinoFerret once presenting some complex data on interactions between editors. It might be worth contacting him to see what tools are available. I can show you a method of charting interactions between animals that could easily be interactions between editors....Hah! Seriously, ethograms might help.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You asked me at the case page why I added you. The short answer is that you have followed Jytdog to pages within the case scope, and some editors have expressed the opinion that you are testing the limits of your topic ban. If there is a case, these issues simply must be examined. You will recollect my earlier advice to you, to drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Bovine somatotropin

Hi there Dr. Crissey, a comment has come up on the Bovine somatotropin talk page. I know that your ban prevents you from editing information relating to human health, but I would think that this information is related to animal health. Anyway, I thought of you and wondered if you would care to add any info to this article. The related comment is the last edit on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OPPs...just read the above section...perhaps this would also be seen as following Jytdog around as well? I certainly don't mean to get you into trouble Dr. Chrissey. Gandydancer (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this before the edit conflict...

Hi Gandydancer. Thank you for your request, Hopefully, I will soon be able to help out. However, just tonight, I have started drafting a posting requesting clarification of my topic ban. As you can see above, some editors are arguing that because I discussed toxicology in rats, this relates to human medical topics and therefore I am in breach of my topic ban. This interpretation is making my normal editing almost impossible. Here, I feel that commenting on bovine somatotropin, because dairy products are a human food, may cause some editors to claim I am testing my topic ban. So, for the moment, I will politely decline your request, but I will mention this in my discussions with the admin that closed my topic ban. All the best.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding following Jytdog around, if you made the request to me in all good faith (which I am certain you did), I see no reason why my posting in an article which is very much animal welfare related should be construed as following Jytdog. However, given the number of editors trying to invoke a "gotcha" at the moment, I would probably contact an admin first.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at talk:Cheetah, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see WP:TALK for more information, particularly WP:TPO. Jeh (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yikes!!! I am so very, very sorry. I thought I was editing the article page! Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I will put a similar apology on the talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course, a correction added in a comment of your own is perfectly fine. Jeh (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology posted - really sorry about that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP appears to be unaware of normal WP talk page use and has added various other "odd stuff" to the page. I just reverted another of its additions, which replaced valid talk page header content. I wouldn't worry about it. Jeh (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers!DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

You're on your fourth revert. Please undo your last revert or you may be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I count only 2 - perhaps you would be so kind as to provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No. You've been in enough disputes and noticeboards to know what is a revert. Again, please undo your last revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, you're on your third revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then there is no problem is there?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You may want to note this: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. May I take the opportunity to remind you that I asked you not to post to my Talk page. Please respect this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, check out WP:BRD for future guidance. It can help mitigate edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Thank you very much for that. Have you noticed WP:BRD is an essay, not policy or guidelines? BRD is often thrown at editors, but the interpretation I hate is that some editors seem to think (insist) the Revert of BRD should be the automatic response, rather than a tag or talking about it. This is in my opinion a very aggressive stance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Frontyard menagerie...of sorts

So...I'm looking out my front window because the flashes of activity in my peripheral vision have garnered my attention. There are peacocks and peahens, squirrels, a few brown thrashers, many sparrows, a bright red cardinal, and a very active flock of guineas. I've had the same two guineas for at least 15 years, and recently added 5 more to help keep the grasshoppers and snakes at bay. Things I've learned from prior observation - you cannot put two peahens with chicks in the same pen. One will kill the chicks of the other. I was left with two peahens, and only 1 chick out of 7. Chicks will hop onto the back of their respective mothers to avoid danger but it obviously doesn't work all the time. Guineas are befuddling. I can't tell one from the other, and they argue constantly. Perhaps the ones I have are all the same sex because I've had no chicks in 15 years. The squirrels bully the peacocks and guineas, then run up a tree where it's safe. They often venture out onto a limb. Does any of it sound familiar to you? Atsme^📞📧 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hee hee! Very familiar! Reminds me of the Animal Farm quote "All animals are equal"...only some (consider themselves) more equal than others!DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pain in fish page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Good afternoon, DrChrissy! Did you see the following: [6] Atsme^📞📧 17:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pain in fish page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)