User talk:Tryptofish

Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology
Commons:Category:Smilies

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

Background: User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 25#Sad news

...the fish has come back! Thanks everyone who has wished me well!

It was difficult for me for a while, but I also decided to extend my Wiki-break a lot longer, beyond the point where I was arguably settled enough to come back. Partly, for a while I felt rather irritable, and I figured that I would be doing no one any favors by coming back only to have a short temper with the first editor to disagree with me. So now, I feel comfortably past that point. Also, I simply decided that some time away from this place would be a good idea. And it was. I've always believed that this strange website and the strange community that drives it can keep sputtering on, even without any individual editor. And behold: it's still here!

But I'm also going to need some time to get caught up, so please bear with me. And I've decided to try to make a few changes in my editing efforts, now that I'm back. I've decided that I was, in the past, too involved in "drama" and not involved enough in content creation in the topics that interest me. That means that, for now, I'm going to try (and probably fail!) to cut back on my involvement in other editors' disputes, outside of the mediation that I already committed to. It also means that, for all the editors who come to my talk page looking for me to help editing the pages that interest them (yes, EEng, I'm looking at you!), I'm going to be a bit less responsive, favoring instead those pages that interest me. So I hope that you will understand.

Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to your bubbles. - The project is really unsafe, imagine me out of prison! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! (Bubble, bubble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cognitive enhancement on the natch

Saw this posted on Hacker News and thought it would make a nice article. Any interest or ideas? Do we already have an article on this topic? Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We actually do have Nootropic. I regard this as one of those topics where the cautions at WP:MEDRS become important: much of this pharmacology is either experimental, bogus, or subject to significant caveats when used clinically, and so Wikipedia should not oversell it. Smart just doesn't come in a bottle. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my friend! Please take another look at the source. The phrase "on the natch" means "without drugs". The article is about non-nootropic cognitive enhancement. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Woops, I think this fish still hasn't quite gotten my editing sea-legs back again (mixed metaphor overload!). Sorry that I was kind of superficial and dismissive in my first reply. I'm just kind of tired today. I'll look again tomorrow, but working on a page on the subject probably won't be a high priority for me for some time. I'm hoping to focus for a while on some fish-related content, and I'll probably be going light on other topic areas for a while. But thanks for drawing it to my attention, and I truly will look at it more, um, intelligently tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I think that if I do write something, I'll just present you with a more organized thesis to critique. However, by all means, read it when you have time, as I would be very grateful to get some feedback on the review article, particularly from your own POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I've actually read it properly, and applied the appropriate facepalm to myself. I have to admit, I had never heard of "on the natch" before, but I certainly should have looked at the source enough to have seen that it is plainly about "non pharmacological" methods. Oh well. So here is what I think. I pretty much agree with the authors of the source, in what they say in their "Conclusion and future research" section. As they say, stuff like physical exercise, sleep (Tryptofish: take the hint!), meditation and yoga, spirituality, music, and cognitive work with a properly trained health care professional, are all techniques that "are based on widely accepted traditional habits". Speaking personally, I have no reason to doubt that they can be good things, insofar as they go. For that matter, I could make a case that editing Wikipedia, if done thoughtfully, can be better than being a couch potato. I follow the primary literature on brain stimulation, and it can only be considered to be very early-stage as a research topic. It's nowhere near to being reliably useful as a general way of cognitive enhancement. So, that's my opinion of where it's at. We have a page on Cognitive remediation therapy, which deals with one aspect of the subject. A look at its talk page shows that it can be a topic where one shouldn't just add content subjectively, and what I said above about MEDRS really does come into play here. Likewise, for some of the "traditional habits", we have pages like Research on meditation. I have a feeling that creating a new page combining all the topics that are in that source could open up issues like being a POV-fork, so a case could be made instead for adding content to existing pages, and in some cases having a talk page discussion before adding it. But if you decide to pursue this, please do it with open eyes as regards the MEDRS issues that other editors will, appropriately, insist upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. "Natch", a shortened form of "naturally", likely originates from mid-1940s African American slang. I'm only familiar with "natch' and "on the natch" through the works of American novelist Thomas Pynchon. I'll take a look at CRT. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for "natch", I guess it just reconfirms that smart doesn't come in a bottle. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism page

Hello

Why is there a section on northern Ireland when the section itself makes it quite clear that the violence in northern Ireland was not 'Christian'?

You reverted the section being removed. I don't see why there is any need for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for asking me about it on my talk page. The answer to your question is that it is not "quite clear". The content that you have now deleted for a second time contains reliable sourcing that three loyalist groups are indeed Christian terrorists. I also want to draw your attention to the notice that I am reproducing below, which you can click to make visible:

Please click to view.

Where it says my user name (because I put it here instead of at the Christian terrorism page), it actually applies to that section of the page that you have been deleting. What it means is that you did the wrong thing by "reverting" a second time, when you reverted my restoration of the section (a violation of what is called "1RR"). It's not enough to have contacted me here at my user talk page, although you are welcome to do that as well. You needed to get consensus from other editors before you made the edit that deleted the section that second time (and you won't get that consensus, although you may very well get consensus to write the material differently). My advice is to go to Talk:Christian terrorism, and continue your discussion with me there, not here. You need to understand that this is a very contentious editing topic, and that you will have to work with other editors instead of just deleting what you want to delete. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Javert!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

had to look that up, actually. you literary neuroscientist you. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was too lazy to blue-link it. I wish you... peace! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have any feedback on my COI work I would be happy to hear it, btw, here or via email - or not at all - as you prefer. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll do that right here, and please feel free to point other editors with whom you are discussing it to what I am saying here. First, I see that our Javert page provides a ton of plot summary, but gives short shrift to the character's cultural significance: Javert is a prototype for someone who want to "do the right thing", but who becomes so single-mindedly zealous in pursuing those who might be in the wrong, that he becomes a seemingly evil pursuer. Now don't worry, I'm not calling you "evil", and all I said was that you should try to be less Javert-like.

Think of it this way: you got involved in COIN in the first place after that discussion we were both in, where some other editors wrongly accused you of having a COI about GMOs. Now, you've gotten so involved in COIN that the role is reversed: you are the one making the accusations. So my advice is to put yourself in the other editors' shoes (which is actually always good advice for any on-Wiki dispute). You know what it feels like to be accused, so keep it in mind when you are doing the accusing. We have a serious problem with COI editing, and it's good to have volunteers who keep an eye on it. But I would suggest being sensitive about what you say about who people are in real life, and being sensitive about not seeming too vengeful.

There are enough recent drama board threads about you that you are at risk of being tarred by innuendo: if there are that many editors complaining about him, he must be doing something wrong. I've said to you before that it's a mistake to take stuff personally, so please don't make it a personal matter to nail the COI violators. You are doing a good thing by asking around for advice, so good for you about that! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I have written about five responses to you. I am really unhappy with your characterizations here and I really struggle with them coming from you. "Nail the COI violators".... really - is that how you see my work on COI? Coming from you (who I trust enough to take things personally), that is really hard to read. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

But I do appreciate you taking the time. I will think on these things. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying to me here, and I'm happy to continue discussing it as much as you want. Keep this in perspective: I strongly defended you at RFAR, and I said there that your COIN work is excellent, and that Wikipedia is better for it. But this is a discussion in user talk, and you asked me for an honest critique, and I'm giving you honest advice. I certainly do not think that you would have wanted me just to praise you without any advice about how to address the issues that Risker and others are raising. Strictly speaking, I didn't say that you need to stop nailing people. I said that you should stop making it a personal matter. You should understand that it's not like I've been spending the last couple of months watching your COIN work. I'm actually taking into account what the editors who have been accusing you have been saying, and they sure perceive you that way. So I don't know everything about your COIN work, but I'm seeing what's going on now. And you really are in danger of getting tarred by innuendo, in ways that could lead to blocks or bans. And that's the last thing that I want to see happen, so I'm telling it to you like it is, so you can continue your excellent work without someone, well, nailing you!

From what you say, I'm glad that I didn't see the four replies to me that you decided not to leave here. But that right there should tell you something. I keep harping on the issue of you taking things personally. I think you will do best if you really make a habit of taking a deep breath, or a whole bunch of deep breaths, before responding when another editor disagrees with you. For what it's worth, compare the thread immediately above this one on my talk. An IP editor (who geolocates to Dublin, no less!) keeps blanking the NI section at the CT page, unaware of the 1RR restriction. That person blanked the section, and I reverted them (once!), and I subsequently spent a considerable amount of time fixing up that section, going through sources, and thinking hard about where I might be able to compromise with other editors. And then the IP came back and deleted the whole thing, including my own work, acting as if nothing had changed, and then left the message above, after deleting it all. Between you, me, and everyone else on Teh Internets who reads here, I'm pissed off. But I've never reverted it back, and I don't intend to. It's just gone from the page, and will likely stay gone until post-mediation. And you can judge for yourself: I think that, under the circumstances, I was pretty reasonable in replying to the IP just above. Because it's not personal. Wikipedia is just a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, let me get specific about one part of it. I have very strong negative feelings about what is referred to as "doxing". As a result, I think one has to be very careful about how one comments, on-Wiki, about who editors are in real life. And as Doc James just pointed out in your user talk, that makes COIN work difficult. As I looked at the RFAR, the filing editor seemed to show that you posted quite a bit about stuff you found outside Wikipedia (how another site had just changed what they said about somebody, etc. – something that, although it strengthens the case that there was COI, wasn't really necessary to meet the basic minimum of establishing probable COI). I'm not questioning that you did so in good faith, and please remember that my position there was that there was no case against you, and if anything, there was a boomerang. But per what I said above, about putting oneself in the other editor's shoes, I can see how they would have felt taken aback to see you posting that information on-Wiki. That would be the kind of thing that I would regard as potentially overzealous. So, you don't need to make the perfect case of COI, just enough of a case, and if the editor insists on arguing with you, maybe let other editors deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this even longer reply. I really appreciate it, Trytpo. I wasn't looking for ass-kissing from you :) but I was just surprised at the way you framed your criticism. I really don"t try to "nail" anybody - I try to teach people. (Paid editors and other editors with a COI can make great contributions and we can protect the integrity of WP, if they learn our policies and follow our process of making edit requests instead of directly editing. My goal is never to drive anyone away. That is what it made so difficult to hear. It would be like telling a teacher that they are out to nail students with failing grades. It is not the goal!)

I do understand about taking deep breaths, not reacting emotionally, and the importance of self-restraint - -that nothing here is personal. That is something you are a model of.

About doxing - I do acknowledge that what I posted about Atsme was in bad taste and not necessary. There were some reasons for it, but at the end of the day it was bad judgement. I screw up sometimes.

But please know that I am extremely careful about OUTING -- even as poor taste as my postings on the Atsme matter were in some places, they were not oversighted. I went further than I have ever gone toward "doxing" (and probably ever will go again) with Atsme and was aware I was going "out there."

Having lived through the many discussions about banning paid editing following the WIki-PR and Banc de Binary scandals, I am acutely aware of - and respect - the value the community places on anonymity and the fierce protection of that value, and I am aware of how this makes it very tricky to try to honor the strong concern in the community to protect WP's integrity from advocacy and COI. (I've laid out my thoughts on the tension between protecting privacy and protecting integrity in WP, and how to navigate through that tension, on my User page, if that is of interest to you) And I am also aware that a significant chunk of the community looks at dealing with COI at all, as deeply antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, which makes working on COI issues not only tricky, but dangerous. Hence my extreme care around OUTING. Anyway, I have heard everything you wrote, and again, I appreciate the time and thought you took to write it. I hope you can see where I am coming from a bit more now, too. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Am getting other feedback echoing the zealot/shrill thing. Which i have been at times. Having done that, am stuck with it. Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I really am happy to help in whatever way that I can, and you can be certain that there are a lot of other editors for whom I would not have bothered to put this much thought into it. As I said before, I'm saying these things, not because I see you as a problem editor, but because I see you as one of the best editors I work with, and consequently I want to make sure that you don't get caught in any traps. I appreciate and respect the fact that you have sought out serious feedback, and that you are taking that feedback seriously. A lot of people wouldn't be capable of handling it, but you are amply capable. I've understood all along that it wasn't "the goal". It's a tricky thing about communicating online: one can have excellent intentions and yet have other people misread those intentions. And believe me, we all "screw up sometimes"! Just look at another thread on my talk where someone asked me about non-pharmacological ways of doing something and I replied in terms of pharmacological ways! It doesn't matter that one can make mistakes, because we all do because we're all human, but what matters is what one does to learn from the mistakes and improve. You aren't "stuck" with past mistakes unless you refuse to learn from them. What you are doing now, with thinking about feedback, is exactly the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I just read Risker's advice to you at ANI, where she talks about ways that COIN issues are not urgent, and about ways to deal with those issues in a gradual, incremental way, and I think that what she said to you about that is excellent advice. It's something that I hadn't thought of before, but it's a very good insight. Just because something isn't good for the project or isn't good for a particular page, doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be dealt with as an emergency. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes trying to take that go-slower approach on board and thinking through how to execute on that. Will mean lots more multitasking in practice. Thanks for that, and for your message above. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Flattered to get a mention on this page. Sometimes checkusers will stumble on a big nest of "socks" (I'm sure there's a better term, like "organized subversion group" or something like that since it usually involves more than one "master") and it's like creating a family tree, the branches can go in so many ways. But we normally do all of the checking first, because it helps us to identify the patterns, the nature and extent of activity, whether there are special issues that need to be considered or (in rare situations) whether or not the WMF need to be alerted/involved. This can take quite a while - sometimes even weeks. In the meantime, the community does what it normally does, and some of the articles will get deleted; we might catch a few newer socks on final checks; and we collect and document enough evidence for the wider range of eyes to determine what to do with the rest of the content. (There are usually articles on undoubtedly notable subjects in amongst the mess.) That wider vision really does make a difference; after looking at a hundred sock accounts, the natural tendency is to nuke every edit they made, whether or not COI, and whether or not the subject is notable. The broader group serves as the check. I hope this is helpful to Jytdog - or anyone else who is reading. And I hope that when next I make a call to the community to "check out" a bunch of articles/users/etc, there will be some who take up the call. Risker (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

While I hope this discussion proves useful to Jytdog, I remain cautiously optimistic. I think it's only fair to mention that in my case, it wasn't just about the unnecessary exposure or his overzealousness to start a case at COIN before he even tried to contact me. Digging into domain registrations should have been actionable. He also erroneously listed three articles, (1) Gabor B. Racz which was in no way related and caused a flurry of further disruption to the project, Ambush predators which I never edited, and Paddlefish, where I made one edit, added an EL, and there was a discussion on the TP. All three articles were tagged with the COI template. In fact, the discussion was just above his post on that TP.

Photos and footage of criminal arrests for the llegal poaching of paddlefish, and much more.

If the editors overseeing this article think it would be useful, I can provide a link to a video segment showing actual paddlefish caviar, criminal arrests, and interviews with FWS special agents and Missouri state agents who participated in the much talked about covert operation that took place in Missouri back in the 80s. The sting operation was an historic event because 23 people were arrested, charged & successfully prosecuted in state court in Missouri, while 6 were arrested on felony charges at the federal level for interstate trafficking of wildlife. They were convicted, heavily fined and sentenced to time in a federal peneteniary. I can also make photographs available and help expand upon the paddlefish article in general, but my participation would be considered a COI, so I'm posting this information for editors to consider. I also need to mention there is a comprehensive one-hour documentary about paddlefish available for viewing at YouTube. The documentary is a valid resource produced in cooperation with State and Federal resource agencies, and contains rare underwater footage of paddlefish in the wild, interviews with State and Federal fish biologists, several of whom participated in the writing of "the books and research papers" that were the initial references for some of the Wiki references, including L.K. Graham, D.L. Scarnecchia, and Clifton Stone. The documentary also shows artificial propagation of paddlefish, C-section surgery, hatchery conditions, snagging, a demonstration of how poachers made caviar from paddlefish roe, etc. I await your response. Atsme (talk) 5:44 pm, 14 October 2011, Friday (3 years, 9 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)

I don't think any video showing people caught into questionable activities would fly here, unless the article was exactly about these questionable activity and those people. There would be concerns related to WP:BLP and privacy. About the documentary, that is probably a decent external link. By the way, why you editing the paddlefish article(s) would imply COI? Are you a paddlefish? Face-smile.svg --cyclopiaspeak! 11:00 am, 9 June 2014, Monday (1 year, 1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)

I'm a primitive species.  Self-trout I made the COI comment back in 2011 before I fully understood what it meant. Oh, and I'm still working on uploading some bowfin video. I also have some footage of a paddlefish filter feeding, which should probably go with the American paddlefish article, and not the paddlefish article, or should it? And what about the taxobox on both the American paddlefish article and Paddlefish article? The image is an American paddlefish which doesn't look anything like a Chinese paddlefish. It was confusing enough trying to keep the information in the article itself separated especially considering there are only two extant species with more differences between them than similarities. Anyway, look over it when you get a chance. Atsme☯Consult 1:53 am, 11 June 2014, Wednesday (1 year, 1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)

Well, trout myself as well, I didn't notice it was a 2011 comment! I now still want to go ahead with the bowfin, but I'll have a look at the paddlefish situation when I can. --cyclopiaspeak! 3:36 am, 11 June 2014, Wednesday (1 year, 1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)

His actions at COIN were punitive and an abuse of the process. He got off unscathed this time. His incivility is not unusual and has become far more noticeable. It dates back from his earliest beginnings and continues to this day especially when it involves articles he disapproves or happen to be in his "suite of articles". Here are a few examples, [1], [2], [3]. I was reminded of the movie "Anger Management" starring Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. Atsme^📞📧 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you for taking the time to explain these things at my talk page, and I will say that you make some very valid points. Right off the bat, I think that the 3 diffs you provide in the last paragraph of your message are a surprise to me, and I consider them unacceptable, so I agree with you about that. @Jytdog: I want you to know that I consider your tone and language in those three diffs really, really bad, and you need to get a hold on that. Also Mann jess is someone I've worked with lots of times, and is a very reasonable and helpful editor.

At the same time, Atsme, I see my role in this discussion as getting us all back to more peaceful editing. I really hope that you saw, above, where Jytdog said "I do acknowledge that what I posted about Atsme was in bad taste and not necessary." Please take some comfort from that. I've seen Jytdog do lots of good work, and I do think that he is starting to see that he has been making mistakes. Some of the things that you point out he listed carelessly were mistakes, and it would, in turn, be a mistake on your part to insist on punishment for it. Wikipedia isn't about punishment; it's about preventing further problems. (I've had various editors say some pretty awful things about me at various times, and my standard response has become: "Yes, and I smell bad, too.")

I want to explain to you that, when I said what I said about the ArbCom case request, I was speaking in that context – that this was not something that ArbCom should take as a case, and that instead, the problems should be dealt with by the community, as we are doing right here. You say that Jytdog took it on himself to follow you around; well, the diffs you've presented to me suggest that you are responding in kind. So please, let's all find ways to get back to peaceful editing.

I'm happy to continue this discussion if anyone has more that they want to discuss, but I'm going to request that Jytdog and Atsme direct any further comments to me, and not to one another, and also not to seek any tit-for-tat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the input, Tryptofish. I've read many good things about you and regret that our initial interaction is over this COINOSCOPY but I appreciate your attempts at medication mediation. My providing diffs were to support my comments. The only thing I'm following are PAGs because without diffs my comments may be misconstrued as casting aspersions. While I understand the point you're trying to make, I don't think it was a good comparison considering Jytdog dug into my PL off-wiki, including personal domain registrations in his failed attempt to prove the conspiracy theories he developed for his 4th of July fireworks display. Also keep in mind that the evidence I recently uncovered, some of which is provided above, further demonstrates the case he initiated truly was unwarranted. I just want a review of the close so it will properly reflect that the case against me was mishandled and unwarranted based on the recent findings. If you can help me get that done, there's no need for me to open a case at ANI. Do you think that's possible? Jytdog also owes me an apology for what he did, which brings up another problem - he rarely if ever progresses beyond striking his ill-conceived, ill-intentioned comments but even then the strikes are viewed more as a CYA than regret because he keeps doing it. He indicated the following to me months ago, [4], and January 9, 2015, We have different goals with respect to our work here, and different views on PAG I don't care at all about "gold stars" like GA/FA or DYK (I just want to create good and maintain good content in WP, per PAG, as I see it) and those seem important to you.. As he sees it is where the problems lie. Perhaps it also explains why he used COIN to target the GAs and FA I edited in a GF collaborative effort - he saw them as "important" to me.

I guess the big question now is, can we believe his behavior will change? I think that each time he walks away unscathed he becomes a little more emboldened but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, discussions like the following demonstrate otherwise: [5], [6]. For stark differences in the way he sees things, compare his actions over Gabor B. Racz, a GA that was criticized by certain team collaborators as "promotional", "puffery", poorly written, etc. vs his actions at David Gorski, and regarding the latter, notice the section on Skepticism which is clearly promotional of Gorski's advocacy (be it a good advocacy or not). Look at the TP discussions and you'll see which article is protected by "team collaborators" which looks a lot like an advocacy to me. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure it out. Also notice how Jytdog added an unwarranted recruiting label on Gorski [7], based on another of his conspiracy theories and unwarranted warning of canvassing against me because I mentioned Gorski in an unrelated discussion [8]. Wow. While I'd like to believe Jytdog's recent posts to various admins and editors are a sincere attempt to self-analyze, I think the following comment in response to Jytdog's excuses sums it up best, [9]. At this point in time, I'll stick with "cautiously optimistic" and hope that I'm pleasantly surprised. Atsme^📞📧 20:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, thank you very much for the kind words about me. I appreciate that very much. In my opinion, these two diffs are very bad: [10] and [11]. I know Jytdog watches here, and I trust that he hears me that I am very disturbed about them. My sincere advice to you, Atsme, is that most of the rest that you have presented to me here do not persuade me all that much, and I promise that I have looked carefully at everything, so I think that if you seek further dispute resolution, you will find it disappointing. Please, don't pursue this dispute any further, unless there are new events in the future. It's not worth it, and much of your evidence is not convincing. I hope that you can keep your optimism up! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Trypto. Yes, they are on the face of them bad. Second. if you look around them in time. you will see that I went and apologized to ManJess very shortly after i wrote that and he forgave me, and the interaction with Protein1EFN was a long and complex one that included me talking on the phone to and emailing with the head of social media for IMS (that is who they work for) and things are fine now. This is kind of cherry-picking ick that Atsme generates (she can be a good rhetorician) and I am disappointed with you for not asking me anything about them, much less looking at them yourself (doesn't seem you did), before you judged so flatly. (yes, they are bad on their face) Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, I had promised myself that I would just read these posts and not respond, but this is beyond the pale. Jytdog called and emailed an editor's employer? Why wasn't he blocked? He contacted an editor's employer a second time and no one thinks that this was inappropriate? Jesus! People have lost their jobs in the real world from this type of crap. I don't care if the guy was the worst WP:COI violator in Wiki-history, we don't take off-wiki actions to enforce on-wiki policies. If mere editors are contacting employers, they are creating all sorts of potential problems for Wikipedia if someone is damaged from that contact. Someone needs to explain to him very strongly that contacting editors or their employers off-wiki is not acceptable conduct under any circumstances. GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, the boss emailed me directly and opened a discussion with me, which included some back and forth emailing and phone calls and in which I included other WP:MED members. IMS wanted to establish a presence on Wikipedia as part of a larger internet strategy, and wanted to do it in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Discussions about this ensued at WT:MED and COIN and a few user Talk pages. Hasn't gone much of anywhere. The first dif you link to was an email to the editor; the second dif you link to where I said I emailed their boss happened after the boss had reached out to me, and in those discussions he asked me to let him know if there were any subsequent problems. Bigger picture - you are letting your resentment blind you - as in this case, you didn't even stop to consider what the facts of the matter might actually be, before jumping to very strong conclusions. This is only going to harm you here in WP, the longer you let that keep happening. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, I'm happy to hear from you here at my talk page, but I also want to remind you of my suggestion at ANI, that you and Jytdog voluntarily refrain from commenting on one another. OK? I haven't looked at the diffs or their contexts, because I am getting fatigued with this discussion, but I think that there is nothing wrong with responding to e-mails initiated by the editor's boss, if the boss initiated the interaction. Jytdog, it sure sounds like you understand quite well that it's an entirely different matter if you, as an editor here, initiate the first contact, and I'm a lot more interested in things working better going forward than in rehashing the past. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, sorry to be contributing to drama on your Talk page, but I am so incensed that Jytdog could write "Yes, they are on the face of them bad." What part of such edits could be considered as anything other than absolutely disgusting and totally unacceptable. To be writing such messages to other editors deserves, in my opinion, a life-time ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Chrissy. It's good to hear from you. Jytdog, I am glad that you apologized to Mann jess, as well you should have. You should not be "disappointed with [me] for not asking [you] anything about them", because I have expected that you are watching here, and you are free to respond. However, I want to be very clear about the following: they are not only bad on their face, they are bad, full stop. I thought very seriously about going to ANI myself about them, and you should count yourself lucky that I didn't. Apology afterward is absolutely the only appropriate posture for you about them. This has nothing to do with anyone being a good rhetorician or good anything else, because I am quite capable of evaluating these things myself. I respect you a lot, and I trust that this will not happen again. If it does, do not expect me to defend you. Really, you are too good an editor and too good an asset to Wikpedia, for you to be letting your anger get the better of you in these ways. Better to apologize than not, but better still not to make mistakes this big in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't deny even a little bit that I wrote those things. I did. They were bad. We are getting into the the problem of harm and its aftermath. I am indelibly marked by the bad things I have done in the community - those diffs will be there for all time, for people to dredge up and stab me with. And I will have to take it. I expect that from some quarters. Some people I have been rude to are also marked, and have been unable to heal. I know that too. In the actual living Wikipedia community, there are relationships, and these things happened in specific ones. The story does matter. In those two cases, the parties who were actually involved have moved on. They are over. But there are people I have been rude to or had clashes with, who won't or can't move on.

I don't know what you got out of feeding Atsme's desire for vengeance by also making sure you repeated to me (three times now) that they were bad. I know they were bad, Trypto. I knew they were bad ages ago.

It is clear that from your words, Atsme drew succor in her resentment against me - and to be straight with you, in my view, you are not helping her or the community by feeding her resentment. She of course has a right to hold onto her pain and to try to pursue that as far as she wants to. DrChrissy too. (I was rude to him, I apologized and was warned at ANI. I have moved on and am trying to do better; he has unfortunately not been able to move on and holds a grudge, and even tracks me in his sandbox. I am sad about that but there is nothing I can do about it. Again, the problem of harm and its aftermath; in the case of DrChrissy, complicated by watching the person I insulted being unable to heal and destroying himself.)

What can one do, when one does harm, other than apologize and move on and keep trying to do better (and actually try, not just say it)? That is not a rhetorical question. There are people who do too much harm and we ban them. Maybe I have been rude enough times for that to be the case. I don't think so. But maybe it is so. But to make things as absolute as you are doing with regard to those two diffs in particular, is somehow brittle and false.

And all of this reminds me that there is something I need to do... Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"...and even tracks me in his sandbox." Jytdog, if you know that, you have been tracking me! That does not bother me in the slightest, but it makes me wonder how you, a single editor, finds the time to know that along with all the other edits and COI interactions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I put your sandbox on my watchlist ages ago. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Chrissy, I'm still not clear on what really went on during my prolonged absence from WP, but I want to repeat something that I also said earlier. I have very much enjoyed my editing of various pages, separately, with Dr. Chrissy and with Jytdog, and I value both of you as editors very much. I don't really understand how the conflict between you two began, but I really hope that both of you will become friendly collaborators in the future. After all, Viriditas and I have done two DYKs together.

I'm going to close this talk thread soon, because I think that it is getting close to going past its use-by date. But I want to leave things open a little longer, on the theory that it's better for editors to blow off steam on my talk page than somewhere else, so I'm still listening for just a bit longer. Jytdog, let me repeat something else. I said earlier, and I meant it, that I wouldn't expend this much time and thought on most editors. I'm doing it for you because I hold you in very high regard, as an editor, and as a Wiki-friend. I'm glad that you understand what I have been telling you, and I trust you to learn, going forward, which is the main thing I care about here. I have tried to treat Atsme with the respect and consideration that I do for any editor who comes to my talk in a civil way, but what I have told her has been honest, and you need to recognize that I cautioned her not to pursue any further dispute resolution with you. Before I replied here, I first looked nervously at ANI, and was relieved to see nothing new there.

About healing, now that is something that I hope to see all around! It's time for Javert to exit the stage, and Cossette to enter. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy healing :-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing this discussion now, with thanks to everyone who was here. It being my talk page, I get to give myself the last word, and to pontificate a bit.

I've observed that many Wikipedia editors are human beings. As such, all humans make mistakes. (I, of course, am instead a fish, and therefore perfect.) When an editor makes a mistake, it's best for the project if one recognizes that this is simply human, and not rush to assign blame. And when one makes a mistake, it's best to recognize it, do whatever one can to fix it, and learn from it. It's only when an editor chooses not to learn from and correct mistakes that dispute resolution becomes necessary.

And that in turn leads to a bit of advice. I catch myself making mistakes about this all the time, in fact, but it's something to aim for, at least. Whenever you find yourself in a dispute with another editor, think about what you say to that editor, not simply in terms of what you want to say to them, but also from the perspective that you want whatever you say to sound "right" to any uninvolved editor who might come along and read your comments with no preconceptions. By sounding "right", what I mean is that you want to sound level-headed, not angry, and doing your best to advance the writing of an encyclopedia even in the face of others who do not have such good intentions. You want to sound that way, relative to the other editor, rather than to have it sound the other way around. Often that means taking a bit of time to compose your thoughts before you hit the save button. At least that's something useful to aim for.

Please don't anyone think I'm directing that at any individual editor. I think it applies to everyone who has been a party to this discussion. And I wish everyone happy editing, moving on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Winding up

Not to press, but if you'll give your assent to the resolutions of issues #A4, A5, A6a, and A7, plus the discussion at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Disposition_of_behavior_citations (which should be easy) then the only things left will be Talk:Phineas_Gage#And_another_thing.2C_dagnabbit.21 and Talk:Phineas_Gage#Notes. For both of those the ball's in your court, and I'm not sure you still care about them. After that we're done! EEng (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe sometime in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I said that last night after a tough day of editing disagreements, so I was more curt than I should have been. But please give me some time, a lot of time. (Obviously, what I said at what is now the top of my talk page, about intending to stay away from dramas for a while – I've been failing miserably at following my own advice!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'll be happy to know that I think this should be drama-free. The items listed are action items you and I had worked out (mostly integrating notes into main text etc.), plus Mirokado's and my solution to the technical problem of citing sources from within notes. There's nothing left to do, but I want your imprimatur so no one can say due consideration wasn't given to you-know-who's nonsense, and I'd like to get this stuff off the discussion page.

The two threads that remain after that were your additional concerns about the quantity of notes. I'm hoping that with all the changes under the earlier threads, this won't be a concern any more. EEng (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I'd still encourage you to work on what I said at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Notes. Otherwise, I find the page much improved! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange

I just came across some unusual material in the atropine article and I was wondering if you know anything about the mechanism:

Atropine eye drops have been shown to be effective in slowing the progression of myopia in children in several studies, but it is not available for this use, and side effects would limit its use.[12]

Do you think in the future we might be able to treat myopia with simple eye drops? Provided we can eliminate the dancing wallpaper and furry elves? :) Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm quite familiar with those concepts (even taught them). Atropine blocks a kind of receptor for acetylcholine. That has the effect of altering the curvature of the eye, by altering the tone of the smooth muscles that control that curvature (by blocking the effect of the nerve that controls the muscle). It also dilates the pupil of the eye. In fact, if you've ever had an eye exam where the doctor gave you eye drops to dilate the pupils, those drops were you-guess-what. And that means that, using it this way in children, it interferes with exposing the eyes to bright light. A further problem with atropine is that, if you use it for any length of time, it doesn't stay in place, but moves throughout the body, where it does all kinds of things like raising blood pressure and a lot of other stuff that would be considered side effects.

Now as for a future pharmacological treatment for myopia, I suppose there's no reason why not, although the biggest issue would be that you want something that can be overridden by voluntary focusing of the eye. If the drops just fixed your eyes in focus at the distance, then you wouldn't like it if it prevented you from reading something close up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I just saw this news item and thought you might have something to say about it. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to do it. (And you are getting quite a deal: there was a time when someone would have to have paid a lot of tuition to get that lecture from me! ) As for the cataracts study, I looked at it and it looks very solid to me. (The principal weakness is that they don't really understand the mechanism, and thus don't really know cause-and-effect.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Section break

This discussion is closed, and I hope that editors will come to find that they can work together happily. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Viriditas: On a separate topic, I saw what you said at WP:ANI#Bigger picture. Please take it as a friendly request that you reconsider whether that was really as "open and shut" as that. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you for taking a look. However, whenever I read insulting, overly defensive, hypocritical backhanded attacks like this, that appear to show a basic misunderstanding of the article improvement process, which is one of the tenets of Wikipedia, I tend to stick to my original thesis. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, I'm sufficiently puzzled by the diff that you gave that I wonder if you linked to the wrong edit. What I'm seeing Jytdog do in that diff is very sensitively suggesting that an editor should try to see things from another editor's perspective. I'm not seeing what you describe. He does say, briefly, that he would be surprised if the editor that he is not addressing there would respond appropriately to that understanding of their point of view, so maybe that's what you are talking about. But I think you are focusing on something where you are missing the bigger picture. In any case, my request to you was to reconsider whether there really is any kind of deliberate coordination between Jytdog and the editor he tells to see the other point of view. You said that the evidence is "open and shut", and it's very clear from the subsequent discussion at ANI that it wasn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I do not have enormous amounts of free time to analyze Jytdog's comments, nor would I wish that kind of task on my worst enemy. Suffice it to say that everything that I previously observed in that diff (yes, it's correct) is all there and much more. Jytdog argues, quite speciously I must say, that GregJackP's desire to bring an article to Good Article standards is unimportant, showing that Jytdog fails to understand the article improvement process and why it is important. From this basis, I've made the observation that these words reveal a lot about Jytdog. He doesn't engage in the article improvement process, rather, he tends to destabilize a topic area, often preventing it from reaching stability, a criterion needed for both GA and FA. As if that wasn't enough, Jytdog goes further, arguing that only himself and Kingofaces43 "come from a science-based perspective", which infers that any objection to his edits must come from irrational, anti-science crazies. Then, he refers to "people with a battleground mentality" who "are going to draw (invalid) GANG conclusions if we are both involved," meaning that anyone who notices the pattern must themselves be engaging in bad behavior. So that's two backhanded attacks on his critics right off the bat. Frankly, the amount of narcissistic, psychological manipulation found in his comments is so far off the charts, his behavior, in my opinion, is bordering on abnormality. His little digression on "preference-based" editing is intended to show that he's the paragon of objectivity, neglecting the fact that the majority of his contributions consist of subjective, preference-based editing. I think I've said enough on this matter. Jytdog comes across as someone who has a pro-biotech bias, to the point where it interferes with the stability and neutrality of an article. I am neither the first editor nor the last to make this observation. Keep in mind, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being "pro-biotech", it only becomes a problem when the bias overwhelms NPOV and destabilizes a topic area. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC) This is part of what I meant about reading without love but rather with hate, bringing the most negative interpretation possible. What I wrote about good article status, was about good article status. For some people, getting the "gold star" - getting a DYK or GA or FA and listing that on their User page and keeping it there - is important. Status, based on accumulating "gold stars" can become its own thing, just like some people want to have wealth and flashy cars to show it. Incentive systems are what they are, and part of working in WP (or anywhere) means understanding what is important to the people you are working with. As for me, I care a lot about content and improving articles, and I respect the heart of what GA and FA are all about. I have never engaged with the incentive system myself. I may do one day, but haven't so far. In any case, you read my words in the most negative light possible. Jytdog (talk) I'm about to close and hat this discussion, but first: Viriditas, I really did read that diff, and I'm telling you honestly what I saw in it, and it's not what you saw. My guess is that most uninvolved editors would have read it pretty much as I did. I think it's unfortunate that you feel the way that you said that you do, and I hope that you'll consider that you once felt somewhat like that way about me. And frankly, I once felt that way about you! But the point is that maybe, just as you and I have moved on to a better place, I hope that you and Jytdog will eventually do the same – and I firmly believe that it is possible. And none of what I said there should discourage you at all from coming back to my talk, where you remain very welcome. We just really, really disagree about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law." You remain so full of bile. I am sorry for you. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC) This kind of bizarre response is exactly why myself (and many others) try to avoid you. My commentary has nothing to do with "hatred" of any kind. Your denigration of the value of the article improvement process in the above diff tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. Perhaps you should start writing articles and submitting them through the process so that others won't lodge the same criticism again. Of course, that would mean you would have to work within the NPOV policy rather than constantly trying to undermine it, which is why I suspect you have so little regard for the process. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC) First of all you are reacting to a comment that I removed, and holding anyone to something that like that, is just ick. Second, you are carrying a whole load of bad assumptions and bile about me into this, that most of the community here doesn't share. (I do recognize that I have a gang of haters, and that you are one of them) To be frank I don't think you have ever approached me in any kind of loving spirit. You pounded against me and then gave up. That is your bile. I am sorry for you, that you carry that around. More specifically, I really don't know what you are objecting to in anything I wrote there; although I removed it, I will be happy to discuss any part of it that you find objectionable. But only if it is a discussion in which you are listening to what I have to say. I have no desire to just listen to you vent. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC) You have an extremely annoying tendency to avoid responding directly to what people say and instead "talk" at them about things they didn't say. You appear to be engaging in the very "battleground" behavior you referred to in the diff by referring to me as part of your "gang of haters". The rest of your comment is more of the same. You haven't responded to any of the points I've raised, you've only deflected from them. My entire experience interacting with you involves nothing less than being reverted by you for no good reason, being "talked" to by you about things that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, and being attacked by you, such as the example above. I am sure that I am not alone in this experience, and that the "gang of haters" you refer to is actually a gang of victims who have been wronged by you in many different ways. For my part, I try to avoid you as best as I can, much as I would avoid any other type of person who behaves like you do. Criticism of your behavior cannot be construed as "hate" by any reasonable person, and your continued misrepresentation of every discussion is proof that talking to you is a bad idea. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC) V, you haven't made any statements that I can respond to. That was a pretty long post and you just made general claims. I asked you what specifically you found objectionable. That is all I can do, since I don't know what you had issues with. Bigger picture, I always try to respond directly to what people say to me. I know you were frustrated by our interactions in the past; I didn't find them productive either. I am sorry you feel victimized - for what its worth I thought you treated me pretty badly, pretty consistently, and I was happier when you stopped interacting with me. It isn't nice to be treated in a dehumanizing way like this (and your interactions with me were full of stuff like that). I also do not seek you out; I have no desire to interact with you generally. But V, dehumanizing people and carrying around the anger with which you did that - that is what hate is. No love there - no recognition of someone else's humanity. It is bad to experience the outcome, but it really hurts the one who carries it around. I am sorry you are in that condition. Like I said, if you want to discuss (and I do mean discuss) anything I wrote in that diff - for example what specifically you find in it that reflects "a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works" I will do that. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, the diff you refer to is in regards to Domingo & Bordonaba 2011 and Monbiot 2002. I don't see your name connected to that diff, so when you speak about "dehumanizing" you, I have to ask, what in the world are you talking about? Looking at the above comments you've made, you've distracted from every point I've raised. You seem excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy and unable to see the destructive damage you are causing to others with your behavior. I hope you think long and hard before you reply with another distracting, out of context diff and wild speculations about my personal mental state. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but every time you respond like this it presents itself as a textbook case of dissembling. Your distractions aside, I'll happily return to main point: the reason you denigrate the article improvement process (and don't participate in it) is because it requires NPOV. Other editors have characterized your edits as "pro-biotech". Since the article improvement process would neutralize this bias on the spot, you avoid it. This nicely explains why you ridiculed GregJackP's involvement in the article improvement process, and your personal reasoning behind it. Instead of complimenting GregJackP for spending an enormous amount of his time going through this process, you insulted him. I point this out because your reaction was unusual. Editors who understand how Wikipedia works will often help others through the process, without regard to any POV because the process is supposed to balance everything out in the end. After all, the reason we are here is to improve articles, not skew them in favor of one side. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) what you wrote in that dif was: "There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. This is a claim promoted by Monsanto and other biotech companies, with the help of their team of Internet shills who work for a known PR company and troll message boards and Wikipedia articles." You wrote that kind of stuff about me all the time. I asked you to point out what, in the dif you quoted above, you actually objected to, and you still have not done that. On the GMO stuff, my editing hews very strongly to NPOV. I understand that you and others actually see a world where GMOs are bad, bad things (on the level of Weltbild, not just Weltanshauung). That is the not the mainstream view per reliable sources nor the actual world, where GMO use is wide spread and becoming more so. I am sorry you are still upset about that. And I am sorry that your demons have awakened. I was hoping we could actually talk, but you are just piling on generalized nastiness. I am withdrawing the offer to talk, and am walking away from you now. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Well, the two of you, that was a very depressing exchange for me to have to read. I remember very well the context of that diff about editors who are shills at Wikipedia articles. I was pretty much accused of being such a shill at the time of that discussion, myself. But here is the bottom line for me: At that time, Viriditas and I were very much at one another's throats. But I've gotten over it – completely. And that's something that I value very much about editing here. Now, Viriditas and I have worked on pages together, gotten two DYKs together, and quite generally had a happy editing collaboration. And, separately, I've enjoyed editing with Jytdog, who is indisputably not a shill. What I'm trying to say to both of you is: drop it! It's just sad to see the two of you, both smart and talented editors, go at one another with so much assumption of bad faith. Get over it, both of you! Please! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Just a quick bit of input here, Jytdog misrepresents the facts above. Very serious questions are being raised about whether in fact the new version since Jytdog's 2012 takeover of the GMO article(s) is actually an improvement and NPOV. We just had an RfC where it turns out that the sources Jytdog has been using to support the consensus statement do not qualify as support. Viriditas correctly points out this "safety consensus" is a false narrative (given in WP's voice), as is detailed in this paper which specifically calls out the misrepresentation of science put forth by our GM article. Besides that, it turns out our GM articles don't even describe or mention GRAS, and I have twice been reverted for trying to insert a note about the percentage of Americans favoring GMO labeling (I know, this makes me a Monsanto hater!) in the labeling section of the 'Controversy' coverage, where instead all that is mentioned is the FDA's flawless work re regulation. But all of this opposition and criticism is painted as coming from conspiracy theorizing, fringe-hugging Jytdog-haters. In the case of reviews such as Domingo, who finds that half of the GMO/human health studies do find 'reason for concern', it is written off as "fringe" and not included in the article. One may describe oneself as NPOV, but that's really for others to decide - not 'others' as in members of the Jdog fan club, but others who work in these contentious articles and base comments on reality. This may be the reason it is emphasized that WP is not a social networking site. The buddy system ("please rethink your AN/I comment") has no place here, and really screws things up, especially at noticeboards. petrarchan47คุก 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) The header of this section is becoming more and more appropriate. I will not be responding to this either. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I've got a variety of things I'm going to say here. The first one, I'm going to take Petrarchan47's side on. Jytdog, I saw the BLP template that you put on her talk page yesterday, and it made me wince when I saw it. I was quietly watching the discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food without getting involved in it, before any of these comments on my talk page. And it simply did not rise to the level of justifying a BLP template on her page. Please think of it in terms of the advice that I and others have been giving you. You came across as some kind of self-appointed police by doing that. It was a bad move. Even though you were right on many of the content issues (more on that below), the template came across as heavy-handed, and made you look less sympathetic, and Petrarchan47 look more sympathetic. It's not a BLP violation to advocate that the page address the fact that a government official charged with regulating an industry went through a revolving door with that industry. Although I will agree with Jytdog that the responisbletechnology.org source fails WP:RS very badly. That said, I agree with Jytdog about there having been a lot of "conspiracy theorizing and soapboxing" based upon unreliable sources. I fear that if Petrarchan47 continues to treat Wikipedia as WP:RGW, no matter how well-intentioned the desire to "right" those "wrongs", she will end up with a ban. As for the rest of that comment, I feel negatively about the claim that my request that Viriditas rethink an ANI comment makes me, or Viriditas or Jytdog, part of a "buddy system". I'm afraid that there really is a problem with "GMOs are evil" POV pushing on Wikipedia, whereas any push back against that gets mislabeled as shilling for Monsanto. There are dissenting scientific papers, but they need to be treated with due weight relative to the rest of the science. On the other hand, there are a ton of reasons, including the issues with lax government practices, that are part of the overall source material on GMOs, and demonstrate that the views of scientists do not equal the views of the general public. The science, and the broader political and social issues, are really two different things. There is no reason to reduce any of that, however, to two camps of Wikipedia editors, in the form of Jytdog-haters and a Jytdog fan club. Overall, I think that Jytdog is doing very good work in pushing back against the POV pushing, but this isn't a case of good-versus-evil. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Hi Trypto, I hear you on the heavy-handedness of the BLP warning and how it made me look bad. Context: Taylor is a whipping boy for the anti-GMO crowd like no other living person is. I have warned other editors about BLP issues with regard to Taylor (here and here for example) and I had warned P here on June 10 about this same issue, on the same Talk page. After P went right back at it, as though I had never warned her, the user page warning was the next step. And my next step will probably be seeking admin or community action, especially now that this has been discussed yet a third time. I would prefer it doesn't go there, but P will do as she will. All this GMO stuff is hard enough without bringing BLP issues into it. It is also gratuitous in the context where P brought it up, since the content under discussion is not even about Taylor. So that is the context, and I would be happy to explain that at ANI or elsewhere - the warning was not out of the blue. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the helpful explanation, and for seriously considering what I said. Often, a simple comment to another editor, without resort to a template, especially when the editor is far from being new here, is sufficient to establish a record. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC) You are welcome. I do hear you on me looking boorish with that on first glance (and maybe even with the context provided). I don't want to look that way but I also wanted P to know that I meant what I wrote earlier. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you

Your comment meant a lot to me, thank you for your support. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Atheism

Hello dear User, please pay attention to this topic - Talk:Atheism#The last edition of Ramos 1990. Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. However, it is not a high priority for me at the moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed . . .

You're a good man, Tryptofish: [13]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1. It truly does seem to me to be an RfA gone awry. (But... are you sure that I'm a man?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure. But only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm actually a fish. (And let's leave it at that, wink.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and soapboxing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You mentioned something about conspiracy theories and soapboxing, and although I know what those concepts mean, I didn't understand what you were referring to in the context of the previous discussion. Could you take a moment to briefly explain? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this diff: [14]. And I would prefer not to have an extended argument over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful, as I really didn't know what you were talking about. After seeing that diff, I'm not all that interested in discussing soapboxing, but if you could, would you be so kind to point to the conspiracy theory in your own words? From what I can tell, I'm just seeing business as usual, analogous to the tobacco industry trying to promote their product for profit and downplaying the health impact for fifty years; or the fossil fuel industry promoting their product and downplaying the environmental impact of climate change for a century; or the private military industry selling weapons and waging war while downplaying the regional instability and terrorism their policies cause. Is the biotech sector historically any different? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In my own words? You list a bunch of examples where I'm pretty sure I agree with you: the tobacco industry denying the science that shows their product to be dangerous, the fossil fuel industry denying the science of climate degradation that shows their products to be dangerous, and so on. I dislike science denial in the service of financial greed just as much as you do. And I'll agree with you also (in my personal opinion, not in my role as an editor), that there are some very objectionable things about how the biotech industry operates and how the government mishandles it. But, in the case of biotech, the science shows that the products are actually not dangerous (with a few caveats), and that the products can (with caveats) offer good things to society. That's a fundamental difference relative to tobacco products. It's actually science denial by the critics of an industry. But conflating them strikes me as wrong, and anti-science, and anti-intellectual. Whether that conflation is exactly a matter of "conspiracy theories" or whether some other choice of words would be more apt, maybe there is a better choice of words, but I think that is Wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. Am I correct in assuming that you haven't looked into or studied the history of opposition to GMOs? I ask, because when you look into it, you'll find it has little to do with "anti-science" positions or "science denial" by critics. When you study the issue you find a complex trail of regulatory controversy, combined with risk aversion and industry influence. In many significant ways, my analogy was more than apt: the same people and groups involved in the tobacco, climate change, and military advocacy detailed above are also involved in biotech advocacy. Perhaps names like the American Council on Science and Health ring a bell from the past. There are many front groups like this that have been active on the same issues. One of the most active right now is the Cornell Alliance for Science, which has received almost six million (from a three billion dollar fund earmarked for agriculture) from the Gates Foundation to advocate for GMOs in the media and on the Internet. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line for me is that much prejudice exists with regard to GMO coverage on WP. A large group of editors claim to believe that any questioning of the whitewashed GM articles comes from Monsanto haters, quacks, or fringe adherents. But what the RfC showed (and these facts are unrelated to my credibility as a witness) is that the ENSSER is on point: the 'scientific consensus' of GM safety is not supported by facts. We have a long list of refs after the claim, but none of them support it either alone or SYNTHed. It turns out only Domingo has done a review of the studies looking specifically at GM food and human health impacts - and half of the studies raise questions. Meanwhile, if editors were truly here to represent the science and WP guidelines, one would assume the unsupported claim would be tweaked, removed, or supporting refs found and added. None of this is the case. To have over 300 scientists calling out Wikipedia's Genetically Modified food article as misrepresenting the science and creating a consensus claim that doesn't exist is very serious, yet no one is able to remedy the problem due to ownership issues and the aforementioned good ole boys club that turns all criticism back on the messenger. Soapboxing on a talk page is in no way comparable to misrepresenting science in article space to such a degree that an international body of scientists writes a paper about it. petrarchan47คุก 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to what Tryptofish thinks of people like Dennis T. Avery, who not only has a long history with the Heartland Institute and the Hudson Institute, but is notable for his science denial in support of his biotech advocacy. Please also note the connection between the military, tobacco, climate change, and GMOs. It's right there. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for caring what I think, which actually is a bit surprising, but in a flattering way. And most of what I'm about to say is my personal opinion, not my editing stance as a Wikipedia editor. Dennis Avery and others like him? Of course I have a strong objection to people who actually advocate for financial gain. I've already said, above, that the revolving door between government and industry is something that concerns me a lot, and that I do think it should be covered honestly on Wikipedia (but also that I think that responisbletechnology.org fails laughably as a reliable source). I criticized another editor for reducing the issue to a matter of BLP. I'm in favor of labeling GMO foods, and I think that the industry's opposition to labeling is idiotic, not least because it makes it look like they have something to hide. I have no use for "institutes" whose reason for existence is to promote pro-business or right-wing propaganda. And I have no use for science deniers. At the same time, as a long-time scientist myself, I'm quite ready to find fault with scientists who engage in professional misdeeds. But I really meant what I said about science deniers, because there's a difference between scientists, who are human and have human failings, and science, which when done correctly is far more reliably truthful than human preconceived notions.

Are you "correct in assuming that [I] haven't looked into or studied the history of opposition to GMOs?" You are entirely incorrect (unless you mean whether I've spent a lot of time reading non-WP:RS websites that promote anti-GMO POVs). And, although my own scientific career was in neuroscience, I also have a very good understanding of the science of plant genetics, and the genetic modification thereof, as well as of the ecology of that kind of agriculture. Is agricultural monoculture bad, and made worse by the GMO industry? In my opinion, yes and very much so. Are there legitimate concerns about the ecology of "escaping" herbicide-resistant plants? To some degree, yes again. But do I think that GMO foods are unhealthy? Absolutely not. The "science" that says otherwise strikes me as a joke, and yes I've read it and understood it. It's like the few science studies that say global warming is just a natural fluctuation, and not far from the "scientists" who try to claim evidence for Young Earth Creationism. I entirely agree that, at the level of political advocacy, it's the same typical suspects showing up here, that showed up for tobacco, for carbon fuels, and on and on. But it's not the same scientists. And I agree that most of the folks who have become active in opposition to GMOs did not come there from a background of being anti-science, and most likely would want to trout me if they heard me compare them to creationists. But we have to really look at what the science does and does not say.

And I find it a little patronizing to pose the question based on the assumption that I haven't looked into it. I make plenty of mistakes, but I attempt not to talk down to other editors. I think I'm actually being very consistent, in the sense that I'm advocating for science over science denial. Tobacco defenders tried to deny the obvious science, as do the climate change deniers. People who argue that GMO foods are less healthful than genetically conventional crops, much like people who argue that vaccines cause autism, come to it in good faith, but they have the science, overall, wrong. It becomes a matter of group identity and group pride for them, and that makes it hard for them to let go of the idea, or to believe that those who disagree with them could possibly be motivated by good faith. And, unfortunately, I see that attitude affecting Wikipedia. Yes, I know about the paper by Hilbeck et al.. I've also looked at the author affiliations at the end of the paper. I do believe Wikipedia should cite it, but also that Wikipedia should treat it with due weight along with the rest of the scientific source material.

On Wikipedia, I've been around this block before. I spent a lot of time NPOV-ing our pages about animal rights, and I've heard all the arguments like this before. Should Wikipedia present both sides of the GMO controversy? Yes. Should Wikipedia be the place for WP:RGW? No. We have a problem with anti-GMO POV pushing that outweighs any pro-GMO POV pushing, and it is made worse by its smugness.

That's my honest opinion, and if you disagree with me, that's OK. Wikipedia is all about working with all kinds of other people, even those with whom one disagrees. Normally, I welcome discussion, even when the discussion is challenging for me. I hope you don't feel like I'm shutting you down from what you'd like to say to me. But I'm also going to point up to #Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.... I promised myself, following my mother's death, that I would try to take some time off from Wikipedia drama, and it appears that I've completely failed at that! But that's on me, not on you. I need to draw a line under the discussion here, so I am. Thank you for your understanding, and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sending a smile your way

Hello Tryptofish, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you very much my friend! I'm glad that you understand my reasons for what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Liz RFA

Replying to your post here because my reply has less to do with Liz than personal wikiphilosphy, and that RFA has seen more than its share of heat. With that preamble, here is a longer explanation of why I found Liz's participation in that thread on Sitush's page troublesome:

1. Discretionary judgment: I haven't come across the exact phrase before but read Sitush's "Has it fuck" as a expression of frustration (cf. WTF) rather than abuse (cf. FU). That said, it would be better if such ambiguous phrases that are liable to be misread in a multicultural environment like wikipedia were avoided altogether. But the way Liz entered the discussion that followed was not helpful. Firstly telling a frustrated person to effectively calm down and mind their language is almost always counter-productive, no matter how politely you say it. At a minimum, one must briefly investigate if the frustration is valid (as it was in this case) and if so acknowledge it, while telling the editor to be express themselves more clearly. Secondly, even that advice is best given by either a "friendly figure" whom the editor likes, or by an "authority figure" who the editors trusts to be fair and not by an editor one has less-than friendly interactions with (to see things done right, see Drmies and Newyorkbrad's reproaches at the end of this section and the contrasting effect they had). Thirdly , unless an issue of civility or personal attack is escalating or causing undue hurt/distraction, it is best to ignore it altogether and help the matter die by distracting the editors to address the topic of central concern instead, ie deescalate whenever possible (for that reason the "There is no question mark" comment was not helpful either).
2. Priorities: It you look at Balmiki caste page history, Rohinisinghaliya contribution history (incl. contributions from the period that were later deleted), and the section on Sitush's talkpage section, you'll see that there were lot of things to object to. As I have already outlined at RFA, Rohinisinghaliya article space edits were problematic in terms of content and sourcing and indicated sock-puppetry; Rohinisinghaliya had subsequently admitted to being a "clean start" account; there was the incipient edit-warring; there were accusations of drunk editing; and then of course there was the above-mentioned phrase. I believe focusing only on the last was the wrong priority, made worse when Liz said "I wasn't making a comment on the quality of the edit but on how you responded to their questions. I think you can be civil to any editor, even to a troll or sock. The material looked like it was sourced to me and I thought you would provide an explanation not a epithet." I actually agree with the second sentence but, as I said above, I believe it was the wrong thing to say under the circumstances. But the first and third sentence are the ones I have real problems with, since the material didn't look adequately sourced (unless one judges anything with ref tags and a url as sourced) and having an experienced editor say that when one is already dealing with a problematic POV pusher is immensely frustrating. I won't belabor the point since as an experienced editor you probably have an idea of what I am talking about.

The reason I think this is relevant to adminship is because admins at RFPP/3RR/ANI boards and at article/user talkpages often have to intervene in exactly the type of dispute Sitush and Rohinisinghaliya had, and I fear admins who treat all arguments between Randies and encyclopedic-content contributors as black-box "content disputes", and issue admonishments and blocks based simple on counting reverts or checking for violations of WP:CIVIL. As I have stated at this and many previous RFAs I am not too concerned if an admin candidate writes article content themselves, as long as their editing shows that they recognize that the purpose of wikipedia is creating content, and understand what that entails. Failing to even recognize poor sourcing, POV pushing, sockpuppetry and SPA behavior and choosing to (mildly) rebuke an editor dealing with this is a red-flag for me that the latter condition is not satisfied. What would have happened in the above case, if Liz had been an admin back in March?

Before concluding, I should add the caveat that the above is clearly an over-analysis of a small editing sample, and I am pretty sure no editor's complete ouvre will survive that level of scrutiny (that is another reason I am not adding the above to the RFA or RFA talk page, or pinging any of the editors involved). I analyzed the particular sequence at the RFA and here only as an example of conduct that I found troubling in Liz's editing history, and not as a smoking-gun proving unfitness to be an admin (as say recent BLP/copyvios, gross incivility, outing etc would be). In any case, hope that makes my reason for opposing clear(er). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I said at the RfA page how I respect you, and wow, that detailed, thoughtful, and courteous response most certainly impresses me even more! Thank you for explaining that so clearly! (In fact, I remember a time when I was still a fairly new editor, and I raised a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. You responded with an IAR response asking me and the other person to work it out between us, and it was an important Wiki-education for me, one that I still remember and that now influences my own comments in disputes.) Long story short, I think this RfA is full of ambiguities, and it may well be that I have been mistaken. I do think that some of what has gone on there has been cultural misunderstandings between editors from different English-speaking backgrounds, and that there also has been a lot of harping on small mistakes that really ought not to be disqualifying. At the same time, I think that your explanation has been very helpful to me in not only understanding your position, but also the positions that were taken by numerous other administrators. Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this talk page discussion and it's interesting reading now that the RfA ordeal is over. In hindsight, I could have handled that interaction with Sitush better (or, maybe, not at all). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Liz: It's certainly good to be able to look back at things after some time has passed. I'm glad that I supported you. It seems to me that you are doing very good work with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Both my nominators and I were stunned at the reaction at my RfA. I might pass, I might not pass...but no one expected it to become a battleground. After you've been the subject of hundreds of talk page comments, one can only approach adminship duties cautiously and carefully!

Maybe in a month or two, I can look at the Crat chat talk page but right now, I don't want what was said during my RfA (or who said what) to influence me. Once I have more experience under my belt, I can go read the pages where editors were debating my editing history and personality and not take it so personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a very sensible approach. In any case, it's only a website, and other people can have opinions that are just plain wrong, although sometimes they can also give helpful feedback. One thing you can be assured of: the majority, and the consensus, of participating editors trust you to be a good admin. The critics lost the argument. And per me, you are doing a good job. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No longer just repeating

Hi, Tryptofish. When you removed this, that made sense because the incorrigible Darwinbish had added it to the box (a separate template) as well, after Manul's edit.[15] (Don't ask me what she was thinking.) But she has been reverted too, so now the useful sentiment doesn't appear at all. It should be visible somewhere on the page, don't you agree? Please consider self-reverting. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bish, and your incorrigible doppelganger. It took me a while to figure out what was going on, because the revert of your doppelganger was on the template, rather than on the page. And because when I made the edit yesterday, I was unaware of the template editing history (simply because I hadn't bothered to look), I mistakenly figured that it must have been there for some time, making Manul's edit redundant. That was why I made that revert. But frankly, I kind of agree with the editor who subsequently reverted you at the template, because it really does seem to make light of the Committee's often serious and under-appreciated role. So, I guess I don't agree – but it's also not a big deal to me either way. Perhaps it could go, instead, somewhere lower on the page. Maybe you might want to raise the issue on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion: at the page bottom there is a template:commonscat. Perhaps the quote could be placed in a template:ombox next to that. But at this point, I'd oppose returning it to the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See, I have no idea what you said in the first two sentences there. I'm no good with templates and boxes. Darwinbish isn't too bad with them — she's made some fine boxes of her own, warnings and such, proudly displayed on her userpage. But those aren't transcluded anywhere, for good reason, and neither of us is much of a hand with that aspect. But as for your third sentence, yeah, I'm with you, and I didn't really expect you to put it back. I think Manul is pleased enough it stuck as long as it did. Compare[16]. Anyway, happy editing — I'm glad you're back in the water. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

OK, then, @Darwinbish: here's what I was thinking, in case any of the Bishes care. Go to WP:Arbitration Committee. Then scroll all the way down to the very bottom of the page. There, you will see:

My suggestion is to take this:

...and type that Colbert stuff inside of it, and put it near the first box. That's only if you want, personally no biggie to me either way. And please tell Bishonen that I said thank you for welcoming me back! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mediation?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Trypto - so as we discussed above, I upset DrChrissy a while ago and he has remained upset. He pursued his upsetness into the Acupuncture article and got himself topic-banned from discussing MEDRS. Around the same time he made some other probing edits into areas I edit and he never had before, but didn't pursue them. In the wake of the Atsme ANI that led to her block, he has jumped into ongoing disputes at the Glyphosate article and is making the already-difficult situation there worse. I tried to discuss this with him at his Talk page. I am really sick of the drama boards so I thought I would try seeing if you, who seems to have a good relationship with each of us, might be willing and able to help. What I would like, is if DrChrissy just worked on what he likes; this ~seems~ to me to just be conflict-seeking behavior and I don't want more drama. And it is unlikely to end well for him, the more he pursues it - as has already happened before with the topic ban..... so not good for anybody, much less WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I've got a bunch of things I want to say here. The first is that, following my mother's death earlier this year, I have been very eager to focus on some content writing that interests me and to stay away from conflicts. Just a little way above, I hatted some discussion about GMO-related disagreements, so as soon as I saw Glyphosate here, my immediate reaction was one of oh, no. So please understand that my willingness to work on this dispute will be finite, OK?

The next thing I'm going to say completely violates what I just said above, because I'm nothing if not inconsistent. I've done some lurking, in spite of my intentions otherwise, and I saw [17], [18], [19], [20]. I was very pleased to see how you handled that! I didn't want to post to your user talk, because I didn't want to draw attention to it, but your post here gave me the opportunity to say it now. I had suggested that you consider responding to editors by keeping in mind how it looks to others who are uninvolved. And there, you did everything right! The other person comes off badly, and you come off as sincere and understanding. Good! Please keep that up! Now, that said, I'm not seeing COI there, so much as POV. I would suggest being careful to refer to the right thing in these contexts, because it matters to get it right (and more on that below). If you say a POV pusher has a COI, they will complain that it's not a COI, and that sidetracks a legitimate concern.

OK, now to the matter at hand. I've looked at the Glyphosate stuff, and I see it less as a matter of WP:PSTS, than as a matter of WP:UNDUE. It's not that primary sources are in and of themselves bad sources for that page (the material was largely not medical, so MEDRS does not apply), but that, with so many primary sources, there are due weight issues with highlighting a few sources without rebuttal. Again, this is why I've emphasized the need to be precise in which policies you cite. I think that DrChrissy and other editors on that "side" of the discussion have a valid point when they say it's permissible to cite primary sources. What you and editors on the other "side" should do is work towards letting those things be cited, but be cited much more briefly, and followed by a refuting source. You are going to lose an argument if you are arguing against one POV. You'll be better off arguing for "both sides" of the issue. Yeah, I know about the limits of equal time in science content. But I'm just suggesting what is realistic at Wikipedia. Always look for ways to split the difference, instead of winning.

Now, that said, I'd like to look at whether there might be a problem with DrChrissy following you from page to page. DrChrissy, I hope you can come here, to my talk, and tell me your view of this issue. What I would like is for both of you, Jytdog and DrChrissy, to please address what you say to me, and not to each other. And I'm reluctant to have other editors who watch my talk jump in, but I cannot forbid it, so please use discretion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing and sorry to distract you from what you want to work on here.

Thanks for your kind words on my interaction with Mr Bill Truth and feedback on that. Please know that when I ask an editor about COI, I really don't know the answer - the question is not a polite accusation. I do make a definite claim of promotional editing - edits of a fan of X and an edits of an editor paid by X look identical - but when I ask about "connections" I don't know if the answer will come back "advocate" or "COI". Mr Bill Truth could work for Null, or could be a fan of Null. (he has not clearly answered yet - "I work for nobody" is not really a response, but I am aware that responses from the community are tending to see unpaid advocacy, not COI)

Thx for your advice on the sourcing issues, which I won't respond to now so as to keep the mediation focused, but would be happy to, whenever you like (including now, if you like - i have thought a lot about this, per this on my User page, and it applies to all sides of any debate in WP) Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome, but no, I really don't want to talk about those sourcing issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I am so sorry to hear about your mother. I knew that you had taken a wiki-break earlier this year, however, I did not know the reason. You stated on your Talk page a while ago that you wish to avoid drama. I am going to respect this desire, and say that I will not engage any further in this thread after this post. I believe Jytdog is trying to unjustifiably attack me via the back door by bringing this here - if he really feels my behaviour is inappropriate, I have no doubt he would raise this on a noticeboard. I am also aware that very often, threads involving Jytdog bring with them many followers who I suspect will not respect your desire not to "jump in" and drama is almost certain here. I therefore think that the best course of action for me is to say "thank-you" for being amenable to this process, however, I will not be engaging in it as I wish to avoid causing you drama and because I do not believe "mediation" is necessary. I hope you enjoy your time editing articles you would rather be editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, DrChrissy. I honestly do not believe that it is true that Jytdog is trying to attack you via the back door, whereas I really do believe that he is sincerely trying to avoid noticeboards about this. I think that he wants to see if something I can say to you can make the use of a noticeboard unnecessary. I strongly recommend to both of you that you look for ways at the Glyphosate article to present a balanced view of primary sources, without giving undue weight to any single primary source. OK? If the two of you are finding that you are having trouble getting along, and I could not care less whose "fault" it is, just try to steer clear of each other. And both of you, please hear me: I've edited with both of you, and I like both of you, and I really believe that both of you could work together happily. Just look at is as something where you will have to split the difference, instead of reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, I will repeat what you said above and ask that nobody jump in here. I came here looking for as safe/no-drama of a space as can be found in Wikipedia, and hope that can be respected. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trypto - I hope this is the appropriate way to reply as you requested. I have read your reply and I thank you for that considered view. I will certainly take those thoughts on board for my future editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, and thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Animal cognition

I know perfectly well that you don't want to be bothered with such matters as you are focusing on other things, but I could use your advice as to how to go about updating the animal cognition page. See User_talk:SlimVirgin#Animal_cognition_article for further information. I'm not looking to debate or discuss it (and I know you don't want to at this point), I'm just looking for the latest research literature and how to best represent the consensus. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've already replied there, even before I saw your post here. As for the latest research literature, there really isn't a neuroscience of consciousness, of a sort that would help with what you are discussing. There's plenty of science about, for example, what anesthetics do to brain activity, but that's not going to help you. If you want some other editor opinions, I can suggest checking with Looie496 and Randykitty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't speak Valleyspeak. Humor is tricky online. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wish I could say you were helpful! :) Surely you know we were going off of the definitions over at animal consciousness? Fine, be that way. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC) I wish you had not added that. "Fine, be that way" is not a welcome comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) The emoticon implies irony, and is meant to be read in Valleyspeak, with a swish of the head. Please try to lighten up, friend. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC) What I actually said: [21]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Some spurious backlinks

– Corinne (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I'm not sure which is worse, those, or Gage's iron rod. Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of the new color idea. Maybe we will even have a consensus! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I kind of drifted away from the conversation, but have tried to catch up. I didn't see mention of color. I'll have to look at it. Are you getting high-tech over there? Corinne (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, kind of lower-tech than before. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

no one cares a xxx's xxx it seems

Looks like that editor who hides behind the IP is never going to be found because no one seems to be doing anything at all, or seems to even care. Even though you also asked nicely. Am off on a break until I manage to cool down a bit - frankly I find the behavior of some of the editors quite reprehensible and improper, and I do not like having folks say I lied when I said I asked for some time to prepare answers when my wife might have been dying -- malignant melanoma's which are over eight inches long are pretty scary beasts, indeed. Then a trip to take minds off the possibilities - seemed better to do that than anything else. Collect (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Thanks for stopping off here before your break, and I sincerely wish you some refreshment and renewal during that break. I'm leaving this message here for when you get back. Yes, that IP does concern me too, and I too have not been able to find any evidence of a checkuser investigation, although it may have been done without announcement. I actually thought about filing a request at SPI myself, but I cannot see a permissible way to list a sockmaster. However, I am cautiously optimistic that the clear requests for investigation by me and by others will give that IP some pause, because it is becoming clear that an ax will fall on whoever it is if another AE were to be filed.

That said, please accept my friendly advice. I'm seeing administrators at AE agree with me that you were testing boundaries in that revert, and you now know where the boundaries are, so please do not stray near them again. And, about what I said about "snark" at your talk, I know that you replied that the example I gave just shows that it was your typical sign-off, but please consider my advice that such a typical practice may be misunderstood by editors who do not know that it is typical. To tell someone that they are completely wrong, and then end with "Cheers", can easily lead to a misunderstanding of what that "Cheers" meant.

Those melanomas are indeed frightful, and I wish you and yours better times ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Firestein

Any particular thoughts on Stuart Firestein and his book Ignorance: How it Drives Science (2012)? I thought his contrarian argument about hypothesis formation was on the mark. I'm just wondering if you have any critical views here. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but I'm thinking now about reading it. I would quibble with him that hypothesis posing shouldn't entirely come after data collection, although hypothesis testing is indubitably data-dependent, but that's a quibble about language rather than a disagreement on the substance. More importantly, I tend to be a contrarian similar to him, so there's a lot that I like about what he says. I agree with him that there is too much bad-habit tendency for modern science to look for data that supports a hypothesis, instead of going where the data tells you to go. It's a big problem with peer-reviewed publishing: positive results get published and negative results get hidden (although recently there has been a very encouraging backlash against that in medical research). It's a near-fatal problem with funding: grants that get funded tend to be very cautious proposals that conform to conventional wisdom. I became very jaded with just those issues. As a matter of fact, I have come to the opinion that Wikipedia does "peer review" better than professional science does. So there! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Folta/Mediation

Hi,... sigh. I'm involving myself more than I want to already. I've lost too many nerves on wikipedia in days long gone, which you may or may not suffice to explain why I'm an IP, and not registered.

First, thanks for the 'comment' pointing towards this ArbCom-initiative about GMOs. The German quasi-equivalent "Schiedsgericht" doesn't deal with content issues. I did not know the en.wiki-version in fact does solve such issues, and I was delighted to find out. It allows editorial control over problems which would otherwise be stuck in an endless debate among contributing authors.

However, I feel like "GMOs" doesn't fully address one of the main issues mentioned in the mediation request. Namely "Is there a smear campaign brought against scientists, specifically Kevin Folta, supporting GMOs as being safe." I'm not certain what your comment implies with regards to potential mediation here.

I take issue with the argument made by one author on the talk page of the article (which really came up after the request for mediation), which seems either incredibly hyperbolic, or "fringe" in nature. I've supplied links to Tweets by Gary Ruskin, the person behind that "smear campaign", which should illustrate my point reasonably well. Talk:Kevin_Folta#Suggest_mediation

After reading through contributions of said author, I'm not overly optimistic about the chances to solve this issue through discussion, debate, or even mediation. Do you think the debate about what constitutes a "smear campaign" is covered by the ArbCom-initiative on GMOs (guild by association, so to speak), or should it be seen as a separate issue? It's certainly a very common term otherwise. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. It seems to me that a significant part of the mediation request has to do with the science of being either pro- or anti-GMO. As such, it is definitely within the scope of the ArbCom case. My understanding of MedCom is that they have a policy against accepting cases when the dispute is also being dealt with somewhere else, ArbCom in this case. Therefore, if my understanding is correct about those things, then MedCom is going to decline to accept the mediation request so long as the ArbCom case is taking place. As for the difficulty of resolving the problems through discussion, sadly I agree with you. Some people's positions are simply too dug in for discussion to work. And that's what arbitration is for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand the policy regarding MedCom/Arbcom. However, I could see myself arguing that questions like "what constitutes a smear campaign" are separate, but currently very pressing issues. The whole POV/NPOV-debate in Talk:Kevin_Folta (including edit-warring) revolves around this aspect first and foremost. We could discuss this without even naming the topic "GMOs", especially since "FOIA-harassment" has precedent in other fields, and smear campaigns have many examples elsewhere. From what I gather from your reply this issue might get stuck between ArbCom:GMOs due to being outside of the scope, and mediation because of ArbCom!? --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I went back and looked at the page again with that in mind, but it seems to me that there is no way to separate this particular "smear campaign" from the controversies associated with Monsanto and GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks. I actually prefer if this issue is addressed in ArbCom, reasons are outlined above. Cheers. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Was going to say something

I was going to say something right away when I saw your point being twisted into a straw man argument. I regret not responding right away, when I saw you defend yourself I felt the need to speak up. Perhaps a little late.

I see this sort of "recasting" as you say of people's comments all of the time, including my own comments. I always remind these people that if they find that misrepresenting what I have said makes it easier for them to defend their position, then perhaps they should reconsider their position.

The use of false dichotomies and other logical fallacies are often employed around here. Some people are aware and engage in sophistry and others just failing to debate in a fair fashion. It is important that we recognize logical fallacies and name them and describe them every time, otherwise people are all too quick to accept them. Chillum 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't think that you were late at all. I think that everything that you have said both here and there is exactly right, and I appreciate it very much. You know, I think it's kind of funny/ironic how that editor was so concerned about editors being motivated to leave the project, while that same editor was engaging in exactly the kind of battleground conduct that really does make some editors think about leaving. Anyway, I'm not really that bothered by it, because I too see that sort of thing all the time. What does sadden me for real, as I said there, is that I really would rather not have opposed, but so be it. By the way, I have seen you around for a long time, and I always have found you to be one of the most sensible folks around here, so it's nice to have this occasion to talk with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Tryptofish! Thank you for your message:) I don't really know how to talk on Wikipedia... or do much of anything else on Wikipedia so I don't know if I am doing this right. If I'm not could you maybe explain how to me how to "talk?" I understand that I can not advertise on Wikipedia but can I ask for help with breeding fish? Thanks! C. Anemone Claire Anemone (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Claire Anemone, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! About how to use Wikipedia talk pages, you did it exactly the right way, by posting in a new section at the bottom of my talk page and signing your message (you don't need to type your user name so long as you also sign). In replying to you, I put a : (colon) at the beginning, which indents my reply by one space, and if you reply back, you will use two colons, etc.

To learn your way around Wikipedia, one way to start is by going to WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, which provides a sort of guided tour. Another good place to look is at Help:Contents, which provides quick links to how-to information about most of the things Wikipedia editors learn to do. And of course, please always feel free to ask me questions right here!

I understand from your user page that you might be interested in breeding Siamese fighting fish, and the Wikipedia article on those fish is pretty good as an information source. You'll notice that the article describes how they are cared for in home aquariums and how they reproduce, but it doesn't do it in the form of "this is how to do it". That's because Wikipedia also has a policy against providing how-to advice in our articles. That's because you wouldn't want people to use Wikipedia to learn how to do surgery or file lawsuits – but it ends up applying to articles about pet care as well! So, because this is just my talk page and not a Wikipedia article, I'll step out of my "editor" role for a moment, and just provide my answer in a friendly spirit. The first thing, of course, is that you will need two fish, a male to be the father, and a female to be the mother. Most pet stores only sell males, so you may need to look around for a female. They are most likely to breed if the tank has some plants to make them feel at home. A good thing is that the parents take care of the baby fish, so you can keep them all together (some other fish species eat their own fry if the fry cannot swim far away!). Please remember that hobbyists aren't usually successful at this the first time, so you may have to do some trial and error. I think the easiest kinds of fish to breed at home are the ones in the family Poeciliidae. I used to have some swordtails, and they had huge numbers of babies almost continuously. So those are my ideas. Another place you can go within Wikipedia is the WP:Reference desk. You can ask questions there, and editors will point you to the right places where you can read about whatever you are interested in.

I hope that helps! Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

THANKS AGAIN!

Thank you so much for your help! I am going to check out the Wikipedia Adventure and Help: Contents as soon as I get some free time:) Claire Anemone (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure

Hi Tryptofish! I looked at Wikipedia Adventure yesterday and enjoyed it. THANKS SO MUCH! I hope I won't have any more questions to pester you with. You have been so helpful:) Claire Anemone (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good, I'm so glad! You are very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I completed the adventure!

Thanks Tryptofish! I completed all 6 missions in the Wikipedia Adventure and really enjoyed it:) I hope to continue "talking" to you. I'd love to hear from you on my talk page! By:) Claire Claire Anemone (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for your awesome help. I don't know what else to say! You are just a great person:) (And I've only "known" you a few days!) Claire Anemone (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

One last question...sorry!

Tryptofish, do you ever go to the wikipedia Teahouse? I just introduced myself there. I wish I knew if you were a man or a woman. But I read that you are a fish. Well, for a fish you are very well educated!Claire Anemone (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't do much at the Teahouse, because I simply don't have enough time, but it's a fine place, and you will get to know a lot of other good members of the editing community there. As for the rest, I edit in a lot of controversial areas besides fish (a topic that mercifully is peaceful), and I have my reasons for keeping some things private – but thanks for all the kind words! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 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)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Idea

I promised myself I would work on content and stay away from drama, and I failed miserably.

There's little tricks you can do to help motivate you and keep you disciplined. For example, you could put your computer power supply on a timer set for 60 minutes. Knowing you wouldn't have much time for drama, that could inspire you to work on more constructive projects. If you are on a mobile device, you can set a timer instead. Or just use a kitchen timer as a reminder. This really works.  :) Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL, thanks! Actually, my computer is getting so elderly that it tends to poop out periodically even without a timer. And when I edit content seriously, I actually need a lot of time. Of course, I'm not creating those dramas, and I'm mainly concerned with showing the door to those who do – in the probably vain hope that the dramas will go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: My edit summary, about "failed miserably", was partly joking. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence

Hi Tryptofish. About this bit that you added to Arb evidence: [22]. I wish you would think about removing the reference to a 5-year-old Arb case that is in no way related to Genetically modified organisms. If you have evidence of any bad behavior of mine related to the GMO topic or even directed at Jytdog outside the topic area, I encourage you to mention that in your evidence - but it's kind of like poisoning the well to bring up a very old, unrelated Arb case, especially since I have successfully (I believe) modified my editing behavior for the better since 2010, including taking about a 3 year wiki-break.

Also, I really do not wish to be lumped in with GregJackP as if we are the same editor. His editing style is much different than mine, and it's somewhat prejudicial to me to be lumped in with him as part of your evidence.

Just a suggestion. If you think it really belongs in the Arb case, I'll respond to it there. Best ... Minor4th 02:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful request. As it happens, I had thought about it overnight, and realized that combining the two of you into a single section was a bad idea, resulting from it being, well, a first draft. So yes, I am definitely going to separate the two sections. As for the evidence itself, my inclination at this time is to continue to present it, but I also intend to revise my evidence as the case goes along and I see evidence and information from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Minor4th 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff count

Just for your information, you're slightly above the usual allowance for diffs for the GMO case, but you're not over by too much, so don't worry as much (but might want to worry about it if you're going to present more information).

Something else I noticed (as case clerk): since you have a section with pretty much just diffs, you may want to give additional comments for each of the diff/link (for example, this is the first diff you provided under the Contrary to caricature, Jytdog is usually helpful and friendly to editors who are misguided about COI, NPOV, etc., even when they in turn are hostile to him heading. This would help the Arbitrators out a lot (as you gave about 40 diffs just for that heading). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Penwhale: Thank you very much for the guidance. I expect to revise it as I see what other editors present, and now I'll also revise it according to your advice. I do have one question for you: one or two of the diffs are repeated (but it's the same diff) in successive sections, and some of the links that look like diffs in the first section are actually links to sources – does any of that have any bearing on the diff maximum? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why you should label the links, because otherwise it would be easy to assume that they are distinct links to diffs ^^; The maximum is slightly flexible but if you need a lot more allowance, you will need to clear it with ArbCom. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: What you did here broke the links you were providing - by putting [[American Association for the Advancement of Science|AAAS]] within the link brackets, you actually made it so that only the PDF/link icons would link to your sources (the text themselves are linking to WP articles). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought, but I didn't realize that it could be confusing. I'll fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Is an editor OK?

Hi Trypto. It appears that Jytdog has not made any contributions since September 30th - most unusual behaviour. Do you know if he is ok? Genuine concern - we are all humans behinds these screens of ours.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I truly do not know. I hope that my worry is misplaced, but I am very worried. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just read this seconds after posting my evidence against Jytdog...I truly hope I have not contributed to anything untoward. I have been sitting on my evidence for some while debating whether or not to post, but in the end, I felt it was only fair to give him time to see my evidence before the deadline.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Change of evidence at arbcom

Hi. I have redrafted my evidence at ArbCom and during this, decided my suggestion that Jytdog was WP:NOTTHERE was probably not accurate. This means that your comment at the Workshop might appear "nonsensical". I thought I would let you know so that you can make appropriate edits.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your messages, and I'll respond to them both here. I'm glad that you revised your evidence, which would be the right thing to do in any case: it wasn't "probably not accurate", but definitely not accurate. Any time you overstate things at ArbCom, it will come back to bite you, because the Arbs will interpret it as battleground conduct, and they can be very harsh about that. I'll revise my analysis to reflect your update, so no problem there.

As for the absence, I don't know what to say. I just don't know. Maybe it's something trivial, like a broken computer. Or it could be something that came up in real life that suddenly required his attention, but isn't related to Wikipedia. But, given the timing, I'm worried to the point of feeling really bad about it. If hypothetically it turns out to be something particularly bad, I suspect that editors seen as his opponents will be treated particularly harshly by ArbCom – but let's hope that's just my imagination being overactive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

your imagination isn't alone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's awful having one's imagination run wild in the absence of accurate information. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just coming over to your page to express my concern, when I saw this posting...???--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned as well. I somewhat doubt it's just a broken computer as I've seen Jytdog editing throughout the day (likely has small bits of down-time with his university position like I do), so I'm sure he has access in multiple places. I'm really hoping he just decided to take a break to disengage for a short while. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to e-mail him yesterday, using the Wikipedia e-mail-this-user feature, and I have gotten no reply so far. That's all I know, although I wish I knew more. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, can we start thinking positive thoughts? He's probably just spending a little more time with family and friends, taking a little Wiki-break. He deserves one. The man has been working practically nonstop on WP issues. I truly believe there is a simple solution to this whole issue - something as simple as a private declaration to ArbCom instead of to just one admin as he did in the past. I think it will arrest all the suspicion and disruption that has resulted and then everybody can get back to work. Wouldn't that be wonderful? I think so. Atsme^📞📧 23:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly hope that all is well. (I also think that there is absolutely no need to second-guess what Someguy1221 concluded from Jytdog's self-initiated COIN case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Where angels and sensible fish fear to tread . . .

I usually run as far away from Arbcom and related politics as I can, but because of your involvement and that of several other names I recognized, I reviewed your contributions and related replies this evening. You're doing the lord's work over there, my friend, and I hope someone other than me recognizes it and appreciates it. There are way too many entrenched attitudes and conspiracy theories, too much bad science and ill will, and too many editors who are willing to engage in bad behavior regardless of whether they are right or wrong on the substance and applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I wish you luck with your efforts, 'Fish. I really do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! That truly means a lot to me. I think we all need to appreciate one another as Wikipedians. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll second what Dirtlawyer1 has said. You are a level head among hot heads over there :) I appreciate your contribution.Minor4th 20:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. A bit awkwardly, I just made a comment to you on the Workshop page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL, it's not a problem. It's just "business". Best - Minor4th 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See [23]. It's all good. Minor4th 21:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please contact me

Please email me through my userpage. Thank you. Minor4th 10:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th: I'm making an educated guess that this is about the now-redacted comment on the Workshop page. I apologize to you for my error of judgment, and I sincerely regret any unhappiness it may have caused you. That said, I am very careful about my privacy on-Wiki (and yes, the irony is not lost on me). Therefore, I am not going to e-mail you. If there is anything we can discuss on-Wiki, I'll be happy to do that, but if not, we will just have to let it be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ironic, indeed. Minor4th 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th

@Minor4th: you are banned from my user talk page. Please never edit this talk page again. And I will never edit your user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

question for recently-added recently-active wikiproject neuroscience folks

Hello Tryptofish, I found your name over here, WP:WikiProject_Neuroscience/Contributors, in the last dozen added, and you have edited wikipedia in the past month. If you have some time to help out, I am trying to assist a neuroscience researcher in finding a merge-target for their 2014 theoretical biology concept. Draft_talk:Practopoiesis#continuation_of_merge-discussion is the discussion, which was moved to draftspace after an inconclusive AfD#2 ... we could not figure out where the interdisciplinary WP:NOTEWORTHY material best fit into the 'pedia within the time-constraints of the AfD procedures. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The challenge here is basically the lack of integration of the "practopoiesis" concept with other literature. The draft article cites exactly one source, the Nikolić paper itself. That paper has hardly been cited by anybody except Nikolić. My perception is that the underlying motivation is to promote the practopoiesis theory, and any attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion is going to meet with resistance. If the theory manages to gain significant attention in ways that don't depend on Wikipedia (as documented by citations), it will be much easier to justify covering it in Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

75.108, thank you very much for asking me. I took a look, and I agree with what Looie496 said. I think that we would want to have what Wikipedia calls secondary sources. In this case, that would mean review articles that are not written by the scholars who are associated with the practopoiesis idea, that say that the idea is having a significant influence upon neuroscience research. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c... WP:NORUSH on replying to this.) My thanks right back for the reply, and that goes for the talkstalker as well.  :-)     I also agree that it is WP:NotJustYet for the topic to be a dedicated article. But the sources below are wiki-reliable, so per WP:PRESERVE, they should be merged in as a couple sentences, or perhaps even a couple paragraphs, of an appropriate leaf-article. (Plus of course, there is the task of teaching User:Dankonikolic about WP:COI and the associated templates/procedures/pitfalls, making them a wikipedian-in-good-standing, which I'm also doing as we work.) Here are the refs I'm aware of, I've been told more publications are forthcoming but have not seen them:

• 4 cites == 2014. Practopoiesis: or how life fosters a mind. Nikolić D. (Germany/Croatia). biorxiv arXiv, 1402–5332[q-bio.NC]. 10.1101/005660 (cf next line) , http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/05/29/005660.full.pdf

• zero(?) cites... but perhaps same content as above? == 2015. Practopoiesis: Or how life fosters a mind. D Nikolić (Germany/Croatia). Journal of theoretical biology. publisher Elsevier, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002251931500106X

• 11 cites == 2014. Semantic mechanisms may be responsible for developing synesthesia. Aleksandra Mroczko-Wąsowicz (Taiwan), D Nikolić (Germany/Croatia) - Frontiers in human neuroscience, publisher Frontiers Media SA , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137691/
• thinktank 501(c)(3) group == 2014, Practopoiesis Tells Us Machine Learning Is Not Enough, by Nikola Danaylov (USA), publisher Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies , http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/socrates20140913
• 0 cites == 2015, DIE KUNST DER SINNE – DIE SINNE DER KUNST. ‚Digitale Synästhesie‘ als Modell für eine Kybernetik der Ästhetik. by Katharina Gsöllpointner (Austria). in: Jeschke S, Schmitt R, Dröge A. Exploring Cybernetics ‐ Kybernetik im interdisziplinären Diskurs, WienNewYork: Springer. http://www.katharinagsoellpointner.at/downloads/Kunst%20der%20Sinne.pdf
• 0 cites == 2015, On the Design of a User-in-the-Loop Channel. With Application to Emergency Egress. by Constantin Dumitrescu (Romania). arXiv:1508.03204 (preprint -- not picked up by a non-arXiv publisher yet). Specifically, mentions a subconcept[24] of practopoiesis. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.03204.pdf
• biology-oriented trade-newsletter == 2015, Researchers from University of Zagreb Detail Findings in Theoretical Biology (Practopoiesis: Or How Life Fosters a Mind). by staff-byline, publisher Life Science Weekly (parent corp NewsRx) (USA), http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-416068653.html

It took a couple weeks to come up to speed on what the practopoiesis theory even was, for myself anyways, but as you can see from the refs mentioned, there are a handful of them -- just not yet integrated to the draft. Mainly because, most were found via the AfD process, and it seemed there were not enough to achieve WP:42, thus most discussion was about merge-targets before the close-as-userfy. Is draftify in the wiki-jargon yet? Several refs are independent of the originator of the concept, WP:GEOSCOPE is international, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP the peer-reviewed stuff is also legit fodder for WP:RS even though Nikolić is author/co-author, so methinks practopoiesis easily satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY for inclusion in an extant article. The main question is, what leaf-article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for being blunt, but what we are seeing here is the typical problem with promotional editing. Instead of asking what is best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia you are asking how you can manipulate the system to please the person you are working with. Let me also note that if you are being paid for this activity, the Terms of Use require you to disclose who is paying you and what for. Looie496 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Blunt is fine, you phrased it perfectly politely, with the exception of your accusation about gaming. And yes, the person in question was editing promotionally (note past tense), but they are also a neuroscience WP:EXPERT, and I don't believe English is their first language since Germany/Croatia is their home base. They've stated just a couple weeks ago they became aware ("I have read and understood those policies only recently.") of some of the most applicable wiki-pags... like WP:N.[25]  ;-)     Wikipedia will be improved by their becoming a wikipedian-in-good-standing methinks. They have responded favorably to my training about the COI-encumbrance, though as you can see from the usertalk discussions, my training of them is far from complete. As for myself, I personally have no COI whatsoever with respect to this person, their university(ies), the topic of practopoesis, and so on. I'm not being paid for what I do here, I've never heard of Nikolic before, my first exposure to practopoiesis was at the COIN and AfD threads. In other words, to be blunt in return, you are 100% on the wrong track.

  The goal here is to WP:PRESERVE the content, which is backed up by the wiki-reliable sources (about a paragraph of appropriately-placed mainspace prose methinks), and to train the professor how to comply with the WP:TOS properly. If you still see what I'm doing as "trying to make the professor happy" and would prefer to drive them away from wikipedia permanently, then you and I are gonna disagree.  :-)     What I'm doing is exactly what I said: trying to improve the 'pedia, by retaining wiki-reliably-sourced content, and also trying to improve the 'pedia, by retaining a beginning COI-encumbered contributor, who happens to be a neuroscience prof. Since tryptofish is away on travel, and my other two wikiproject members gave no response, I'll ping three additional neuroscience people, and see whether I can find some other wiki-eyeballs to look over the practopoeisis sources and such. Looie496, you are surely welcome to come along and help, if you are so inclined (and of course Tryptofish too when they have time). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that I find your statements impossible to believe. If you continue to act deceptively you are creating, at the very least, a risk of embarrassment for Professor Nikolic. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your regret is noted, but you are still wrong. I'm not acting deceptively. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is professor Nikolic speaking: I must state that I don't know 75.108.94.227 personally, I never had an exchange with him (her?) outside of Wikipedia, and I am certainly not paying him. Just think, where did you hear that scientists pay for placing contents into Wikipedia? They could not afford it even if they wanted to do it! Also, placement in Wikpedia has virtually no significance for scientist's evaluation, career advancements, etc. A scientist is not a business. If someone puts scientific contents in Wikipedia, the motivation is most likely to educate the public. This is our job--our service to the community: create knowledge and dissipate it. I know that there are out here many people who want to find out about practopoiesis and are delighted to learn about it. I feel obligated to help them. Practopiesis has a broad set of implications for multiple disciplines. Hence, dissipation of that knowledge through standard means of scientific literature cannot reach efficiently the interested parties. Consequently, I am very thankful to 75.108... that he/she is taking the time to explain Wikipedia to me and is trying to fine a place for the content. People like this are hard to find. (Danko (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC))

Hello and thank you. I am paying close attention to what everyone is saying here, and I will provide a detailed response soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've now looked carefully at each of the sources that are listed above, at the draft page for the article, and at the most recent AfD discussion, that led to the material being moved into draft space. Here is the way that I would analyze it. Wikipedia limits what we include, so as not to include material that is still too preliminary to belong in an online encyclopedia (as well as, of course, not to include various other kinds of material). We base those decisions on whether or not the subject satisfies a very particular meaning of the word "notability". I suggest looking at WP:GNG in order to see how that concept applies here. I do not think that the draft page should return to being a regular article, because it really does not satisfy GNG in anything that could resemble its present state. On a somewhat different neuroscience subtopic, I have argued against having individual pages for each theory of neural coding, because we really do not yet know how such coding takes place. Until the scientific literature about it becomes a lot more advanced than it is now, the theory of practopoiesis is in the same position. Thus, if I had participated in the AfD discussion, I would have supported the way that discussion ended up.

But I see that the question now is about a proper target for merging. First, please let me point you to WP:Summary style, because it is important for you to understand that any possible merging does not mean that something the length of the draft page would simply be placed inside an existing article. That is not going to happen. Instead, the most that I can envision is to put about one sentence about practopoiesis into an existing article (and have a redirect from practopoiesis to that existing article). It could be about one sentence, saying that theres is such a theory and very briefly characterizing it, with citations to those sources at the end of the sentence. Now, the question is: which existing article?

I'm afraid that it seems to me that all the good candidates have already been discussed at the AfD, and apparently been rejected. First of all, I would strongly oppose using any page that deals with a very broad topic, such as evolution, because something this specific would not fit there. Here are the pages named at the AfD that seem potentially reasonable to me:

• Autopoiesis
• Reinforcement learning
• Embodied embedded cognition
• Downward causation

Of those, I tend to think that embodied embedded cognition is perhaps the best match. So, I think that you have two options at this time:

1. Put a summary sentence into an existing page, probably embodied embedded cognition.
2. Do nothing, and just leave it in draft space.

I really would not support anything more than that. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that conclusion is also what I too would say. Though actually, I've encouraged an all-of-the-above policy: we should find a place to merge the sentence-or-two. Simultaneously, we can keep the draftspace version around, and as more material is published, User:Dankonikolic can add it to the draftspace version. Eventually, WP:NotJustYet will have become WP:GNG, and in the meantime there is WP:NORUSH.

  As for the merge-target, I personally think that reinforcement-learning is too broad, and not quite on-point. Embodied embedded cognition is *not* too broad, and *is* on-point, but it is more of a philosophy-leaf-article rather than a biology-leaf-article, and the sources at present are bio-type-sources. Adding a sentence to autopoeisis seems fine to me, but I'm not sure about User:Dankonikolic. The question of merging into downward causation was broached at AfD, and was said to be sub-optimal by User:Dankonikolic, for ontological reasons I didn't truly understand.  :-)     p.s. I suggest we change venues to Draft_talk:Practopoiesis unless you'd rather stay here, Tryptofish. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I really do not have anything more to add, either here or there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Dankonikolic already commented over at Draft_talk:Practopoiesis, and suggested Allostasis as a possible biology-leaf-article for the sentence-merge. I've moved their comment below mine, so it sticks out more; I missed it since it was inline. Anyways, I think your assessment of the options before us is correct. Can we ping you, once we've worked out the finalized sentence-or-two, for you to give it a once-over? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good, although I'm not really sold that allostasis is a better target than EEC – but then again, I don't really care that much. Leaving me a message here, and having me check the edit would be fine, and I'll be happy to do it (the main thing being not to oversell it). If I've been helpful with what I said here, then I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Block

Please email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to appeal your block. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Is there no explanation? No link? Is this another secret action? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Based on the GMO arbcom discussion on the workshop talk page, I can only surmise that there was an accidental outing. I have lodged a plea in Tryptofish's favor.[26]. However, he will have to respond to arbcom directly to get unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, his misbehavior on Arb pages was not accidental. Minor4th 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Having interacted for some time with Tryptofish (especially after he helped get me blocked for three months), I have come to believe that things are not as simple or black and white as they seem. While you may genuinely believe he deliberately outed someone (I don't know who since I never saw the edits) he might have thought he was well within policy. I don't know what happened, but surely you realize that there are alternate explanations that don't involve malicious intent. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the context of what Tryptofish actually wrote, I think you are relatively on point Viriditas. They were writing very general to avoid outing at least to a degree, so intent did seem established. It would have been better to email ArbCom directly, but it also could have been made much more specific where one could definitely make claims of purposeful outing. It's not entirely clear why the block happened so long after the redaction with Tryptofish saying a few times it was an oversight on their part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have also expressed my certainty that whatever this was must have been inadvertent and in done in good faith. [27] EEng (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree as well. Tryptofish in his material at the workshop seemed to be going as far as he could to ensure that his submission met the rather legalistic standards of that page. It is more than a little difficult to believe that someone working so hard to conform to the legalistic levels of that page would intentionally act in such low regard elsewhere in the same process, if that was where the behavior, which I have to think was almost certainly an error, probably took place. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• More specifically, User:NativeForeigner, I wish to protest that you would block without a meaningful link. Even with moderate effort searching, I cannot find a reason for this block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's simple, look at this edit history and look at all of the oversighted edits. What the edit contained is at this point known to ArbCom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a large block of such edits between 01:56 and 07:58 on the 13th, although, admittedly, there have been a lot of edits since then which drop them down a bit in the history. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz and John Carter: I notice that the material wasn't redacted until 15 hours after the fact, causing 9 other editors' extensive comments to be redacted as well. Have those 9 editors been informed that all of their edits during that period have been removed and that they need to re-submit them if they are to be used in evidence? Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Also asking this of Guerillero, who seems to have done the revdel/oversighting. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears as though the edits were redacted, but they were all replaced except for the one paragraph containing the very intentional outing in question. petrarchan47คุก 23:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: That's not how revdel/oversight works. Revdel and oversight only remove visibility of the diffs from view; they don't actually remove anything from the page itself. It was Guerillero's revert (i.e. this edit) that actually removed things from the page, not his subsequent revdel/oversight. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So there was a gap of more than 24 hours between Guerillero's redaction and Tryptofish's block. WP:NOTPUNITIVE? Geogene (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks both for explaining that; I hadn't checked the before and after diffs of the whole lot, which would have confirmed what you both said. (I have seen a revdel on ANI which removed thousands of bytes from the page, and it was explained to me as removing all intervening posts between a vandal's two or more widely spaced posts, and yes, everything in-between got removed there.) Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• @NativeForeigner, AGK, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, and Euryalus:@GorillaWarfare, LFaraone, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, and Yunshui: Tryptofish, an intelligent and thoughtful editor of seven years, with no prior block history, has been indefinitely blocked by a member of ArbCom, apparently with the full authority and approval of ArbCom. Tryptofish has a long and commendable history of working with some of the most difficult long-time editors, and has an outstanding history of working in ad hoc dispute resolution. To put it bluntly, Tryptofish has no prior history of assholery. Many members of the community (including myself) are more than a little shocked by Tryptofish's indefinite ArbCom block, and quite understandably would like to comprehend what has happened and why. It would be in everyone's best interests if ArbCom would clarify why Tryptofish was blocked, as well as clarifying the current status of that block. There are many, many long-time, active editors in good standing who will attest to Tryptofish's long-term productivity, usual level-headedness and general good character, and would very much like to do so, if only to ask for leniency and mercy for one of our best. By keeping this matter completely non-public, you deny members of the community that opportunity, regardless of the internal procedures and guidelines upon which you are no doubt relying. You are an elected body, and at some level, you need to be responsive to your electorate. Right now, your electorate would like to be informed, and that seems like a very small and reasonable step under the circumstances. In the absence of an explanation of Tryptofish's indefinite block (and any appeals), some explanation for the lack of openness to date would seem to be appropriate at a minimium. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of being obnoxious, I don't think it's a mystery. It was an ArbCom block, as stated in the block summary. Liz, the ArbCom clerk, has stated the specific cause, above. Tryptofish has called the now oversighted post "my error of judgment", in the thread above titled "Please contact me". Tryptofish is an intelligent person and capable of appealing his block. I think protesting the length of the block is certainly helpful to his case. However I don't think implying that we have no clue about why the block occurred and that we demand a full-on statement is helpful. I recall the same heated vituperations regarding an ArbCom block in recent memory: It wasn't hard to connect the dots, and railing at the admin(s) and ArbCom didn't really produce any further explanation that I recall (although the protests of the block itself produced amnesty for the blockee). Yes, please dispute the length of the block and/or the block itself, and ask for its overturn, but I think breath is wasted demanding an explanation when the sequence of events is pretty clear (except for the privileged information). Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll just note that this block is indefinite, not infinite, and we are not blind to Tryptofish's history, and the context of this. Ideally there will be progress shortly. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@NativeForeigner: A blocking administrator should never simply block an editor in good standing and assume that the community understands why. There is no need to repeat the offending passage, now redacted, but it would have been in keeping with proper disclosure to cite the guidelines and/or policies that were violated. As far as I am aware, there is no special exemption from WP:ADMINACCT for administrators who are also members of ArbCom, nor is it inappropriate or obnoxious for an editor in good standing to ask for an explanation in keeping with ADMINACCT. In that regard, members of ArbCom should set the example for all administrators, and not rely on members of the community to read between the lines, and a brief explanation at this late date would still seem to be required. Especially so, given that this block was apparently implemented with the official assent of ArbCom members (all of whom are also subject to ADMINACCT as administrators).

That said, I am grateful that you "are not blind to Tryptofish's history," because it is an exemplary 7-year history of substantive contributions to the encyclopedia as well as commendable efforts to improve the atmospherics of the community. If Tryptofish committed an "error of judgment," then it should be viewed as an exception in the context of that 7-year history and WP:NOTPUNITIVE. If Tryptofish has acknowledged and understands his error and committed to not repeating it, it is difficult to understand how keeping him indefinitely blocked is preventative in keeping with WP:Blocking policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DL, I know you're angry, but NF and GW have both said "Ideally there will be progress shortly" and "this will hopefully be settled soon". (No one has said they are "keeping him indefinitely blocked".) I think remaining calm and focusing on Tryptofish's positive commitment to the project is what is needed here. Otherwise, I fear being antagonistic may be contrary to all of our goals to see Tryptofish back as soon as possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: No, I am not angry, but you are confusing the issue at hand. A simple, direct and entirely appropriate request has been made per ADMINACCT and it requires a response from the blocking administrator and/or the panel that authorized the block. I would politely request that you permit either NativeForeigner or another authorized ArbCom representative to respond. I have already made my plea for a quick unblock given the exemplary history of Tryptofish. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, while I do clerking duties for the arbitration committee, I was not speaking for the committee in my comment above. This block was not a subject of discussion on the clerks email list which is preoccupied with case request housekeeping, archive matters and posting notices, not editors' behavior. The arbitrators have their own email list to discuss such matters.

I made an observation by simply looking at the page histories of Tryptofish and the GMO Workshop. When an edit is oversighted, there are often consequences for the editor who posted it so I assumed that was the cause of the block. And since only oversighters (which includes ArbCom members) can see the oversighted edit, they know what the content was and it won't be disclosed to the rest of us in any circumstances. That's the standard practice, it's not unique to this situation and I don't have any insider knowledge, I'm sorry if I left that impression. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The block is indeed due to the now-suppressed edits. Given that they were suppressed, I assume it's easy to understand why we are not discussing the contents of the edits more publicly. We are in communication with Tryptofish, and this will hopefully be settled soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Without repeating the words or substance of the redacted edits, I believe that it would be entirely appropriate for the blocking administrator and/or an ArbCom representative to state the guidelines and/or policies that were violated per WP:ADMINACCT. Don't you? No one is banging their anti-admin drum here, only asking for a reasonable explanation which is clearly due per policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize I'm sounding like an admin/ArbCom flunky here, but I don't think they are going to tell us anything further (even Liz implied that). And if you read the edit summary of the oversighted post, and all of the comments on this thread above (including comments by persons who actually saw the post), and the thread above this one titled "Please contact me", it's not hard to figure out what seems to have happened (or possibly borderline happened). At this point, it's up to ArbCom to assess matters and determine the next step(s), and it is not beholden on them to expound on the situation any further, especially when we know so much already, and especially when the information involved is confidential. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please review WP:ADMINACCT: there are no exceptions. As I have noted above, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, no one has requested that the words or even the substance of the redactions be repeated, only that the applicable policies and/or guidelines be cited. It is the obligation of the blocking administrator (or arguably, the panel of administrators in this case) to respond with a substantive explanation. Please allow my ADMINACCT request to stand without further diversion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Once we sort out an issue of understanding related to the oversighted edits he will almost certainly be expeditiously unblocked. I hope this happens quickly, and based on our ongoing communications I believe it will. I think anything said here will neither worsen his situation nor quicken his unblock. And in practice there are some exceptions to it, specifically in the realm of arbcomblocks. In practice we rarely comment on the reason for the block on arbcomblocks or oversightblocks or checkuserblocks (past what the templates suggest). I think given how much has already been stated about the situation one can draw reaosnable conclusions about why we blocked him. Frankly I'd like to see this all resolved and him quickly unblocked and able to edit productively as soon as possible, as soon as a key point is resolved. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am happy a majority consensus that the concerns that led to the block are satisfied has developed. You are unblocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking personally, I thought a strongly worded warning would have sufficed as a clear "don't do this again". So, please, don't do this again. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much Courcelles, and I make note of what you first said before you slightly altered what you said here. I will thank in detail the many kind editors who said such thoughtful things about me here, but I'll need you to please be patient while I get around to it. I am going to comment on some issues about this below. But I'm back, and I'm delighted to be back, and I intend to stay around for quite some time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I nearly forgot to say this: yes of course I will never do that again! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a lesson here for all of us: do not do what Tryptofish did, whatever it was. EEng (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good to see you back, Tryptofish. And, to User:Dirtlawyer1, it is also true that there are other policies exist, and it is certainly possible that WP:ADMINACCT would specifically exclude any actions which might be reasonably considered a breach of other basic policies. I think it is rather obvious, under the circumstances, that the arbs thought some other fundamental policy or policies are involved. And, under certain circumstances, any further information could be seen by some as being more information than the existing policies and guidelines would permit admins to reveal. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Hi, I didn't know you were blocked, on my watchlist I just saw you are unblocked. I don't know reason of your block but nice to see you unblocked. welcome back. Take care. --Human3015^TALK  18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47

@Petrarchan47: you are banned from my user talk page. Do not ever edit my talk page again. And I will never edit your user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement

In the long time that I've been an editor, I wondered what my reaction would be if I were ever blocked. I kind of thought that my reaction would be one of such indignation that I would pull a diva quit, and leave Wikipedia entirely. But that's not how it felt, at least not for me. I often tell other editors to remember that "it's just a website", so if I can say it to them, I can say it to myself. It was really no big deal, and even a little bit interesting (albeit as in "may you live in interesting times"). There are people all over the world who are experiencing truly awful stuff. I'm not one of them.

Dirtlawyer1 has been asking for a simple statement of what policy was involved, and I can answer that. It was WP:OUTING. I've just had a lot of e-mail correspondence with the Arbs about it, and I'm reasonably sure that they and I agree entirely about what happened. There are two things that I do care about. (Well, actually three, and that third one is that I am immensely worried about Jytdog. I fear something awful has happened. And that dwarfs anything concerning me.) But I do care about editors basing their opinions about what I did on facts, not on smears. And I care about process. When Wikipedia does something wrong, we need to face it, and try to fix it, not ignore it. So those two concerns are what drive this statement.

First, I want to be clear that ArbCom indeed never intended "indefinite" to be permanent or even long-term. And I also want to discourage anyone from finding fault with NativeForeigner. If you know what happened behind the scenes, NativeForeigner did not do anything that I think was wrong.

If you read the outing policy, you will have a mental picture of what outing is. You will have a mental picture of what an outing-violating edit looks like. My controversial comment (which, for the technically minded, was suppressed/oversighted, rather than rev-deled) did not look like what I think you would envision. Without going into anything that should not be public, let me set the record straight. Another editor at the ArbCom case presented evidence about something Jytdog had said, that on the face of it, sounds pretty awful. I pointed out that there was a not-obvious reason why it wasn't as bad as it sounded. That's what I was commenting on, not attacking the editor who presented the evidence. However, I did something that I subsequently realized was bad. It was bad, and I accept that it was bad, and I'm not going to make the same mistake again. I'll say in a general way that I put something in the comment that, while it did not out anybody, could have been picked up on as a cue by anyone wanting to out someone. At the time, it simply did not occur to me how someone could have picked up on that cue, but that was my mistake. As soon as I saw the suppression/oversight, I facepalmed myself and immediately realized that I had messed up in a way that I regretted right away. And that's it. Hear me on this: I understand from the e-mail conversations that there is a near-unanimous consensus among the Arbs that I did not intend at the time of the edit to out anyone. I'm going to say that again: the Arbs agree with me that it was not intentional. There have been some theatrics during my block about how I intentionally outed someone, and that's false. I'm a human being (as well as a fish), and I make human mistakes. This was one of them, and one that I will never repeat. Most of the e-mails were about the Arbs checking with me that I understand now that what I did could be harmful, and I do. And I do not find any fault with the Arbs for wanting to clarify this with me. I am quite sincere in saying that I feel badly that the other editor felt harmed. And paradoxically, I've been a long-time harsh critic of doxxing.

I have some serious process concerns that are properly public, and I am going to raise them here. I'm going to paste here something that I said in part of one e-mail that I sent to ArbCom. There's nothing in it about the private stuff, and this is what I wrote, so I am entitled to make it public:

As soon as I saw the redaction, I immediately realized that my earlier understanding was wrong, and I now understand that it was wrong. I said on the Workshop talk page that I realized that I was wrong, and regretted it, and said that I agreed that the redaction was correct. I also said on both the Workshop page and on my user talk page that I apologized for it. From the time that I made the redacted post to the time of the block, 38 hours passed, and I made all those apologies during that time. I made it very clear that I had no intention of continuing or repeating what I had done. So, given that blocks are supposed to be preventative, and given that chronology, I cannot understand what you thought you were preventing. I can appreciate that you would want me to make clear that I understand, but I cannot make sense of the supposed need to block. Why could you not have left a message on my talk page instructing me to e-mail you, and we could have had this same discussion? Why did you think it better to block me first? I have a long track record as a good editor and a friend of ArbCom, and you should have realized that you could have discussed it with me. I really think that you need to justify this, and I think that if you unblock me, the block log entry should clearly convey a message that does not permanently misrepresent me as having done something wrong intentionally. I want it very clear that it was unintentional. I also see that some editors who are parties to the case are casting aspersions on me about the block, on my user talk page and on the Workshop talk page. I urge you to get that under control.

They haven't replied to that, other than the unblock itself. Yes, that's right, 38 hours from my edit until the block, during which time I said three times on-Wiki that I recognized the mistake and would not repeat it. I can piece together from the e-mails why it followed that chronology. GorillaWarfare is someone I like personally and have repeatedly supported in discussions, and she has been entirely gracious during the e-mails. But there is something that she needs to learn from what happened here, and it's kind of a big deal. She saw my edit and recommended to the other Arbs that I should be blocked for it. As you can surmise from where, just above, Courcelles said that he opposed the block and then reworded what he said, I understand that there was something like 30-some hours of dispute among the Arbs about what to do. By which time I had repeatedly stated that I would not do it again, but that seems to have been ignored. And it appears that part of what led to the block decision was that there has been a history of other people, not me, whom ArbCom has had to deal with over outing issues, sometimes really awful stuff, and there was some perception that I had to be blocked like previous users, or else it would look like I had been treated differently. And that, please forgive me, is garbage. This was a punitive block, not a preventative block, and that is a violation of community norms and the blocking policy. There needs to be some serious examination of that unfortunate fact. I've made very clear what I did wrong, and now it's ArbCom's turn.

And another thing. While I was blocked, all you kind friends posted all kinds of stuff here on my talk page, which was nice, but it also had a Streisand effect. If there had instead just been a message here telling me to e-mail ArbCom right away, it would have passed with little notice. The Arbs and I could have had the same discussion, and they quite properly could have ensured that I understood. And the edit could have been suppressed, with much less attention drawn.

So that's what I have to say. I'm not going to do a diva quit. I'm not going to become a hasten-the-day person. I'm going to stick around, and there are some POV-pushers at the ArbCom case who are going to hear from me. And I'm happy to be back!

Paradoxically, I had long planned before this to take a Wiki-break starting tomorrow, to go to the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago, so I'll be gone for about a week. And now, I think it's even better that I give myself a break. But I'm back for the long-run. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's an excellent statement, but then I would expect that from you. My first thoughts were indeed that a warning might suffice. My second thoughts however were that we always block for outing, that suggesting that some editors should be blocked but others could just be given a warning is a bad thing, and that in any case the block would not be permanent I realise you see it differently and so do/will others, but in any case enjoy your break. Breaks are good. Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. With respect, your second thoughts are an admission that blocks are punitive, unless the prevention is preventing criticism of ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller and GorillaWarfare and Guerillero, I am afraid you are very, very much mistaken that we "always block for outing". I'd say fewer than 50% of unintentional "outings" result in blocks. In the case where the user has already recognized the error and it has been corrected, blocks are almost never done. Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases. The overwhelming majority of "outings" are carried out by trolling accounts or accounts with a significant history of behavioural problems, they are intentional, and the editors are often unrepentant. It's not okay to pretend this is an okay block. Tryptofish, who already felt guilty about his actions, may find it was okay, but there are a lot of other observers who find it gravely concerning. I'm one of them. There is NO policy that says anyone who ever makes an edit that could be interpreted as outing shall be blocked indefinitely until arbcom gives royal assent to their unblock. There never has been. Please don't make things up out of whole cloth. Risker (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkstalker says, at the risk of putting words into User:Doug_Weller's mouth, keyword was "always" ... the preventative bit was about preventing-future-outing-incidents-by-users-who-believed-they-might-get-away-with-doing-it-and-not-getting-blocked. In other words, it was not supposed to be punitive to you Tryptofish... *nor* was it supposed to be preventative to you Tryptofish. You apologized, recognized your mistake, et cetera. I'm not saying I agree it was a good block -- mostly because I'm not sure whether it was a good block or not -- but I do see that it was at least quasi-preventative, in the sense that any deterrent is preventative (of future hypothetical behavior by other people). In other words, the arbs blocked you, not to prevent YOU from doing anything, but to prevent other people... watching the GMO case now or just hearing about it years from now... from getting the idea that sometimes outing, if plausibly un-intentional, might not *always* be considered a direct pathway to a block. Again, I don't necessarily agree with this preventative-of-others-in-the-future logic, aka blocks as general-deterrence-sense-three, but figured I would at least point out that there *is* some kind of quasi-preventative idea, tied up with long-term "legal precedent deterrence" and long-term "geopolitrollical considerations deterrence" (for want of a better term), that could (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to the contrary, of course!) be a factor here. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

75, I understand what you are saying, but I reject the premise. By way of an admittedly imperfect analogy, we don't (well, shouldn't) put innocent people in jail in order to frighten people who may be contemplating crime. Nobody volunteers to edit here in order to be used as an example for people who are less constructive than they are, at least not as that kind of example. It's a terrible formula for attrition. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, Tryptofish, in what you say, and even in most of what you imply (imperfect analogy though it is). Only people that are extremely tough-skinned, such as yourself, who understand that It's Just A Website^TM will be able to stick around, in the harsh wiki-culture we are currently living within, slash creating for ourselves. So, first thing, glad you are sticking around. Second thing, as to the premise... (elided 939 words ... lucky I habitually click preview before clicking save) ...find this whole situation, and the wider situation that led to it, depressing albeit not unpredictably so. That being the way things are, I'll refrain from further commenting about this sub-topic of auto-procedural deterrence-blocks; when you get a chance, and have time to return to content (WP:NORUSH as always), I'd still appreciate your advice on whether the practopoeisis sources pass muster as WP:NOTEWORTHY, and if so, on where a paragraph-or-so about it, can best be merged so as to improve the 'pedia. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the brevity of this response; I'm about to go take an exam so I don't have loads of time. You are quite correct that the block was intended to be "indefinite" in the true sense of the term—we wanted to block until the issue was resolved. I also personally agree that I don't think you intentionally violated the outing policy.

Regarding your concerns about why you were blocked and the length of time between the suppressions and the block: violations of the outing policy almost always result in a block. Blocks prevent a person who outs another user onwiki from repeating the comments until we are sure that they understand why their comments were in violation of policy. We did not block you to "punish" you for outing, but rather to ensure we were all on the same page before you resumed editing. The delay was because the block discussion went to the full committee, and required a majority of arbitrators to support. Because of time zones and busy schedules, this unfortunately can make our responses rather sluggish. This is also why there was a delay between your response to our emails and the unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am just going to say that I was the one who OSed the edits and the one who punted the issue up to the full committee. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I know better than virtually anyone else on the project how difficult the arbitrators' responsibilities can be, and how unfair it can sometimes be when they are second-guessed on the basis of limited public information. So all I will say is that this is only the second time this year that I've wished I were still an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: OK, I am really, really not getting what you are implying here. Maybe some clarification about why this case is one which makes you wish you were still an arb? John Carter (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am merely saying that I wish I could have been part of discussing how to handle this incident, and privy to the information involved, because I was as surprised by the block as anyone else who watches this page. More importantly, I'm glad the situation seems to be resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some combined replies: John Carter, I'm pretty sure Brad meant that he would have opposed the block, which is excellent of him, as I would expect. Guerillero, thanks for correcting me about that, and I also apologize that I think I misspelled your user name in one of my e-mails. GorillaWarfare, I hope you do well on your exam, but there's something you, and perhaps Doug and Guerillero, need to hear when you have time. I get it that Arbs are in different time zones and cannot all respond to the e-mail list at the same time. But I'm pretty sure that there is no time zone wherein it is impossible to look at the case pages, and see that I said, repeatedly, that I knew that I had made a mistake and I would not do it again. It's entirely appropriate to block someone who may potentially repeat or continue outing behavior. That's in the best interests of the project. And it's entirely reasonable to block when it is unclear whether the problem will continue, until you can communicate privately and make sure that things are clear. But blocking when you already know that it will not continue, or at least you should have taken the due diligence to know, regardless of your time zone, that's wrong. It's not about prevention. It's about preventing ArbCom from being complained to by the trolls who say that you are treating them unfairly. But you could very easily tell them that you block when there is a problem to prevent, and you don't block when it is not necessary to prevent anything. And I bet by now a lot of Streisand effects are taking place with respect to this talk page, so that's not helping either. I made it very clear that I understand what I did wrong. Instead of circling the wagons, ArbCom might want to try it too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You betcha, Trypto. And I've pretty much decided "not guilty". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a better word for this sort of action would be "procedural" (as in automatic), rather than "preventive". As in: someone does this; this automatically happens. Even then, it's an awful feeling (I imagine) being on the receiving end of that, especially when the action was not intentional or fully conscious, and a retraction, apology, and assurance of non-repetition from an exemplary user was immediately forthcoming. Perhaps ArbCom should indeed rethink the automatic nature of some of these things, even if that seems to be a slippery slope. It's one thing to enforce something automatically; it's another to live with a block log etc. even after a fairly unintentional slip-up. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell, I've been blocked lots of times, for all kinds of trivial shit. The embarrassment wears off real fast. EEng (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But I hear that you really appreciate the relief when you're unblocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be a better euphemism for it, but not a better word. If it ought to be automatic, let's fire ArbCom and install some software. I'm frankly rather stubborn, and I also have a good self-image, but we can lose a lot of good editors if we are not careful. I'm pretty sure that we have lost Jytdog, and frankly I hope that we merely have lost him from Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm probably just getting a little irritable, but I have to say, I'm 59 years old and not a nitwit, and the more I think about it, the more I resent the implication of some of the Arb comments, that I in effect needed to be educated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the problem with blocks like this is the lack of consistency. I know of an editor, now banned, who outed other editors on four separate occasions. ArbCom was made aware of those outings, and did nothing until the editor finally outed yours truly, and then they finally took action. The present ArbCom has different members than the one that I'm referring to, so I'm not necessarily accusing the current Committee of being inconsistent. It's just that WP's administration, in general, is inconsistent. I guess that's one reason not to be too concerned about one's block log, because you might get popped for something that someone else got away with, and vice versa. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, @Cla68: it would be more accurate to say "was accused of outing other editors on four separate occasions". In one instance in that case, for example, they were accused of outing someone who openly linked (and still links) to all sorts of personal private information on their user page. While I take the point that outing has been handled inconsistently by the community and oversighters in the past, the emphasis over the last few years has been on much stricter enforcement. Outing on case pages has never been tolerated (though the remedy for it has sometimes been rolled in the PD).  Roger Davies ^talk 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see a way to take that even further, by concluding that consistency in considering what the specific editor's conduct is is a good thing, but a false consistency that says treat an experienced editor with a good track record (now who could that be?) the exact same way as a dimwitted vandal is going to tend to make a lot of experienced editors leave altogether. But I do agree about not sweating the block log. I'm interested to self-observe that, before this, I felt that it was a big deal, but after, I really don't care. On the other hand, look at how the community regards blocks at RfA. I'm not particularly interested in hat collecting, but if I were, I would feel that this block ruined any chance I previously had at passing an RfA (again, not that I really want to). An interesting side-observation: after posting this statement, I've gotten, privately, some very thoughtful e-mails from individual Arbs, reflecting some serious self-reflection, in a way that I really do not see in public here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, someone who disagrees with you can try to use your block log against you, fairly or not. You would think some established users would be above doing that. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

All that I can say is that I first voted for a warning. I was then told that we, ie the committee, always block for outing when we are aware of it. Procedurally (good word that in this case, I was searching for a word that doesn't mean punitive or preventive) I saw no choice if we weren't going to appear to be showing favouritism. I'm not just sorry but upset if this was wrong and there is precedent for not blocking for outing that we know about. If someone tries to use your block log against you I'm sure that we can make sure no harm comes. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia context, there is never a need to support an action or sanction against someone that seems unnecessary, or disproportionate, or counterproductive, or not to make sense, regardless of any alleged precedent that someone may claim applies. As an arbitrator I observed in decisions that double-standards are demoralizing, but it is equally true that one can err by treating unlike things alike just as much as by treating like things unlike. And an unintentional action is unlike an intentional one, and a regretted comment is unlike a defended one, and an isolated misstep is unlike a frequent one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, though there is a world of difference between different types of outing (which policy acknowledges). These range from accidentally letting confidential slip (ie "Try talking to User:XYZ, they can probably help you. They emailed me the other day to say that they've now been promoted to VP in charge of development at MegaCorp Inc") to invitations to undertake opposition research, which the community at large has always prohibited. The problem in my view is that inconsistent application of policy by ArbCom has, in the past, created more problems for the community than it has solved. Some of these problems have been extreme reluctance to sanction someone who is perceived as a white hat and I can think of many instances of unambiguously prohibited behaviour being glossed over as "doesn't rise to the level of an ArbCom finding", "no, just, no" etc because of fears that tackling it would send the wrong message to the black hats. This short-term approach has brought long-term (and serious) problems for ArbCom, in particular its accelerating politicisation. ArbCom is poorly equipped to handle political maelstroms on any basis other than the strict application of policy. Good content contributions, clean block logs, and so on, should be seen as mitigating factors for the duration of a sanction rather than the basis for dubious exoneration and that, in my view, is appropriate use of discretion.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge, as I did earlier in the thread, that those of us who aren't on the Committee may not have the benefit of all the information relevant to the block. But based on the information that is available, I perceive no basis for thinking that a "political maelstrom," or indeed any other significant consequence, would have occurred if this incident had been handled differently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

By political maelstrom, I was simply observing that both ArbCom cases and ArbCom's role have become incredible political. Though given the incident occurred on a case page, and given it was directed as parties for whom TF has proposed site-bans, and given the prominent warnings about conduct on the case pages (which incidentally TF has used to support his proposals), I'm not convinced that a second individual warning would suffice. For a start, it looks like playing favourites. On this basis, a short block (with an unparticularised rationale) which draws a line under the incident is probably a much better way forward for all concerned than say a FOF (which it merits) and a remedy.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just re-read that, and I realized some things that went right past me when I read it before traveling, but which are apparent to me especially after seeing what Roger Davies wrote to me on the Workshop page while I was away (and to which I have replied also on the Proposed Decision talk page). You seem to be saying that I proposed, in the Workshop, a site ban for Minor4th. I did not. You seem to think that it "was directed", in the sense of making an intentional attack on an editor. That is patently false. It was said in defense of a different editor, and it frustrates me that I cannot cite specifics to show how false that is. When you express doubt that I would have understood an individual warning, that is an insult to my intelligence, and it ignores, yet again, that I had already posted on three different pages (two of them case pages) that I regretted the edit and did not intend to repeat it. As I pointed out at the PD talk page, you said, mistakenly, on the Workshop page, that I proposed FOFs without providing diffs anywhere – when in fact I had said very clearly just above where you posted that comment, that all the diffs were in my section of the Evidence page, which strikes me as a reasonable place to provide evidence. Are you seriously threatening an FOF against me about that? I am becoming increasingly concerned that it may have been you, Roger, who argued the rest of the Committee into blocking me, and that you are doing so in the wake of repeatedly not attending to facts that were readily available to you. I'm a volunteer, and you seem to be sending a message that volunteering to be a filing party in a case, volunteering to spend a huge amount of time amassing diffs, and volunteering to spend a huge amount of time developing workshop proposals, is going to be met by the current members of ArbCom with carelessness about facts and assumption of bad faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, friends, I found to my pleasant surprise that I uncharacteristically got my travel preparations done early, so I have a bit of time to check back here, just briefly. @Risker: thank you very much for what you said above, because I think that it's by far the best comment that anyone has made in this discussion. At one point, you said that I said that this is OK. Actually, that's not the way I really feel about it. What I feel is that I'm grown-up enough not to demand heads on a stake or stuff like that, and I recognize that there is some blame on my part as well as that it is very difficult for the Arbs to do what they have to do – and also that I'm taking the position that I'm just not going to let myself get upset about it. But that does not mean that I think that the majority decision of the Arbs was OK. Risker is right: "Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases." That is the fact of the matter, and ArbCom needs to deal with it. As for playing favorites, that's nonsense (as much as I'm enjoying the implied compliment). The way not to play favorites is to present a clear rationale for each action or declined action. As for inviting some sort of maelstrom, y'all created quite a Streisand effect, which is bizarre for people concerned about privacy. Doug, thank you for saying that you are now upset. Having, myself, acknowledged responsibility for my own errors, I'm looking forward to all involved Arbs doing likewise, and I would have a low opinion of anyone incapable of doing so.

Something ironic occurred to me. Guerillero made a post on the Workshop page the other day, asking me to recommend to him and NativeForeigner how to put diffs into the findings of fact in the PD, and he posted it (irony alert!) while I was blocked. An adverse side-effect of the brief time window between my unblock and my impending travel is that I simply cannot do that. So I figure that will add a couple of hours to the amount of time that the two drafters will have to spend preparing the PD. I'll be enjoying myself at a conference, and you'll be working a few extra hours on something tedious. Perfect karma.

Another thing occurred to me, too. The case pages are chockablock with other editors, not me, posting stuff like editor so-and-so is the same person who also posts at such-and-such blog under this other name. No actions against that (please nobody wikilawyer with me about the relative proximities to real names, I am aware of it, but it does not interest me). Maybe that goes to what Cla said about inconsistency. But most certainly, I realized that it played into my own mind when I made my infamous edit. I was in the middle of so many other editors posting about stuff like that, that it got me thinking that way myself, and that was part of the reason why I failed to see initially the problem with what I had said. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

While there are a lot of good individuals on ArbCom, the current Committee (as a group) is one of the more dysfunctional that I can remember. I think your block was an unfortunate by-product of that dysfunction. In terms of its effect on your good name, if you ever want to run for adminship, let me know and I will happily nominate you (although having my name attached to your RfA might arguably hurt you more than help you...) I think you'd be excellent in that role, and frankly, I think this experience actually makes you more suited to adminship, because you've seen an overhasty, bad block from the receiving end. That's useful context. That said, I can't really imagine why anyone would want to run for adminship these days, so consider this a standing offer but not a push. Have a good meeting. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My attempting to nominate you would probably be counterproductive, but you have my vote at least. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I think you forgot that I said 'if'. And I certainly didn't admit that it was a punitive block. Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Doug, I really do understand that you did not say that you admitted anything, and overall, I was paying you a compliment because you expressed some sympathy to me, and you appear to be talking about some admirable introspection following the block. I'm not entirely sure which "if" you are referring to, but perhaps you mean where you said that you are "not just sorry but upset if this was wrong". I think that ArbCom – and not just you individually, but the Committee as a whole – needs to evaluate where the "if" in that passage really fits. There really isn't an "if" about it, that I can see. It was wrong. That's why, when you said that your "second thoughts however were that we always block for outing", there is a question about whether it was going to prevent anything. If it wasn't preventing something, then ArbCom needs to justify how that would not be punitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Roger, after being away from Wikipedia, as I said here that I would be, I observe that you directed some comments to me on the Workshop page about the need for diffs in the fofs. I cannot respond there, because the Workshop is closed. But I want to make sure that you understand very clearly that I said on the Workshop page that every fof proposal I made was based on my section of the Evidence page, where you will find the diffs, without fail. I said that, and you should have seen it. As for when I was or was not able to provide those diffs on the Workshop page, I want to remind you of where I said, just above:

Guerillero made a post on the Workshop page the other day, asking me to recommend to him and NativeForeigner how to put diffs into the findings of fact in the PD, and he posted it (irony alert!) while I was blocked. An adverse side-effect of the brief time window between my unblock and my impending travel is that I simply cannot do that.

I hope that you, Roger, as well as Guerillero and NativeForeigner are aware of that. You all commented here on my user talk right around that time, so again, you should have seen it.

And, with that, MastCell's kind words to me, referring to what may be some dysfunction on ArbCom, fit with my own concerns about what ArbCom should have seen. I really get the feeling that ArbCom either did not see the three places where I said that I regretted the suppressed comment, or just did not care. Risker is right: "Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases." And, strictly speaking, what I did wasn't really outing so much as WP:BEANS with implications for outing. I've been away, so it's fine that this discussion has paused. But I'm back now, and I'm re-starting the discussion.

I can put it together that when Guerillero informed the rest of the Committee of his suppression of my post, there were differences of opinion among the Arbs who were active at that point in time. Some apparently did not favor a block, and instead wanted a warning, and I say good for them. Others appear to have been under the impression that there is some sort of unwritten rule that punitive blocks for outing are automatically required (and I'm not clear as to what effect, if any, there was from whatever complaint you might have gotten from the other editor). That's really bad, and frankly it's worse than anything that I did. Then there was some sort of discussion dynamic, in which some Arbs may have felt unable to disagree with those advocating for a block, and those opposing the block were unable to sway the decision. That is not as bad as being completely wrong coupled with believing that one is completely right, but it also is a dysfunction of sorts.

I said something just before I went out of town: "Having, myself, acknowledged responsibility for my own errors, I'm looking forward to all involved Arbs doing likewise, and I would have a low opinion of anyone incapable of doing so." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a sinking feeling that ArbCom is going to try to reply with silence, and I hope that I am incorrect. I still look forward to receiving replies here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just sent the following e-mail message to the ArbCom list: "I've made some comments to you at User talk:Tryptofish#Statement, and I'm not confident that the notification system works, so I'm sending this e-mail to, hopefully, make all of you know that you may want to read what I said there, and that you are welcome to comment there. I would like for all members of the Committee to be aware of the discussion (and I think it's better not to draw excess attention to it by posting at the ArbCom talk page, so that's why I'm using e-mail instead). Thanks." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Arb com, and administrators, have two choices: they can act according to iron-clad fixed rules, or they can use discretion. If they act according to bright-line rules, they will inevitably do injustice on occasion; if they act with discretion, they will also inevitably also do injustice, being human and therefore fallible. The reason we use humans, not bots, as administrators and arbitrators, is that we consider the chances of doing substantial injustice lesser with humans. Of course, it does depend on the humans. This is the perennial conflict between law and equity, and different organized bodies have a wide variety of practices in dealing with it.

It is obvious that some of us,including some of us on arb com, are in favor of bright line rules in certain situations. I am never in favor of such rules when they have any punitive aspects. I consider the rules about reversing administrative actions as also very likely to do gross injustice; I am aware they are also necessary to prevent truly damaging actions affecting individuals. I regard cases of it that are not obvious trolling as needing consideration of both the specific details and the underlying background--and to some extent the individual--, and I am therefore never willing to apply them without considering the entire issue. I have thought so increasingly since I have joined arbcom, as I have needed to deal with such matters, and been able seen more closely the ambiguities that can exist in the definition, and consequently the widely different degrees of guilt. To the extent this needs to be dealt with by arb com, I will deal with it as a human. Were I not optimistic about what humans can do, I would not be here. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

DGG, thank you very much for that thoughtful and intelligent comment. I am very grateful for it. I urge other members of ArbCom to consider what DGG said very carefully. Please let me also make it clear that I understand how the sensitive nature of "reversing administrative actions" comes into play here. It does not escape my understanding that ArbCom needs to be careful about not starting a precedent in which blocked users can demand apologies for blocks, because that precedent would lead down a bottomless rabbit-hole. But it also seems to me that I was correct in describing the internal ArbCom discussion about me as being one where Arbs came to it via different views about "bright line rules... when they have any punitive aspects", and some other members of the Committee failed to understand their human limitations in the manner that the community expects of the Committee. I'm optimistic too, however. If I were not, I would have quit Wikipedia in a huff, or I would have figured that I was wasting my time in continuing this discussion if I stayed. I am continuing this discussion, for as long as I think that it takes. If some ArbCom members cannot come to terms with the fact that they need to "consider[] the entire issue", then they are failing to meet the community's expectations for them, and there is a danger that they will continue to do to other editors what they did to me. I'm optimistic that these Arbs will come to learn from what happened and do better in the future, or failing that, that they will not remain in positions of trust for much longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Just wow.

And that aside, I'm very glad to see you're back : ) - jc37 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, there is certainly a lot of "wow" that can be applied to all of this. But nobody is getting rid of me, I can promise you that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it : )

Sooo.... When're you running for arbcom? : ) - jc37 21:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not now. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course not now; the election isn't until next month. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is not a member of ArbCom, but after seeing such excellent works and persuasive arguments may be confused as one. (verify)

(edit conflict) Now, I think it's my turn to say "wow!" In any case, I do expect to play some sort of role in the election, if only via a voter's guide, which this year, perhaps, may carry a bit more weight than usual. It is, however, my observation that candidates who run in the context of protesting a recent action against them by the current Committee always lose pretty badly, and so I do not see much point in putting myself or the rest of the community through that. What I really want to do is to put all of these dramas behind me, and work on some content that I have had zero time to work on, as a result of all these dramas. I hope that, when the PD of the current case gets posted, my faith in the system will be somewhat restored, but at this point I really have no idea what to expect. Maybe it will be Kafkaesque instead. I feel like the message to me, at this point, is that it's a mistake to be a filing party and it's a mistake to spend a lot of time researching evidence and thinking about workshop proposals. After all, my original proposal was simply to enact DS and see how that works. On the other hand, my friend Looie asked for a full case, and as soon as the full case was accepted, he disappeared from the whole thing. I guess he knew something that I did not. And speaking of disappearances, I now realize that all my concerns on behalf of Jytdog were misplaced. Stupid me. But something that I absolutely do not regret is having stood up for the importance of Wikipedia presenting content that actually tells our readers what reliable sources say, instead of what our noisiest editors want to soapbox for. I'm worried that some current Arbs have not figured out how to use an evidence page, and instead are getting swayed by theatrics on the workshop page and, as a result, failing to see the GM forest for the GM trees. I've commented in the case about other editors perhaps being exasperated. At this point, I'm exasperated, but it's not going to make me go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I was expecting more editors to present evidence that are involved in the GMO topics even discounting Jytdog. I'm guessing that speaks to the level of exasperation editors have in this area. It took a ton of my spare time (didn't have much this fall) to just barely keep up with the case, so it wouldn't surprise me if other editors just decided they didn't have the time. I'm just hoping ArbCom realizes how much exasperation has played into this, especially with the overall picture seen at evidence and workshop and which editors primarily showed up. Maybe DS will help alleviate the problem of reluctance to deal with behavior issues at ANI due to those conversations usually resulting in no action (essentially poking the hornet's nest instead of taking care of it). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone else said it much better than I could: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I was too busy IRL to devote a block of time to the research needed to develop useful workshop proposals, or to really follow other related events. When I did have a bit of time toward the end, I looked in and saw - and I forget who I'm plagiarizing here - that it was a great example of "arbitration pages exist for people to demonstrate the behaviors that got them dragged to arbitration". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's true. When I look back at the workshop page now, I am struck by how conspicuously and noisily the POV-pushers lined up to vote (and I mean vote, rather than !vote) for and against proposals according to their POV-pushing agenda. There's a limit to how much one can reasonably try to get WP:The Last Word in against them. That is very much what has been the problem on the GMO pages, and it's very much what led Jytdog to act in the ways for which he has been criticized. Based on the few Workshop comments by Arbs, I have a bad feeling that at least one of the Arbs was swayed more by the theatrics there, than by the evidence on the evidence page, which he may not even have read. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I usually steer clear of Arbcom politics, allowing the sinners, the saints and our elected pharisees to sort their problems without my redundant opinions on the contretemps du jour. That said, someone needs to ask the following questions of all Arbcom candidates in the run-up to next month's election:

(1) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, has the ability to issue a punitive block? If so, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."

(2) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, has the ability to issue a so-called 'procedural' or 'automatic' block without considering the merits of the individual case? If so, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."

(3) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, has the ability to issue any block 24 to 36 hours after the conduct complained of? If so, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."

(4) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, must adhere to the blocking policy and WP:ADMINACCT, and provide a reasonably specific public explanation for any block issued, including relevant policies and guidelines, when requested per ADMINACCT? If not, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."

Easy peasy. Arbcom is an elected body, so let's see what we're buying before we buy it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are excellent questions! And I'm pretty confident that I already know what Brad's answers would be, and I agree with those. But I'd love to hear answers from current members of the Committee! At this point, I'd say that Courcelles and DGG have already, in effect, answered intelligently. And Dougweller has expressed sincerely conflicted feelings about it. But the other current members appear to be expressing either a lack of understanding, or deliberate silence. I realize that they are swamped with the PD and another case request right now, and I'm sympathetic to that. But I'd like them to do better than silence about it, in due time. Above, DGG and I discussed how real human beings make decisions. If the only response from the rest of the Committee is going to be silence, then let's just create a bot that generates silence. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, those aren't the tough questions, I don't think, but here's how I'd answer them: (1) Rarely if ever, but an admin will hardly ever call a block punitive, whether it arguably is so or not, so this doesn't really cut to the heart of "how do you decide whether to block or not?" (2) The "authority" to, probably; whether it's a good idea is a very different question to which I'd usually say no. Personally I've always come down on the "standards" end of the classical "rules vs. standards" spectrum, but de gustibus (for cogent, if historical, criticism of my approach, one can read the old essay here). (3) Yes, but that authority should be used only when it needs to be. If I discover that two days ago, someone replaced a BLP with a picture of an intimate body part, I'm likely to block despite the delay. If I discover that two days ago, someone went to 4RR in an article that's now stable, I would generally let it go with a warning, if that. (4) Yes, unless there are extremely cogent reasons for not doing so, such as a user privacy issue or a RL legal issue (these rationales will rarely apply to blocks of long-time editors). I'll leave "explaining and citing all policies and guidelines" as an exercise for the candidates, though. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is diverting, so I'll play my hand at some answers (but, no, that does not make me a candidate). I'm not really directly answering Dirtlawyer1's questions, so much as providing my take on how to follow-up to what Brad said, placing it more specifically in the context of what happened to me:

1. What is essential is that it should be possible to explain coherently what kind of disruption the block was intended to prevent. If there is no coherent explanation of that, then it was a bad block.
2. There are certain disruptive behaviors that are so bad that blocks are to be expected, of course. But it is absurd to issue a block without considering the facts. It is particularly absurd to issue a block because of fear of being accused of favoritism.
3. Again, it comes down to what is being prevented. If, after a lot of time, there is still a good reason to expect that the user might create further disruption, then a block can be useful. But that changes when the user has already, repeatedly, said that they recognize that they made a mistake and do not intend to make that mistake again. If the user saying that appears believable, then blocking anyway is a bad block.
4. When there are privacy issues, it's reasonable not to comment in ways that draw more attention to those privacy issues, although best practice is to also consider whether the block itself will draw unnecessary attention to something private. However, when there are valid questions unrelated to those privacy issues, administrative silence is an unacceptable tactic to avoid accountability.

I want to add that my saying those things should not be misconstrued as me trying to discount my own mistake. Two wrongs do not make a right. But two wrongs also do not mean that we only look at one of the wrongs. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

one add-on to point 3: We are neither gods nor telepaths. It is impossible to predict to what extent a promise of reform is believable. Trusting blindly to them has the effect of giving preferential treatment to plausible liars, or to people with compulsive behavior, and unfairly negative treatment to people too stubborn or proud to apologize, but who might still not offend again. The present arb com has been somewhat more liberal this year in accepting assurances from previously banned users. Some of these have not turned out well. Obviously the only way to find out is to try, but after a try has failed, and the individual re-banned, how shall we handle a subsequent promise? DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, DGG, although, with each new day that I log on, it saddens me not to have heard from any more of your colleagues. Inevitably, I see this discussion through the narrow lens of my own situation, so that makes me point out that I, individually, am very, very far from being a previously banned user, nor a compulsive liar. I do not think that my specific case was one where what I said lacked believability. I'm both stubborn and proud, but I also very explicitly apologized, and I did so three times during those 38 hours. Given that what I told ArbCom via e-mail was really not different from what I had already said on-site, I don't think that the Committee needed any telepathic skills in order to know that they did not need to block in order to ascertain my intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I really can't and don't disagree with you. Having said that, we have had even sitting admins recently act in a way which might be best described as "unpredictable," and shortly thereafter retire. It can be kind of hard to tell when any individual may have reached some sort of personal breaking point. Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but the number of such unusual incidents can maybe make some people a bit more hesitant to place too much trust in others. Unfortunately. I hope, maybe, certain current cases might be able to help reduce the amount of cheap shots and personal attacks a lot of good editors are subject to, and, maybe, make it easier for those in positions of power and authority to really feel comfortable in extending the trust that they in many, if not most, cases would want to. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying, and again, I very much welcome anything that anyone wants to say. But I still think that, no matter how much other aggravation an Arb is dealing with – and there is no doubt in my mind that the quantity of such aggravation is immense – there is still an expectation from the community that the Arb will not choose to distrust one editor (me) simply because someone else is an unpleasant case. After all, what I told them via e-mail was really the same thing that I had already said three times on-Wiki, so if they didn't trust what I had said on-site, it's not clear to me why they would instead have trusted what I said via e-mail. But I don't really think that it happened that way. I think that they either didn't see my three on-site apologies because they failed to pay attention, or they knew about it but felt for other reasons that they needed to block (ie, to make a point, that they weren't "playing favorites", or to enact some imaginary requirement that blocks are automatic in certain circumstances).

And I think that making anybody retire would be an undesirable result here. My (optimistic) hope would be that, just as I acknowledged that there are certain things that I will not do again because I learned something from this experience, they could do likewise, and then everyone would be better off. Above, DGG talked about editors who are too stubborn or proud to apologize. I'm not even asking for apologies, but with each passing day, I become increasingly concerned that some members of ArbCom are too... what? is it stubborn or proud? or frightened? or too overwhelmed with other responsibilities that they just don't have time to respond to me??... to indicate that they recognize some things were suboptimal practice and they can reassure the community that it won't happen again.

I've gotten e-mails from various individual Arbs, writing as individuals rather than on behalf of the Committee, and of course I am respecting the privacy of what they said to me. But, given speculation here about what they were thinking, I believe that I can describe in a general sort of way some things that I know. I earlier said that I think that some Arbs argued assertively for a block and others just sort of went along. I know from some e-mails that, at that 38-hour time point when the block was made, something that I will describe as "uncertainty" (my word, no one else's) was going on within their mailing list discussions. Maybe it was some of them opposing the block, but I'm speculating there and I do not know. Or maybe it was some of them not being present in the list discussion at that particular moment, so that those who were discussing things at that moment were waiting to hear back, but again, I don't know. But apparently, at that moment, there was some feeling that, if they waited further, it would add another 24 hours (approximately) to the decision process. In other words, 38 hours would have gone on to become something approximately like 62 hours, plus or minus. And the decision to go ahead and block then was partially influenced by a desire not to let it take that much longer. In my opinion, that does not reflect very well on how the decision was made, and it does point to some element of dysfunction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wow", as of now

Although I make mistakes, I try hard to be constructive at Wikipedia, and not to knowingly cause difficulties. I have been waiting (and waiting. and waiting. and waiting.) for the posting of the Proposed Decision in the GMO case, because I know that the drafters have been having a hard time of it, and I wanted to show them some consideration by not raising an additional demand on their attention and time, until they had gotten the PD out of the way. But there are some things that I have wanted – very badly – to say ever since I got back from the conference I went to, which is now several weeks ago. And I have sadly come to the conclusion that waiting any longer is a fool's errand, and that the consideration that I extended was to some extent unearned. So I have some serious things to say now.

First, I want to make it clear again that I am not seeking to deny or to minimize or to distract from my own responsibility. I also do not believe that I should not have been blocked on the basis of my being an experienced editor with a good track record, the so-called "vested contributor" thing. I do not believe in that. Rather, I believe that, given my record, there was good reason to trust me when I had said, three times, that I regretted the edit, knew that it was a mistake, and would not do it again. There was no valid reason to think that I could not be trusted to have meant what I said, and there was no valid reason to have failed to see what I had said, because two of the times I said it was on case pages, and there was no valid reason to trust what I eventually said by email more than what I had already said on-site.

What I said about my own feelings right after the block was accurate. I wasn't particularly disturbed about it, because I expected everything to be discussed and worked out collegially. When I got back from Chicago, however, I was shocked to observe what I commented on here. That is more than objectionable. It is appalling. And more broadly, I am disappointed at how most (not all) of the Arbs have never really bothered to comment in a manner that acknowledges the ways that the block was problematic. It's as if they are doing the Wiki-equivalent of "pleading the fifth", except that this isn't a court whereas administrator accountability does apply.

These things, taken together, have changed how I feel about it. I resent it, and I feel mistreated about it. That has made me feel alienated from Wikipedia, to an extent that surprises and disappoints me. I've been having a feeling of "oh, why bother" with respect to actual page editing, and have pretty much just been commenting on talk pages. So, as of now, I feel differently than I did originally, and not for the better.

So I am going to point again to something that Risker said here earlier...

I am afraid you are very, very much mistaken that we "always block for outing". I'd say fewer than 50% of unintentional "outings" result in blocks. In the case where the user has already recognized the error and it has been corrected, blocks are almost never done. Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases. The overwhelming majority of "outings" are carried out by trolling accounts or accounts with a significant history of behavioural problems, they are intentional, and the editors are often unrepentant. It's not okay to pretend this is an okay block. Tryptofish, who already felt guilty about his actions, may find it was okay, but there are a lot of other observers who find it gravely concerning. I'm one of them. There is NO policy that says anyone who ever makes an edit that could be interpreted as outing shall be blocked indefinitely until arbcom gives royal assent to their unblock. There never has been. Please don't make things up out of whole cloth. Risker (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

...because she has gotten it exactly right about what happened.

I'm looking for something that I can point to in the future, something that I can actually link to and point out, that shows accurately the problems with what happened. Not to deny my own responsibility, but to have a meaningful rebuttal when inevitably the block is "used" against me. And I'm also looking for the Arbs who participated in the decision to block, and who have not already said that they recognize that there were problems, to do simply what they asked of me: to indicate affirmatively that they understand, and that they have learned from it going forward.

So I am saying this now, and I will then wait approximately one day to see if there are any responses. Then, unless there has been a very significant improvement, I am going to begin a not-exactly-RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's note these comments by experienced users together here: [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(Obviously, I've delayed this a bit more because of what is going on at ArbCom, but it's only a brief delay. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

Some new developments

I got an email from Roger Davies, saying that he will reply to me in the near future, so I am eagerly awaiting that.

As for this diff, [33], I want to spell out very clearly what it means in terms of my having been blocked. There is one bit of information that is not disclosed in that diff, that the editor quite reasonably would like to keep private, and she has every right to do so. My edit very briefly referenced that bit of information, and it was appropriate to oversight it. As I have said earlier on this talk page, my edit also included something that was unintentionally WP:BEANSy, and that also was my fault. But I think that if a typical Wikipedia editor were to have seen my edit, the basic take-home message they would have come away with would have been exactly what you see in this diff here, with that private bit of information seeming like a minor sideline (not minor to the editor it concerns, but minor to anyone else). The "big headline", as most editors would see it, is disclosed voluntarily in that diff, so I did not "out" that. I'm not saying any of this to be unkind to the other editor, who is entitled to privacy. But the appearance of an ArbCom block for outing, coupled with the theatrics in #Block above, portray a very different picture of what I did, than what I actually did. And I have every right to make sure that my conduct is not misrepresented. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have had an email exchange with ArbCom, and that discussion may well continue further. However, there is one entirely non-private fact that is now very clear, and I want to make it clear here. When I was blocked, it was Roger Davies who persuaded the rest of the Committee that I should be blocked, and it was he who advanced the idea that blocks for anything related to outing must be made automatically, and that he regards it as having been a punitive block, and he regards the punitive nature of it as being just and correct. He has also stated on-Wiki, at the PD talk page, that he believes that I should have been sanctioned by ArbCom because of those "unclear links" in my Workshop proposals, regardless of what the Guide to Arbitration said at that time (and which he changed today). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy:

• "he who advanced the idea that blocks for anything related to outing must be made automatically" No, I have never said that though for outing and harassment, blocks must absolutely be at the forefront of the mind.
• "he regards it as having been a punitive block" No, I don’t and I have never said that.
• "he regards the punitive nature of it as being just and correct" Again, no, I have never said that or thought it.
• "He has also stated on-Wiki, at the PD talk page, that he believes that I should have been sanctioned by ArbCom"^{{CN}} No, I have not said that either.
• "those "unclear links" in my Workshop proposals"^{{CN}} Nope, I have never mentioned “unclear links” or anything similar.

 Roger Davies ^talk 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's examine that point-by-point.

• If someone else on the Committee said it first, then I accept that someone else said it first. And I actually agree with you that outing-related misconduct ought to be treated with the highest of seriousness. I've never disputed that. But someone must have said that it was necessary for there to always be a block, and that argument persuaded other Arbs to go along with it, per [34]. And we now know that it is not always the case.
• You said in your email to me that I should consider myself lucky that it wasn't worse. That sure sounds punitive to me. And if a block is not preventative, then it is punitive, so why has no one ever given a convincing answer to this question: What was it intended to prevent? Surely, you already knew that I had made it clear that I was not going to do it any more.
• Of course you did not say that, in so many words, but what else am I to conclude from your email to me?
• [35]: You sure seemed to be calling for something, some kind of finding, like that here.
• The words are not yours. They are NativeForeigner's: [36]. And you are definitely referring to something similar in: [37]

What is so sad about this is the way that ArbCom are defending yourselves in such lawyer-y ways. Those were not my exact words. It saddens me, genuinely, to see you retire from the Committee saying these things. No one is on trial here. I'm just asking for recognition that Arbs understand that there was nothing to prevent in the block. It's clear I will not get that. And I'm just asking to be able to have evidence that portrays my own role accurately. And it's clear from what Doug just said that ArbCom is not willing to help me in that way. So I expect that I will have to look elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? You're saying that we are being blindly led about by Roger and don't have minds of our own? That's nonsense. I won't say who first called for you to be blocked, but it wasn't Roger. And I cannot find any evidence he threatened you with sanctions, nor can I find the phrase "unclear links" on the PD talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm upset about the email that I got, and I bet a lot of other editors would be upset if they got an email like that, too. Well, the phrase comes from the PD proposals that were withdrawn. [38] Roger says plainly on the PD talk page that he would have proposed serious findings in the PD. [39] I didn't say that you are mindless, so please don't exaggerate. I said that he persuaded others. I don't know who first raised the block, and I don't expect to know, but it's clear that he was an advocate for it. If others advocated strongly for it, I'd be interested to know, and I don't see it as subject to confidentiality. Are you denying that you, yourself, said earlier on my talk that you and apparently others were initially disinclined to block, but were persuaded to change your minds, and that after the outcry following the block, you were having second thoughts about the way that it happened? [40], [41] Is it your position that the block was intended to prevent something? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to reproduce a paragraph from the email that I sent in reply to ArbCom:

For a very long time, I have been a good member of the editing community, and someone who has time after time been helpful to ArbCom. Whatever it is that has led Roger Davies to feel the way that he does about me, it should not be something that causes a fissure between me and ArbCom. You know well how many users go all around the ArbCom talk pages and the Village Pump and so forth, saying that ArbCom should be torn down and saying all kinds of awful stuff about you folks. Good heavens, the other day I found out about one of you getting a fist waved in your face! I am not one of those editors. I urge you to understand that, and to stop treating me like one. I am deliberately keeping my complaints, except when those ridiculous proposals about me appeared briefly in the PD, only on my user talk, in order to not advertise it all over the Wiki. And I have repeatedly delayed complaining about things, in order to give the drafting Arbs time to work on the PD, even though I wanted to raise these issues sooner. After all, how many editors come back from a block, and say this: [42]? My concerns are valid, and they have been endorsed as valid by experienced members of the community. You would do well not to treat me like some sort of enemy of Wikipedia.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• [W]hat has led Roger Davies to feel the way that he does about me ... As far as I'm concerned you're party to a case who has behaved sub-optimally ...  Roger Davies ^talk 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And you have already made that abundantly clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've had a good night's sleep, and I cannot overstate how much I want to put the entire experience of the GMO case behind me and return to editing content that I enjoy editing, but here's the thing. All I've been asking for, all this long time, is a simple indication that most of the Arbs understand the criticisms that, not just me, but so many experienced editors, have raised about some aspects of the block, and that they understand that they should do better in the future, and also something concrete that I can point to, when inevitably someone tries to "use" the block against me, that will accurately reflect what the reality is. That's not unreasonable, and it's not cranky. But yesterday, I was very upset to receive an email from one of the Arbs, that had a tone of escalating, rather than deescalating, and really came across as very hostile to me. I replied to it yesterday as thoughtfully as I can, and I do not know whether or not I will get a reply to that. I can fairly summarize one part of the email to me as saying that I should consider myself "lucky" (that word is an exact quote) that ArbCom lifted my block at all, implying that I might have remained blocked a much longer time even after emailing them back. Up to now, everything that Arbs have said has indicated that the purpose of the block was to make sure that I would email them back and establish that I really understood exactly what the issues were, and that "indefinite" meant only that, with the block lifted as soon as ArbCom was satisfied that I was on the same page as they. But this latest message seems to me to reflect some dissent from that, and a belief that the block was – and ought to have been – punitive. I cannot see how that is anything other than an abuse of ArbCom's mandate from the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the email in question and it doesn't say that. It does say you were lucky that it was only 24 hours given the sensitivity about harassment. It isn't fair for you to portray it the way you have or to suggest that it was an abuse of our mandate. Outing is one of the most serious forms of harassment. What you wrote was, IMHO, worse than actually naming someone. It wasn't just beansy and could have had more personal consequences than naming. Obviously I'm not going to discuss what you wrote further and I'm sure that you won't. I'll only add that I think most editors would agree that it was blockable. And it was on a case page, making it that much worse. You of course aren't the only editor to have been blocked for outing during the case. I've gone back over the earlier discussion and realise that there was confusion between "always block for outing" and "always block for outing on an ArbCom case page". The former isn't the case, the latter seems to be an accurate reflection of past cases - at least no one seems to have come up with an example contradicting it. Of course you aren't an enemy of Wikipedia. But I think the block was justified and I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Roger isn't the reason for it. Maybe it's time to drop it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug, it is splitting hairs to say that there is a difference between saying that it was lucky that it was only 24 hours, or saying that it was lucky that the block was lifted at all. Either way, it is saying that it was lucky that ArbCom agreed to lift the block after I emailed back saying that I understood what the issues were. In other words, it is telling me that ArbCom would have been justified in leaving the block in place, even after I complied with the stated conditions for lifting the block. So how is that not a punitive block? I keep asking and asking what it was intended to prevent, and all I get is ArbCom digging in, and making wikilawyering excuses like it might have been different if it hadn't been on a case page (as if outing is more OK on some other pages). And you are exaggerating the nature of what I said in the oversighted edit, in ways where I cannot defend myself. (I also didn't say that it was just beansy; I said that it was in part beansy, and that the beansy part was something I should have realized was wrong.) I don't think most editors would agree with you, and neither did this editor. I don't think most editors would agree that a block is acceptable as a matter of process, even when I had already made it clear, on case pages, that I regretted it and would not repeat it. It was a punitive block, and you and your colleagues do yourself no good by digging in deeper. If Roger wasn't the reason for it, he certainly is the one who sent me that email and the one who NativeForeigner said (on the PD talk page) had wanted findings against me in the case. And if it was someone else instead, then it still was someone on ArbCom. I've made it very clear here that I have no intention of denying or minimizing or distracting from my own fault in this. I accept my own responsibility. So please don't make it sound like that. But I maintain that it was a punitive block. You did, after all, say this, and I am not seeing how you plan to deliver on your promise there to "make sure no harm comes." And I'm not asking for heads on a stake. I'm not even posting about it anywhere other than here. I'm just asking that ArbCom acknowledge that you should do better next time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Doug: I don't know what Tryptofish's redacted comment was, but I think it would be eminently reasonable to assume it was not a malicious attempt to out someone. W/r/t whether or not arbcom always blocks for cases of outing that occur on arbcom pages, although I don't have a diff offhand, I can assure you that this historically has not been universal practice. When dealing with the Wiki-PR situation I explicitly outed the founders of the firm multiple times, including in how I worded my community ban (which is now both ensconced in our cban list, and was included in a C&D sent by the WMF,) and at least twice on arbcom pages - I was never blocked for it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Kevin Gorman: While that was a very different situation (especially as WMF Legal were involved and acquiescent), you seem to have a very laisser-faire approach to the principle of anonymity and the protection it affords against intimidation and chilling effects. Is this right? I know that you are interested in what Danielle Citron had to say in her Keynote on the subject because you suggested arbitrators watch her talk and act on it. (I also bought the book.) Prof Citron regards anonymity as essential in online space to prevent the silencing of victims and to secure the necessary preconditions for victims' free expression.["Hate Crimes in Cyberspace", p 28]. In the light of this, would you agree that Wiki-PR was an honorable exception to WP:HARASS or do you think we should adopt similarly relaxed approaches in, for instance, situations where a woman is the target?  Roger Davies ^talk 21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually Roger, WMF Legal was not yet involved when I began to publicly connect the real names of the founders of Wiki-PR with specific user accounts that they had used, including on arb pages. I don't know what I've said that leads you to believe I have a laissez faire approach to the protection anonymity affords against intimidation and chilling effects experienced by victims of harrassment. Someone made a claim that they were unaware of any situation where engaging in outing on an arbcom page had not resulted in a block; I simply offered evidence that at least one such situation had already occurred. I agree whole-heartedly that Wiki-PR was an extremely unusual situation that is not the kind of thing that is likely to occur often, but it occurred which means the suggestion that outing on arbcom pages always necessarily results in a block is not true. Coincidentally, Danielle Citron's work is responsible for a majority of laws regarding revenge porn that have passed in the United States, and since these laws necessarily involve stripping away the mask of anonymity, I'm sure she'd agree with me that situations involving the potential violation of anonymity should be individually evaluated rather than any categorical rule about them formed (which is in line with WP:OUTING, btw. Even if Keilana hadn't publicly disclosed her first name to be Emily, if I non-maliciously referred to her as Em in a conversation on-wiki, outing would not call for my punishment.) I've made multiple outing blocks myself, and can't think of a situation where I've argued we should take anything approaching a laissez faire approach to outing. (The closest I can think of is the situation involving RO yesterday, where the extent of my argument was that if RO wasn't being actively disruptive it was inappropriate to indef her in the middle of a thread. I received emails from multiple people in the thread about previous incidents that had me considering taking action under WP:OUTING once the thread had closed, but since I so no immediate danger of anyone being outed, saw no reason to block her during the thread. I'm not sure what RO's last post was since it was oversighted before I read it, but Godot (whose images are absolutely stunning) has revealed enough information about himself on-wiki that even if she explicitly outed him, I doubt he suffered harm in the extremely brief period of time her post was up, whatever it contained - he seemed more concerned just about false accusations (though I had explicitly warned her not to out him, and had a discussion with her where I concluded by the end, I think fairly reasonably, that it was unlikely that she would.) Similarly, you're surely aware that since I am not +OS I have no idea what the contents of Trypto's post was, but from the contents of this thread and my past interactions with him am extremely dubious that it was deliberate outing (which is the only situation where an automatic block should be called for, barring exigent Wiki-PR type circumstances.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe Kevin's point was that ArbCom does not have an actual history of automatic blocks for posts on case pages. But apparently now, I am implicitly being compared to people who silence victims. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

All outing involves victimization to some degree or another,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. I always have. But it is not necessarily always to the same degree, and intent matters a lot. You seem to think that I did it intentionally, even though GorillaWarfare's email to me at the time stated that she thought there was a consensus on the Committee that I had not done it intentionally. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And something else. I cannot spell it out here, but in my email reply to ArbCom, I pointed out some things that I did or did not know, and that I only found out from Roger's email to me. There is some assumption of bad faith in assuming that I was aware of things that I wasn't, in fact, aware of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the thing here is that if, for instance, someone draws a road map, one expects them to know where it leads.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have fully acknowledged that I should not have done that thing that I will vaguely describe as beansy. I've said that all along. I cannot say more, but I hope that you have read my email reply, and I hope that you will assume good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, Kevin! I, of course, am familiar with what my comment was, and although I deeply, deeply regret it, I can honestly say that Doug's characterization of it just above was about as truthful as his claim that ArbCom has always blocked for outing on case pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin's "outing" was (a) of an editor who had been indeffed months earlier; (b) not on a case page; (c) not part of case; and (d) not part of a dispute with the person outed. Plus, I don't think it was picked up at the time. Apples and oranges.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what happened with Kevin. But I assume that he was telling the truth when he said that he did it twice on case pages, and I would think that it would follow that it occurred during a case. I appreciate that an indeffed user is a much different case than an editor in good standing, but surely if one believes in the importance of privacy, then an indeffed person can still be harmed by outing. And when you talk about these things, you are presenting it in terms of something where there must be punishment, rather than prevention. It's like you are implying that, if the harm is greater than a certain level, then there ought to be a punitive block whether or not it is preventative, but if the harm is lesser, then not. You are categorizing it in terms of how much you abhor it (and I do not find fault at all with you abhorring it!), rather than in terms of protecting the project by taking care that it will not happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin: I just want to pin this down for sure. You made two of those outing edits on case pages, during a case – that is correct, isn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually... now that I think about it I've probably intentionally violated outing on arb pages - but not to my memory during a case - in more than two edits. From memory, one set of such edits occurred after the ban of Phil Sandifer was announced for outing Cla68 off-wiki, in the clerk started thread about the decision. Cla68 hasn't been careful about hiding his identity, to the point of allowing his real-life identity to mentioned on a WPO blog post (and he's involved enough in WPO that if he didn't want his name mentioned it wouldn't have been) and having various diffs in his editing history (which I don't feel like digging up at this point) that 99.8% identified himself - and has been blocked for on-wiki outing previously, as well as having engaged in WPO shenanigans. It seemed like an utterly bad decision to indef ban someone who had brought up valuable contribution of Wikipedia for outing offsite someone who has never taken any great pains to hide his identity, so I (in an admittedly WP:POINTy move) explicitly outed the founders of Wiki PR including tying one of their names to an account that he had personally operated, and asking if Phil deserved an indef for outing someone who both had not hidden his real identity and had gotten a much shorter outing block himself what did I deserve for doing fairly extensive off-wiki research to out someone who to the best of my knowledge, whatever else you can say about him, had never outed a WP editor. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No splitting hairs, no one intended it to be permanent. I also don't think a recent email can change the nature of the block. My characterisation of blocking for outing was "the latter seems to be an accurate reflection of past cases - at least no one seems to have come up with an example contradicting it." Now Kevin says he has, but no examples came up during our discussion on the list. I'm disappointed that you think that I'm being untruthful (which means I'm lying) in my description - that makes it very hard to have a good faith discussion with you. I didn't say it was malicious because I can't read your motivation, but not being malicious doesn't make it excusable. I think that anyone who posts what you did should expect a block. No, I don't think it's now possible to make sure no harm comes. The more you write about it the more attention it gets. At the time I assumed you'd just drop it and move on. Doug Weller (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Doug: On second thought, you are right that I should not have used the word "truthful". I should probably have said "correct" or something like that. I apologize to you for that. This is a heated discussion, but I own my mistakes when I make mistakes. It saddens me that ArbCom does not do likewise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very clear. You and Roger, and maybe others, consider me someone who should be punished, in part because I have continued to criticize ArbCom's bad performance. It would have been so easy to have a good reason to drop it weeks ago, if ArbCom had simply responded appropriately back then. It really would have been no big deal. Just admit that Risker, for example, had made a good point, [43] and say so. It wouldn't have been difficult at all. I was ready to drop it in that case. But I came back from Chicago to see Roger saying what he just affirmed here, and I rightfully expressed concern. And since then, all I am seeing from ArbCom is doubling down, demonizing me for my attempts to be helpful in the GMO case, even to the point where the final decision is probably going to be suboptimal as a result, sending me emails that escalate the situation, and twisting yourselves into all manner of wikilawyering to try to justify what you did. The message is that the present ArbCom does not tolerate criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been my experience, I'm afraid, that almost all the parties to all our cases regard their own actions as helpful and those of their opponents as unhelpful. It's the nature of an adversarial process ....  Roger Davies ^talk 21:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, and I agree. But not all parties come with the same intentions of good faith. Whether you believe me or not, I made my redacted edit in good faith. It was stupid, but it was not intentionally stupid. Similarly, my participation in the Workshop has been in good faith. And it doesn't change the fact that it would have been so much easier for all of you to have settled these concerns many weeks ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it a bit interesting that a long-time sitting arbitrator would describe arbcom as an adversarial process, when it's original mandate was far closer to an inquisitorial system than an adversarial one, and I suspect that if processes were revamped to make it resemble something closer to an inquisitorial than adversarial system, the amount of drama involved in arbcom proceedings would significantly decrease. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The committee's role is inquisitorial, but the parties' relationship is adversarial. (Evidence. Rebuttal etc) There's really no way round that, unless you forbid the parties from commenting on each other at all (which is scarcely conducive to getting at the facts). Inevitably, things often get out of hand and we don't really have the resources to keep things in check. This is why there's extensive and active discussion of abolishing the workshops altogether, as that's usually where things get heated.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can understand that it is adversarial in terms of one party in relation to another party. But when the Arbs are adversarial to parties, as they have been throughout the GMO case in ways that have shifted from day to day, that's a problem. And the problem is worse, when as in my case, that party is a filing party trying to present a balanced view of the case as a whole, however imperfectly I did it, as opposed to a party who is a combatant in the dispute. And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with whether blocking me was punitive or preventative. But I'll say something further about the case. As I've said repeatedly, I did not want a full case, just DS. When I went into it, I was very much motivated by the history of me trying to sort of mentor Jytdog, seeing him as a talented and very promising editor, but one whom I repeatedly advised to be more careful about his conduct. He disappeared just as the case opened, and I didn't know why. I worried very deeply that something bad had happened to him. So I spent way too many of my allotted diffs on the Evidence page trying to prevent him from being site-banned. And consequently, I didn't have enough diffs to really document what other editors did (and I failed to think of asking for an extension). And boy, was my good faith misplaced! He completely failed to earn the consideration I extended to him. But I figured it was more important to prevent overly harsh sanctions than to obtain harsh enough sanctions for other editors. So look what happens. I get called what Roger has said about me because I didn't have enough diffs where, in hindsight, I needed them, and too many where, in hindsight, I didn't need them. I wish I never got sucked into the case to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking just once more: in context, what was it that made the block preventative? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It prevented further incidents until we'd established that you were fully aware of the policy and were satisfied you were not going to repeat the behavior.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that, in principle, is exactly what blocks are supposed to be for. But, in context, 38 hours had passed without any repeats. There was no reason to conclude that I was repeating the behavior. But what did happen during those 38 hours is that I apologized on three different pages, two of which were case pages where someone on ArbCom should have seen it. During the block, what was asked of me was that I email ArbCom and satisfy you of just what you said here, and I did that. But what I said via email was essentially the same thing as what I had said in my three apologies before the block. So I do not really believe that you found out anything from that email that you did not already know before the block. And, again, your email to me yesterday said that I should consider myself lucky that the block did not last longer, which appears to be unrelated to the time that I sent the email to ArbCom. So, taking all of that together, it is not really believable that my email to you during the block allowed you to "establish" anything that you did not know before the block. So, in context, I'm still not seeing what you were trying to prevent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Roger, it strains credulity to suggest that you didn't think Trypto was fully aware of the policy, or to suggest he would repeat an incidental outing once he had realized what he had done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly he wasn't fully aware of the policy (or at least was aware and misinterpreted it). Anyhow, the incident is more complicated than that.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No that's wrong, and you answered Kevin without answering me. I exerted bad judgment when I made the edit, and I deeply regret that. (You have a Principle on the PD page, that says in part that editors are expected to make occasional mistakes, and there was no repeat pattern with me.) But after I had made the edit, I realized the mistake that I had made, and I understood it fully. I understood it fully, prior to the block. And ArbCom knew that, prior to the block, or should have. In terms of demonstrating that I understood, you did not really learn more from my email to the Committee while I was blocked, than what you should have realized from what I said in three places, two of them case pages, prior to the block. And I did not really learn anything more from ArbCom during the block than what I knew before the block. Those are facts. (I expressed questions about why I had been blocked, but those were not questions about why what I had done was wrong.) You did not prevent anything, and you did not educate me about anything. So again, how was that preventative? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In brief, by the time the block was enacted (and in fact well before that), I was fully aware of the policy and understood it correctly. And ArbCom had every reason to know that. That's before the block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to think of anything else it could be. I realize that what I said via email went into more details than what I said on-site in my three apologies. But that was because, by the time I made those apologies, I realized that I must not go into the details that I said in the email. It wasn't because I didn't understand. And let me remind ArbCom of something else. If you look back at the chronology of the emails during the block, my first communications were with NativeForeigner, before my messages to the list went through. He told me the general situation, but said that I should wait for the "official" message that eventually came from GorillaWarfare, to explain the exact details of why the block was made. I got concerned about waiting, and I hope that you all remember that I went ahead and sent an email along the lines of: "I'm pretty sure this is what you are asking me to clarify, and here is my understanding of why my edit was wrong." That email went to the Committee before I exchanged emails with GorillaWarfare, and that email was the reason cited for unblocking me. So that demonstrates that I did, indeed, understand policy correctly before anyone from ArbCom had to explain it to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for discussing these things with me now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So as not to lose the thread of the discussion, I repeat the question. Considering what I have explained here, and in that context, what was preventative about the block? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm

I could do with asking you a question privately. If you are open to this, please ping me, guy@chapmancentral.co.uk. Ta everso. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Right now, I'm kind of e-mailed out, if you know what I mean. And I'm in the middle of preparing for my trip. Can it wait til I get back?

To everyone, I'm about to be away for about a week. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Have a great trip and a great conference! Don't let them, er, practice on you. :-) Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it might do me some good! --Tryptofish (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back. At the conference, could you be on the look out for research focusing on the link between gut microbes and the brain, and report back with anything you find? After reading Rabid: A Cultural History of the World's Most Diabolical Virus (2012), I'm completely obsessed by this topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: here is the relevant abstract from the conference. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just spent the last several hours going through the online search engine for presentations, and preparing my itinerary, and my time is going to be pretty much filled already (I have very specific research interests of my own, and they don't necessarily overlap with what I edit here), but I'll read those sources and tell you what I think when I get back. I'm quite convinced that there is indeed an important new research topic opening up about the microbiome and the brain (in fact, the microbiome and pretty much the whole body). You may not be what you eat, but you are what colonizes you, or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What's so amazing about this is that it's a case study of what was previously considered fringe science breaking through to the mainstream. From a history of science perspective, I'm curious about how this phase change occurred. Was it the weight of the evidence or did the naysayers eventually disappear? FYI... if anyone wants to help develop this topic, the article is called gut–brain axis. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting; I never knew there was an on-wiki article about this. How did it go mainstream? I always find it helpful to blame the gluten-free mafia for anything in life. They carried everything gut-related (including microbes & mood, leaky gut [syndrome], etc.) with them as the mainstream world started more and more to revolve around (avoiding) that horrible dreadful gluten. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, I LOL'ed when I read your observation about that phase change. Touché! But the answer is that serious scientists, working in the realm of peer-reviewed experiments, are finding results that strongly support the existence of microbiome effects. That's what scientist do. When the empirical evidence supports a conclusion, they go where the evidence goes. And when it doesn't, they don't. When they have studied the microbiome, they got positive results. Likewise for climate change. When they studied vaccines and autism, or GMO foods and health effects, they didn't. Ideology stays out of the picture (at least when the system works properly). See you all in a week! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

glad your back, we might have something in common, email me if you want...... (Jytdog's still out,not sure till when?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes, that does seem to eb the case. Of course, for every one case like this there are a gazillion where the naysayers are right, the proponents of some new hypothetical thing are wrong, and the quacks and charlatans are off and running :-) Guy (Help!) 22:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm going to mix together a disparate bunch of replies to the disparate bunch of comments in "Hmmm", in no particular order.

I appreciate the various requests about e-mailing, but at the moment, I'm not going to e-mail anyone back. But that's not a snub. It's just that I am very parsimonious about Wikipedia communication off-Wiki. Partly, it's because I believe in transparency, and mostly, it's because I am extremely cautious about privacy matters (opinions of ArbCom notwithstanding). I recently had a lot of e-mails with ArbCom, but that was for a special reason, of course. And I went against my usual practice, and sent an e-mail to Jytdog, because I was extremely worried about him. (Which turned out to be unwarranted, and frankly I feel a bit misused.) But anyway, no e-mails going out from me right now.

Viriditas and the IP editor, I'll get back to you soon about the neuroscience-related questions, so thanks for your patience in the meantime. But I can report back a few WP-ish things from the meeting in Chicago, so I want to pass those along here. (Actually, first, I'll pass along something utterly worthless. Each day, I took a shuttle bus between my hotel and the convention center. It passed a construction site, where there were portable toilets. Those had a logo that read: "Oui-oui Enterprises". Yes, I know, that's a piss-poor pun. Stranger than fiction, and yuckier too.)

OK, back to business. Every year, the convention has a section called "Publishers' Row", where publishers of scientific books and journals display their wares. I went through it, looking in part for anything Wiki-useful. Viriditas, I specifically looked to see if there are any new books coming out about the microbiome and the nervous system, and there was nothing. And I am certain that there are plenty of folks eager to jump on that wagon when the time comes. But, as a measure of secondary (verging on tertiary) sources, that time isn't yet. So I think that has some bearing on where the topic is at, currently, in terms of secondary sources not yet considering it to be established. (The actual scientific content at this kind of meeting is primary sourcing in the extreme, which makes it incredibly interesting for professionals like me. It's almost entirely material that hasn't yet been published, or peer-reviewed, but simply at the point where the investigators are ready to seek peer feedback. I love it, but it requires critical thinking. An example: I was looking at a poster on a topic that interests me (general topic area of opioids and pain), and I noticed something kind of funny about the poster next to the one that interested me. In the program listing (prepared a few months before the actual meeting), the title began: "Sex differences in...". In the actual poster, that title had changed to: "No sex differences in...". Yes, I know that makes scientists look a little shady. But it would actually have been shady if they had not corrected their report. Anyway, it's preliminary stuff.)

Oh, but EEng, I did come up with something from Publishers' Row! There's a scholarly book out, about that person with the iron rod in his skull (actually about more broad stuff too, going into trephinning and phrenology), by an author who is not currently cited on the page. And I can even get you a big post-meeting discount if you want to buy it (which I didn't). When I get my notes out in another day or so, I'll post about it on the article talk page. Until then... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

On the sex differences title, it sounds to me like the ever common plague us scientists face of needing to figure out what your talk or poster is going to cover before knowing what the results actually will be (i.e. abstract deadlines). I had one meeting recently that wanted us to submit almost a full year in advance. We could edit abstracts a bit later at least, but that was probably the blandest "Stuff about X" title I've ever put on something. It probably sounded like a grade-school science fair project title, but I don't like predicting results in titles especially. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, although I think it's something that scientists, collectively, need to do a better job of explaining to the lay public. It happens all the time, and the time delay between the abstract deadline and the actual presentation date is a problem. (Frankly, I think that the delays in getting anything scientific published are pathetically antiquated, but that's a rant from me for another day. Wikipedia does peer review better than professional science does, and Wikipedia sure beats the competition in terms of seeing one's writing right away, pending changes notwithstanding.) I'm sure what happened here (but I did not look beyond the title) is that, this spring, they were getting some intriguing results that looked like sex differences, and they wanted to present it. Then, over the summer, the results did not hold up. But I found the way that the title changed pretty funny, so I figured I would pass it along here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Brains and bugs

I'm making a subsection here to talk about the questions Viriditas asked me about the microbiome and the nervous system. I just put gut–brain axis (a page title I dislike, but that's another conversation) on my watchlist, but it's actually not the same thing. There are non-microbial signaling systems including leptin, ghrelin, and a bigillion (that's the exact number) others, whereby the gut influences the brain. But where the microbes really come into play is at the page we have on microbiota, and particularly microbiota#Effects on cognition. The Nature source, [44], is an excellent source for Wikipedia's purposes. I didn't have time to look at poster presentations at the SfN meeting, but abstracts like the one you cited, [45], as well as [46], need to be understood, at least for Wikipedia purposes, in the same context as what I said about the abstract that changed from "Sex differences in..." to "No sex differences in...". This is still a new field of scientific study, but the Nature review is an ideal source, particularly if anyone wants to add to the microbiota page. I can also point out that the rabies virus is, of course, a pathogen (and not particularly associated with the gut, although it certainly spreads via saliva), whereas most microbiota are present naturally in healthy people. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I brought up the rabies virus as a relevant analogue because it's classified as a microbe, and the research on microbiota in question is classified under the subtopic of "microbes and the brain". The Nature link I provided even makes this analogy: "Microbes and the brain have rarely been thought to interact except in instances when pathogens penetrate the blood–brain barrier — the cellular fortress protecting the brain against infection and inflammation. When they do, they can have strong effects: the virus that causes rabies elicits aggression, agitation and even a fear of water. But for decades, the vast majority of the body's natural array of microbes was largely uncharacterized, and the idea that it could influence neurobiology was hardly considered mainstream. That is slowly changing." Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Oh, and on another neurobiological point, woops. I said earlier that I thought that I found a new book about Mr. Gage. Sorry, EEng. When I got my notes out, I looked more carefully, and... woops. Here's what I saw at the meeting: [47]. You can see how the title threw me, but I see now that poor Phineas is nowhere in the index. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking some more about the idea of rabies relative to the newer scientific findings, and something more occurred to me. Rabies causes the behavioral changes because it damages neurons in the brain, as is expected for a pathogen. What is remarkable and even revolutionary about the most recent science is that, instead, we are talking about microbes that are, loosely speaking, providing a "nutritive" function, in that they help with the development and maintenance of those neurons. One can think of the rabies virus as a parasite, whereas the new science is coming to realize that microorganisms that were previously regarded as commensal are actually mutualistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Something to sink your teeth into - unless you are an agnatha

A photo of me, Tryptofish – my barque is worse than my byte. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trypto. I have been following your responses and reactions to the ArbCom case. You seem to be wanting to return to some main-stream editing. I am sure you have 101 zillion projects you want to get involved in, but I thought I would suggest another. There is some interesting discussions going on at the Pain in fish article. If you fancy it, come over and join us. Your contributions, as ever, would be much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the irony: pain in [T]-fish! You know what I really want: less pain! I half-way saw what's happening there already, in fact. Anyway, thanks for asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just found out that your name possibly means "stone-licker" and you have only one nostril - that's not to be sneezed at!DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been called worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for fixing my user page! I really appreciate no longer being known as the Tory from New Hampshire, when i'm really a Patriot from Connecticut! SageRad (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Amazing what a little colon (the punctuation mark, not the intestine) will do. Wikipedia is chock full of little tricks like this. Same thing with templates, if you want to link to a template but don't want to actually put the template in your edit. (And I'm really a fish from parts unknown.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

EPA uses Monsanto-funded research to determine safety

What do you think of this investigative journalism? Surely, scientific research is supposed to be independent and impartial? Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good and timely (in terms of Wiki-drama) question, so I'm going to try to give it a thoughtful if lengthy answer.

How I think that Wikipedia should treat it: This being Wikipedia, and Tryptofish not being a reliable source, my opinion about how Wikipedia might report it is altogether different than my personal opinion on the subject. I'd be inclined to say something along the lines of: "A June 2015 analysis by the US Environmental Protection Agency of studies about the safety of glyphosate concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be an endocrine disruptor.(sourced to the EPA report) However, according to The Intercept, (and I think it's particularly important to link the attribution to the page about the source, so that readers can judge for themselves what they think of the source) 27 of the 32 studies analyzed in the report received funding from companies that sell glyphosate-related products. (sourced to that source)" I wouldn't want Wikipedia to go much beyond it than that.

My personal opinion: Should scientific research be "independent and impartial"? Hell, yes! And the search for money to support scientific research in the present-day US is awful, and particularly awful for the scientists. There has been a big problem with medical researchers taking money from the companies that sell the medicines that the researchers are evaluating, and I am pleased by recent trends in which scientists are required to disclose their conflicts of interest. When I was a professor, my university required me to sign a form every year, in which I had to list all sources of research funding and (nonexistent, for me) outside sources of income, and reveal any possible way I could think of that it would present a COI for me, and the forms were kept on file in case of a subsequent controversy. Personally, I never had industry funding, but that was mainly because my research was too basic to interest them. I have a very good friend whose lab was down the hall from mine, and his research was about nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Because of the nicotine connection, he had some support from a tobacco industry organization (along with grants from the National Institutes of Health and a private foundation that did not have an agenda). He would joke about how, if they thought he would use the money to publish something that would reflect well on tobacco, they would be disappointed. One of my favorite anecdotes (except I cannot remember the person's name) is of an MIT professor who got funding from the Koch brothers, and used the funding to perform an analysis that concluded that climate change is human-caused and real. (I assume the Kochs did not provide further money.) What I'm saying is that most scientists do not go into the line of work because they want to be corrupted. But, when money is scarce and on the line, corruption is a real danger, and a serious one.

Another serious issue is what science does get published and what science never gets published, and I think that could play a significant role here. Do a study, get an interesting result, and a scientific journal will be willing to publish it. Get a valid, but uninteresting, result, and you'll have trouble getting it published. And that's wrong. (Consider a medical researcher studying a new medicine, and finding that it doesn't work well. That needs to be published, but until very recently, it never would be.) Here, I tend to think, however, that this bias might have worked the other way. Anyone getting evidence that glyphosate was an endocrine disruptor would probably have a better chance of getting it published than the studies here.

Should we have a structure in which most scientists need to turn to industry to fund their research? No! The wonderful (said sarcastically) US Congress is incapable of a lot of things, but one of their many failures is the lack of anything remotely near to sufficient funding for scientific research. So what is a university researcher to do? You need money to do the research, you need to do the research in order to have a career, and you end up looking for money where you can find it. I recently read about Charles Darwin, about how he was wealthy enough to have a magnificent estate from which he could work on his theories at leisure, and I'm very jealous. I'm glad I'm out of it now. The public has every right to be skeptical of science that is industry-funded, and the system is broken. But that doesn't tell me that the glyphosate studies actually were flawed, and it doesn't tell me that they were flawless. I don't and cannot know. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There are unique things when you get into university agriculture research. The point of professors at land-grant universities is partly to do independent quality-control for the public in agriculture and finding ways to get new science out to farmers. That's a service to the public, but it is also a service to industry. They basically bridge the gap. Industry funding in this case is not a symptom of lack of funding us scientists often deal with, but an intentional role of university researchers. Industry funding is expected for researchers doing things like comparing efficacy of different pesticides from different companies. That's not because it's like paying for a lawyer to represent your (the industry) point of view, but more like paying court fees that pay for the judge. Industry needs to have someone to independently validate products for different reasons, and that's going to cost money no matter who does it.

What a lot of people not close to areas where this kind of research goes on don't realize is that bought for results just don't work. If someone actually is just paid off by industry for results, the company usually won't deal with that researcher anymore because they don't know if they have a good product they can claim efficacy on. Then you've got the issue of liability if something goes wrong with that product in the future (i.e., failure and bad rep from that or damages directly from the product). That's all just with one company. Once other companies hear that someone purposely biases results, they know the researcher isn't trustworthy for actually showing they have a better/as good product as other companies. You basically have no career as a university researcher if that happens.

I can go down the hall and talk to people that have had to tell companies quite a few times they had a crappy product from an industry-funded study. They still have the same companies coming to them to do more testing because the companies expect to hear about bad results as much as they do with good results. One even got a request for an evaluation four times as large when they showed very negative results the previous year.The company specifically said the larger request was because the researcher was so rigorous that they found something the company missed. As you somewhat alluded to Trypto, everything working like the industry wants is almost the equivalent of negative results for us researchers. Finding an issue gets us excited to publish, and that runs contrary to the view that problematic research for industry is swept under the rug. I can't speak for the pharmaceutical industry, but those in the agricultural industry have a good history of knowing they're losing one of their few potential sources of support (when warranted) if they started thinking they could just pay a researcher for results. That's why I always caution people that have knee-jerk reactions about industry funding equating to research that always supports industry. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really very interesting to me, and I learned a lot that I did not know before, because my experiences in academia were about as far away from that as can be. I was unaware about that aspect of academic culture at land-grant agricultural schools. It is, indeed, different from that at universities like where I was, where the attitude tends to be that NIH (or maybe NSF) support counts for the most. Partly, that's because university administrators care so much about indirect costs (overhead), that other sources of funding usually don't include. (Explanation: direct costs are what pay for the actual research project; indirect costs are an additional payment for the university's indirectly related expenses, like paying for libraries, buildings and grounds, and university administrators – so university administrators take a strong interest!) But partly, it's a cultural thing, based on perceptions that NIH has such rigorous peer-review processes. (I was once on a tenure review committee, where I was dismayed by an outside reviewer who criticized the young faculty member for having a big grant from the American Cancer Society, on the ridiculous grounds that only an NIH peer-review would be good enough to demonstrate tenure-worthiness.)

But I honestly am not comfortable with just making a sweeping conclusion that faculty can be trusted to be honest regardless of their source of funding. Maybe I'm more of a glass-half-empty person than you are, but I've seen too much pettiness and sneakiness in academia. I've seen people in the pharmaceutical industry all over the spectrum. Some are indeed impeccably honest, and recognize that in the long run they do their company no good to move ahead with a new drug that will later expose them to liability. But I've seen others knowingly sweep stuff under the rug. Put money into the mix, and some people will do the wrong thing. In the biomedical sciences, there have been recent examinations of the reproducibility of published results, and the findings are sickening. I made myself a promise during my career that I would never lie about results from my lab, and I'm proud of that, but I also have a very bad feeling that there were other people who published more than I did and got more funding than I did but who probably just reported whatever they thought would get the publications and grants. It's not everyone, by a long shot. But I am sure, in fact I know, that there have always been some bad apples. End of rant, and I hasten to add that I cannot extrapolate from that, to the source that Viriditas found. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is yet another example of the government working closely with industry to harm the food industry.[48]. This kind of thing is found in the news every day now. If the government is this incompetent and in such collusion with industry forces against the people they were elected to represent, then it is safe to say that the government no longer represents the people. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I had heard about that a while back, the mayo industry trying to shut down non-egg mayo substitutes. That one, however, has nothing that I can see to do with scientists or academia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there a parallel there, with biotech companies trying to push GMO products, using the government to help them sell their products both domestically and internationally? I read several articles about this on the Cornell website, where biotech and government work hand in glove to market and sell their products, even if the efficacy and safety of such products is not yet proven. Here in the states, GMO companies have fought many initiatives in the court system, often appealing to federal judges to block the will of the voters. Or more to the point of science and academia, how about the NRA-sponsored federal funding freeze on any scientific research on gun violence, preventing the CDC from having data driven science informing policy. How can the US lead in science if industry controls its direction? As any historian of science knows, you cannot control or predict where pure discovery is going to go or end up. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Inevitably, I'm responding from the position of my interest in the role of scientists themselves, and that certainly is an aspect of the first piece we discussed, about funding for the glyphosate studies. (And, since this is a Wikipedia user talk page, I'm mostly interested in discussions that pertain to the content issues that I follow here. I'm not into editing about government corruption, although it's certainly an encyclopedic topic, subject to WP:RGW.) There is an undeniable role of an industry-government tie in the mayo thing, but I was just saying that I don't think anyone has any reason to blame it on scientists, nor to see it as a role of what the science on the subject says. But I think it's very clear from my earlier comment that I am very unhappy with the inadequacy of government support for scientific research. And when, as you point out, the government actually imposes restrictions on scientific inquiry, then that's horribly worse. I'll tell you something about whether the US can still lead. I've been noticing in my own area of neuroscience that more and more of the work that impresses me the most has been coming from researchers in Canada, and I do not think that it's a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not so good to mix up issues here. To me a GM apple is an apple, but a substance without eggs in it is not mayonnaise and shouldn't be labeled as such, any more than a soy-burger should be labeled as meat. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Looie, I almost didn't see this amongst all the other stuff going on here. I guess some people of good faith would argue that mayo without eggs in it can still be mayo, in the way that a soy-burger is still a burger even if it isn't meat. Apples, eggs, and meat are things that exist naturally, whereas burgers and spreads such as mayo are the products of human recipes. In any case, the issue with glyphosate pertained to possible scientific corruption by money, whereas the issue with mayo does not pertain to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Words

I'd really like to have your help at WP:BIOMEDICAL. That's the page where the actual "line-drawing" exercise has been going on, and I think that time spent expanding and adjusting that will have more long-term value than a fight over one word or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. With the caveat that I'm already feeling spread in too many directions, so I might not be that quick about it, yes I'll put that on my watchlist and try to help. And I agree with you, that the issue isn't really which word should or should not be used, but rather, which meaning or application of a word or term is meant as MEDRS or not MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

GMO Decision

I have been working on extensively throughout last few days (and even before the pd due date). I'm not happy with it and probably should just say it's imperfect and post it rather htan delay further, but that's how things are. I've asked for help from more experienced drafters, but hasn't really come. We have tremendous inactivity at the moment, and it sort of feels like I'm on my own. I'm largely tremendously demotivated and fatigued, but I'll get out the PD, then probably melt or something. I can't describe how glad I am to be off the committee. Perhaps if I didn't have other things going on, but when it's competing for time it's immensely frustrating. Furthermore it really weighs into me the fact it is late, not for lack of effort, but that it is holding the whole mess up in the air for the participants. So all in all feeling bad about it, hopefully will have it out soon (I could probably post it in its current state...), and be done with it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

NativeForeigner (and likewise Guerillero), thank you for being so kind as to post this message to me, and thank you for working on what I know is a rotten albeit necessary job. The tl;dr of what I want to say to you is: Post whatever you have today, please.

It has been objectionably long waiting for it. Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or at least good enough. The PD is not the final D. And please don't worry about getting feedback from other Arbs before you post it. If they have feedback, they can give it and/or offer alternative proposals during the PD voting period. And if they are just going to be AWOL, then fuck them (and the community needs to know that, before the election). And there will be nothing wrong with you getting feedback (some of it useful, some of it worthless) from editors on the PD talk page. After all, that's how Wikipedia works.

I've seen some of your earlier posts about how long it has been taking you to finish it, and to tell you the truth, I have put my own next comments about my block, here on my talk page, on hold until you have posted the PD, because I did not want to create an additional distraction. But I am very eager to restart my own discussion, and it has been a source of stress and disappointment for me to have had to hold my tongue this long. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

NativeForeigner, I can't say I'm well-versed in ArbCom procedure, but if it's possible to do a sort of rolling PD that comes out in chunks at a time, that might help split things up to to slightly smaller bites. Maybe the template and voting procedures make that tough, but just a thought. I have to mirror Tryptofish though and say that sorting through the whole case and drafting this is a thankless job. Even though we're all waiting for some resolution, it is understandable if it's a bit late for a case this size. Not ideal, but I think most people realize that there are factors that make the drafting job tough, especially for this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a stepwise roll-out would have worked two weeks ago, but we need the whole thing, even if not yet polished, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Section break, added by Tryptofish

• I am puzzled why this discussion is taking place on the Talk page of a Party to the case who was outspoken in urging bans and blocks for other named Parties. Surely this could be viewed as improper? Shall we ping everyone and have a general discussion? If so, perhaps on the ArbCom Talk page? Jusdafax 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If the outspoken party may reply to that question, I suspect that it was prompted by [49]. I'm disappointed by the tone of your comment, as it relates to me in particular. I was a co-filing party, and the party that, for better or for worse, presented the most extensive workshop proposals in the case. Now as for what the posting by NF to me suggests about the eventual decision, it seems to me that if the drafters merely went along with my workshop proposals, it would not have taken them this long, so I'm pretty sure that some of what I proposed will end up being rejected. And I didn't propose blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And something more. When the case began, my position was against having a full case. I argued for DS, for seeing how that would work, and seeing if that could make a full case unnecessary. My friend Looie instead asked for a full case, and that's what happened. Looie didn't present anything in the case, but I did, and my primary objective was not to sanction anybody, but to try to prevent excessive sanctions for another editor, who repaid my efforts on his behalf by going AWOL. I got blocked for dubious reasons, and there is still an unexplained veiled threat by an Arb against me on my talk page. I want to have some closure on that, but I decided that it was best for Wikipedia if I would hold off until after the PD was finished. This whole experience has ended up diminishing my enthusiasm for Wikipedia. So if anyone wants to huff and puff about me being such an awful outspoken party, try me and I'll show you what outspoken really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons I Iike this old coot (lighten up buddy, I'm continuing the bird metaphor) going by the name of "Tryptofish" is that he comes off as an authentic person in every way. When I get the sense that I'm talking to a real person with similar hopes and desires, I'm more able to trust them and more importantly, respect them. At one time, I didn't really respect Tryptofish because he was so closely aligned with Jytdog. But I think Tryptofish is starting to see the game for what it really is, in all respects, and he might have some questions about what's really going on. I think a lot of us questioned Jytdog's true motives and reason for being here for good reason. He did not come off as an authentic person. And when the fit hit the shan, Jytdog disappeared in a puff of smoke, as if he had never been here to begin with. I think people need to ask the real hard questions about this state of affairs, and start calling things for what they truly are. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. This is not the time or place to relitigate a case that has yet to be closed, but just as I am happy that I kept an open mind about you (which is why I did not add you as a party, by the way), I also have an open mind about Jytdog, to the extent that I don't see him as inauthentic, but as having been driven away, and as being inconsiderate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and something more, since you raised the point. I always try to keep an open mind about whether I was wrong about something, because aside from being a coot and a fish, I'm also a human, and humans make mistakes. Even Arbs make mistakes. But don't ever think that I'm not going to align myself with reliable scientific sources. I'm always going to align myself with the much-maligned "mainstream science", and against anyone I see as POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest was just fairly exasperated in relation to [50]. No more and no less. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See, Jusdafax, that's what I said. And it looks like everyone is worn out at this point. NF, please do post it, and get it over with. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Second section break, also added by me

I'm placing here what I had put at User talk:Viriditas yesterday, and he deleted, because it is chronologically the antecedent to what is below. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuing our discussion

I kind of swatted you away from my talk page, because, first, I don't want to further discuss that other editor, and second, because the discussion was in a section related to the ArbCom case and I don't think it's right to continue to post "evidence" about parties at this time, and third, because I felt that a discussion about the subject matter was getting off-topic in a discussion about process. But that doesn't mean that I'm not up for discussing it with you. You asked me about what you see as a contradiction on my part, in that so many governments have banned GMOs. Governments make political decisions, not scientific decisions. There are US states that require doctors to tell women that abortions cause breast cancer. That's politics, not science. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You have confused me with another editor who doesn't understand the politicization of science, a topic I have written about for years. You have disingenuously focused on one of several aspects of an issue while ignoring the relevancy. Government agencies in the US have been captured by GMO interests. This is not true in many other countries. Further, the promotion of GMO products has become official US foreign policy, presenting an even larger COI. Finally, the agencies who are supposed to regulate have instead accepted safety studies from the GMO companies themselves in lieu of independent testing. Your claim that that is "mainstream science" is laughable at best. We know the pesticides and herbicides made by these companies are harmful and causing harm, yet this is somehow treated as a separate issue when it is one and the same. We also know that these companies have a long history of making unsafe products and claiming they are safe, so there is a record of problematic claims from the beginning deserving skepticism, not blind trust on the part of regulatory agencies. More to the point, we know that when SPA's show up to Wikipedia and edit the same topic for years on end while pushing a singular POV and causing massive disruption to the project, there is likely more going on behind the scenes and there is likely evidence to support such a claim. Lastly, I should point out that your statement "mainstream science is only disputed by POV pushers" sounds more like religious orthodoxy, not scientific methodology. Mainstream science is continually challenged and disputed, that's how the provisional body of human knowledge changes and progresses. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disingenuous? Me? Laughable? I laugh at myself a lot, when I'm not crying. Please lighten up on the old coot. Part of what you are saying, I think, is that business has adversely infected politics in the US. I agree with you about that. What I was trying to say is that, in the countries that ban GMOs on the basis that they are potentially harmful to eat, those governments are swayed by cultural and popular opinions among the people who live there instead of basing it on science. One can argue that GMO companies exert improper influence on the US government and its policies, and I will agree with that, but I will also insist that this influence has nothing to do with what scientists say. The fact that the US government says GMOs are safe does not prove that they are safe, and the fact that other governments say that they might not be safe does not prove that they might not be safe. I also kinda think that you are implying that Jytdog was an SPA who was paid by his employer to edit for a POV and that he left because he started working for a different employer who didn't need him to make those edits anymore. I've edited with him at Christian terrorism, and I don't think that he was doing that for profit. Not everything is a conspiracy. And, yes indeed, mainstream science requires constant challenge and reevaluation. Have you confused me with another editor who hasn't made a career of doing that? But challenging it by Wikipedia editors, or by bloggers, or by activists, isn't how science reevaluates things. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're about four years behind. The conspiracy is real.[51] And the evidence offered on the arbcom page isn't from bloggers or activists. Look, I get it, don't bother you with the facts, your mind is made up. But don't you dare piss on my talk page and tell me it is raining. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, and I hope that you don't remain angry at me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the structure at the lower right, labeled "Recombinant plasmid DNA".

(edit conflict) And please indulge Professor Tryptofish with this. In the figure, you can (sort of) see how genes are put into GMOs. And I'm talking specifically about the safety or lack thereof, of eating GMO foods. So let's say that a GMO company puts a gene into a food crop plant. That gene is like the black sequence of DNA in the picture. Now if that gene codes for the antigen found in tree nuts that causes allergic reactions to tree nuts, and it gets put into a tomato, then it will definitely be dangerous to people who have that allergy. But that happens only if that's the gene that gets put in. It would be crazy for even the most profit-seeking company to do that, because it wouldn't be profitable. One always knows what gene one is putting in. It's essentially impossible to put the wrong gene in by mistake, and even more impossible to then fail to realize that it's the wrong gene. So no GMO commercial crop is going to have a gene put into it that is harmful to human health. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I am also going to wait until ArbCom gets finished before I respond below, and I will be doing so in the hope that the anger that has been flaring up will calm down with the passage of a little bit of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I gather from your commentary that you have a background in the biological sciences, as do I. I think that background makes people like us a little bit more comfortable with the idea of genetic engineering. After all, we use transgenic animals and other, more basic, tools of molecular biology routinely. I think there are a lot of mistaken, or even mystical, beliefs about how genetic engineering works, and what the possible failure modes are, among the general public. I don't doubt that GMO foods are safe to consume, and frankly they are subject to a significantly higher degree or scrutiny and safety testing than "conventional" foods and thus may be even safer (it's not like our "conventional" food supply is all that safe, after all).

At the same time, I do worry quite a bit about the unintended ecological consequences of widespread GMO production. I think that outcrossing is inevitable, and the reality is that we just don't know a) whether GMO foods can out-compete and replaced wild-type stock, and b) what sorts of downstream ecological consequences outcrossing will have. Anyhow... I studiously avoid the GMO articles on Wikipedia, but I have a more general interest in how scientific and medical topics are conveyed, particularly in cases where political directives conflict with scientific understanding (e.g. abortion, climate change, etc). So I am interested to see how the ArbCom case is decided. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly comment! Yes, I was trained (a very long time ago) in biochemistry, and my academic research was in neuroscience, but I can follow the agricultural biotech source material without difficulty. Normally, however, I make a very strong effort not to claim any special status as an editor based upon who I am, and I think that's important. As for the ArbCom case, I'm beginning to go from interested to impatient, alas. I totally agree with you about the ecological issues, and have said so during the ArbCom case, although I end up getting painted as an unalloyed GMO apologist nonetheless. As for what's going on in this thread on my talk page, I figure that whenever a Wikipedia editor says, as above, "The conspiracy is real", it's time for me to take a step away from the computer in hopes that the discussion will become less heated. It's difficult to discuss things when editors are angry. And nothing in this content dispute is really worth getting angry about. Actually, the Reuters source mentioned below is an interesting one, but based on when it was published, it sounds like the "some studies" it refers to are what happened in the Séralini affair, that was making headlines right at that time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh God, the Seralini paper. What an embarrassment, for the journal that published it and for the people who rushed to publicize it. In a way it's good that the original paper is still available despite its retraction, because it is a great litmus test to determine whether a reader understands the basics of how to interpret statistical claims in a manuscript, and how think critically about a manuscript's claims rather than simply swallowing them. I've even used it once or twice as a (cautionary) example when I teach trainees, informally, "how to be a peer reviewer". MastCell ^Talk 01:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And there is a great deal of interest on Wikipedia in giving due weight to the argument that the retraction wasn't really a retraction, that Séralini was a truth-teller who became the victim of Monsanto-funded suppression that was abetted by the US government, and so forth. And I'm getting called a POV-pusher. I do hope that ArbCom gets it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

With all these red herrings swimming around here, it's beginning to look like an aquaculture operation. Let's see, where to begin: nobody has discussed any objection to genetic engineering, a topic that interests me considerably as I'm fairly certain human space exploration will depend on it. And, nobody has discussed Seralini. With all of these distractions, who has time to look at the the safety of glyphosate, the impact of GMO monoculture, and the harm of crops like GMO corn to butterflies? Yes, by all means keep talking about things that have nothing to do with the topics under discussion. I believe Jytdog pioneered that method... Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to discuss that with you, so long as the discussion takes place without anger. It's too difficult to come to a thoughtful outcome when editors are angry. And perhaps we have misunderstood one another. I'm very capable of making a mistake, in which I assume that someone else is thinking about the same thing that I'm thinking about. What I was thinking about was the specific question of whether or not it is safe to eat food made from GMO crops. And what I have been saying about that is, I think, correct. But there is a separate question of whether it is safe to eat foods that carry residues of pesticides, or to be in an environment where there is exposure to pesticides. On that question, I agree with you that pesticides can be dangerous to health, and I am concerned that they are used much too widely. But it is also true that pesticides are used on all kinds of agricultural crops, whether GMO or conventional. The pesticides used specifically on GMO crops (like glyphosate) aren't particularly better or worse than the pesticides used on conventional crops. MastCell made a good point above, about how conventional crops aren't necessarily hazard-free. (Obviously, I'm not talking about organic farming here.) And there is a third question, about monoculture, a practice that predates GMO farming, but that has been accelerated by the use of GMOs. In my opinion, monoculture is a very bad thing, and a very serious problem. And I hope that you remember that I have said that to you previously on my talk page. And there is a fourth question, about effects of GMO crops on other species, including but not limited to butterflies. Just above, both MastCell and I agreed that we think that's a significant potential problem as well. So I sincerely hope that you see that I didn't intend what I said to indicate that everything about GMOs is good. Rather, I was addressing the specific, narrow question of whether GMO plant materials are – intrinsically and separately from any chemical residue that they may have on them – safe for humans to eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with this? You cannot continue to argue that GMOs are safe -- separately from the multitude of chemicals required to grow them and their impact on the environment and other living things. Your absurd argument is equivalent to arguing that nuclear weapons are safe, as long as you don't use them. I'm at a complete loss as to why an intelligent person like yourself could possibly view this as valid argument. As any good scientist will tell you, nothing is inherently safe, and everything has risks. And yet, you and others consistently ignore the red flags raised by biotech companies, who insist that they tested it and found it to be safe, and gosh darn it, we should just take their word for it and ignore the last fifty years of their lies, false statements, and outright distortions about all the other products they made and claimed were safe and later turned out not to be, but golly gee, they pinky swear that they mean it this time! Trust Us, We're Experts! Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The earliest post in this sequence of talk comments is below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written with neutral, reliable secondary sources like Reuters, which says: "The biotech crops are controversial with some groups and in many countries because some studies have shown harmful health impacts for humans and animals, and the crops have been associated with some environmental problems. They also generally are more expensive than conventional crops, and the biotech seed developers patent the high-tech seeds so farmers using them have to buy new seed every season, a factor that makes them unappealing in some developing nations. Many countries ban planting of biotech crops or have strict labeling requirements."[52]

These are not fringe views as you claim. These views do not challenge mainstream science as you claim. These views are a NPOV summary of the recognized problems with GMO crops. Yet you would have us believe otherwise. Who is doing the POV pushing here? Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas has put it brilliantly, and he speaks for me. I will await resolution of the ArbCom case before commenting further. Jusdafax 16:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi Trypto. This recent edit summary had me confused a bit, namely the "reminding the editor of the ways I have helped him recently" bit. Were you referring to me? I'm a bit confused if it was as you aren't on my "bad side" or anything like that where reminding would be needed. I'm going to let you answer though instead of me speculating further.

I do want to point out though that I harbor no ill will towards you after the recent lede hashing out at Kevin Folta. Quite the opposite. I know dealing with all the nuance there can be stressful when building content, and I tend not to worry about if someone thinks I'm angry with them or not when it's just a good natured content dispute. I'm a huge adherent of AGF and knowing people often are misunderstood in that kind of situation. I tend to just focus on content on talk pages, so that can make me seem a little aloof after I disagree with someone I normally agree with. Just been wanting to make sure that's clear and that I'm not holding any grudge or anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, no! That never crossed my mind. [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. This has nothing to do with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. The threading just made the post look like it was just directed at me, which made the striking edit at little confusing as to intent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh s--t, I just looked back and I see what you mean. I was replying to you after an edit conflict about which version you were commenting on, but then I included that other part, where the other editor asked me to strike it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you put in your bird brain today instead of your fish brain? We all have those moments, and it is a Monday after all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker)} Excuse me but bird brains are highly evolved...and they process rhythm as demonstrated here: [62]. I've never seen a fish dance. 😆 Atsme^📞📧 20:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that a lot of Wikipedia editors are birdbrains or worse. (Joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been spending time with an African Grey Parrot for the last several years (not mine) and it's really easy to fall in love with them. You can see the intelligence in their eyes and in their facial expressions. This is one reason I've been a vegetarian for more than several decades. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Aww... Viriditas, how can you not love a cockatoo that dances in perfect rhythm to Queen performing, "Another One Bites The Dust"? 💃🏻 Atsme^📞📧 04:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I just got around to watching that cockatoo. Wow! Impressive interpretive choreography skills. And the first time I've seen anyone head-banging to Queen. Complete with a Mohawk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I commented during the Arb case about possible exasperation of other editors. Well, at this point I'm exasperated too. I said above that I still have some serious issues to express about my block, and I've been waiting for the PD before going forward with them, and I will tell you that day after day of looking for a PD and not finding it has taken a toll on how I feel about Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

^{Thank goodness for the content box or I'd still be scrolling. Oh, and referencing the time it's taking for the PD makes my comment here [63] seem far more realistic than humorous. I actually did get all my holiday shopping done. 😁} Atsme^📞📧 15:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that my talk page needs archiving, but I am deliberately not doing that until certain issues get resolved. I sure do hope the PD gets posted soon, because tempers seem to be flaring in the vacuum that is being left, and frankly, I cannot imagine what improvements to the PD will come from further time, that haven't come already. At this rate, we may still be waiting for it when you start your next round of holiday shopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy s-t! I just looked at my watchlist, and it says that I have exactly 1,000 pages on my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

According to question forty-one, just one more watchlisted page and you'd get 4 points.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

75, I'm pretty sure that I'm already insane. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Down to 998. I must be getting better! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shoot! Back up to 1,000. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted

You recently offered a statement in 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/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's what I get for offering a statement. The hits just keep coming and coming, and I guess I should know better by now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You've just been parroted

	The Fish That Crowed Award
	Whenever fish crow they are recognized by getting parroted by a yellow-shouldered Amazon parrot (Amazona barbadensis). It's much better to get yellow-shouldered than cold shouldered. Now you've had both. 😆 Atsme📞📧 02:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That means a lot to me! An awful lot of the messages on my talk page have, instead, made me want to duck, and frankly it's been kind of ruff and made me feel a little chicken. It's so much better to hear from an editor who is not a loon or a turkey or a booby. Maybe things will take a tern for the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

One good tern deserves another. I'm always glad to help; just say wren. And do whatever you can to steer clear of the yellow-bellied sapsuckers. If you can't, call a crane - it carries the most weight. Atsme^📞📧 03:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC) ^{Can't believe I'm sitting here laughing so hard over this pun-ishment.}

What a pair of silly bustards!  :-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Coming from an old buzzard, I must say that was funny DrChrissy!! Poor Tryp doesn't realize what he got himself into with his punderful little self. We give new meaning to WP:PEACOCK. Atsme^📞📧 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we might be ROBIN his Talk Page of some of its dignity?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo of the new Tryptofish

I'm back, and I thank both of you for all the tweets. At this point, I think that I may have evolved in my appearance, so in place of the previous images, I'm placing this new portrait of me here. (And, once again, everyone should view that video of the dancing cockatoo that Atsme linked to! It's the best music video of all time.) Oh, and as for the dignity of my talk page, that flew away a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you are still seeing the lighter side of life considering the actions recently of a cock or two (think about it!)DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, cockatoo to you too! It's not always easy, but I try not to let the cock-ups get me down. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

^{It's pronounced cocka-tootle-too! and it's a declaration made at 5 am, or thereabouts.} Anyway - I'm about to fly the coop but before I do, answer this one question: Which came first? The ostrich or the egg Tryp laid? Atsme^📞📧 17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Which came first?

The original Tryptofish, and that is exactly what I look like, so watch out!

Well the answer to that is easy: the fish came first! Well, actually, it was the dinosaur, but... Oh, and let's leave this stuff about editors getting laid out of this! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes - that yolk is wearing thin!DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Tryptofish. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom replaced by alien clowns with big red noses from Zubenelgenubi

10) During the workshop phase of this case, Tryptofish proposed findings of fact with unclear links to evidence.

Who said it couldn't get any stranger? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just found out about that. Thank you for saying this, and please know that you are always welcome at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

To all my talk page watchers:

What this is referring to is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision. And you may, if you wish, offer feedback at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision. Just be sure to make your own section to comment, and say explictly that you saw my note here, to avoid any issue of canvassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe we oughta just trout everyone and call it. It seems like the weirdness factor in this case grows exponentially. What is the definition of an "unclear link?" Jusdafax 23:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, at this point, trout is too small a fish to satisfy me. I want there to be accountability, and I am ready and willing to work for Wikipedia's improvement. Whatever else one might say about me, I'm stubborn when I get worked up about something. And I see the situation as one where there are people who need to be held accountable, so wherever they may end up, I'm not going anywhere. And I really don't want the case thrown out. I just want it fixed. As for throwing any Arbs out, well that's something to which I am now amenable. By the way, every year for the past couple of years I've written a voters guide to the ArbCom election, and you can be sure that I'm going to have one this year. And where I talked higher up on my talk page here, about starting a sort-of-RfC about what these Arbs have been doing, that is coming soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is intrigued. Sticks the little alien clowns in her pocket.] Might as well. Full of strange creatures anyway. Also, how is little Scary Original Tryptofish getting on with election guide? Awaited with interest! [Bishzilla is working on her own guide. Hasn't posted it yet. First thoughts: Will definitely support little Newyorkbrad, whether is candidate or not.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

Well Scary Big Tryptofish doesn't take any s-t from bullies, and poof! the stuff about me on the PD page has vanished in a cloud of shame. My guide will come out very soon after all the candidates announce, so maybe Wednesday. As for Bishzilla's guide, I'm going to lobby for as many new guides as possible to be created, with each of them simply linking to my guide. Evil laughter. Victory dance. Sticks out fish tongue at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Translation: The Arb who posted those PD remedies about me has self-reverted, and apologized to me on the PD talk page. Speak truth to power, people. It works. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the alien clowns were recalled back to their star system and the real arbs replaced back. You did see K-Pax, right? :-) Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Curious

What do you consider "spun" in regard to this comment? Do you consider the evidence that i've provided to be spun? If so, how so? I'm curious. I really am asking this in genuine curiosity, not in contention. I would like to understand things here, in more depth. SageRad (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking me. No, I wasn't saying it with you, in particular, in mind. I think that if I give you a very specific answer about where it was, I'll just be inviting a barrage here on my talk, and I don't have the stomach for that. In a general sense, I was trying to suggest to the Arbs that they approach much of the presented evidence as reflecting the stance of the editors presenting it, rather than as objective evidence, as I described in one particular example in my comment just above the comment you are asking me about. It's like, don't take things on face value; whereas I have to say honestly that the evidence about edit warring is pretty hard to dispute.

As I've said there, I really am worried that it would be an unfair outcome if they were to site-ban you, and I've been trying to prevent that from happening. My best guess now is that it won't happen, but the topic ban looks inevitable. You'll be able to appeal it after a year, and as long as you "keep your nose clean" in the interim, I'll be happy to support you and I think you'll probably succeed. But there is something that has been worrying me, and I have hesitated whether I should tell you about it or not. Since you approached me here, I will, now. You are posting a lot of stuff about it being a kangaroo court, etc., on the PD talk page. Some carefully calibrated criticism of the Arbs is appropriate, as I did successfully yesterday. But I think you are taking it too far. It's like telling someone "fuck you", and then asking them to treat you kindly. I hope you'll dial it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging

Trypto, I just pinged you at the arbcom case and I am now wondering whether I should have done. My motivation for pinging you was to alert you to the fact I made a comment on your edits. I have just had a thought that you might interpret this as a "demand/request" for you to reply. It was not intended in this way whatsoever. What is your interpretation of when someone is pinged?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I just thought that it would be rude for me not to acknowledge that you had pinged me.

I don't think that your argument, based on your table, is correct, because the reverting takes place in a context that is different from editor to editor. And I would not be doing you any favors to have said that, there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I really do appreciate very much why you are not/saying things and I am grateful. My take on this is that all my "crimes" in the proposed FoF's have involved Jytdog. These could very easily have been remedied in my case by an interaction ban, without a topic ban. But if Arbcom decide to topic ban me for edit warring, I am simply asking for consistency when others have behaved similarly. I posted the above before reading your null edit. My point should really have been directed at the arbcom rather than you. Apologies.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. While you are here, let me suggest, entirely in good faith, something else. The more that you protest the topic ban at the ArbCom case, the weaker your argument will be seen when you very shortly ask for the previous topic ban to be lifted. Admins, editors, and even I, would want to see that you aren't going to "make excuses" (as others will see it), if a previous topic ban is to be lifted just as new topic ban is imposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your point is heard and received in the way you intended. Thanks for the advice.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks! Can I just say something more general, not really in response to you. This whole case, from beginning to end, had been the most disheartening thing I have seen in all the years I've been on Wikipedia. I've seen editors whom I genuinely like get into all kinds of awful stuff, and editors I think have behaved very badly show apparent determination in their bad behavior. The process has been awful, even for me. I never wanted a full case, just DS. And it came at a time when a distraction from peaceful content editing was the last thing that I needed or wanted. The whole thing is just very sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Hello Tryptofish. Sorry to hear that. Have you seen any improvement in the quality of WP:educational assignments, by the way? Are WP:WEF staffers cleaning up student edits these days? I haven't been following the program lately. I was wondering if you have. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, but I'm overwhelmed with other things right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm sorry to see that, with regard to Wiki-silliness at least. :-/ Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a note

I'm not fully up to speed on all the business with the GMO case, but it's suddenly lit up the oversight mailing list and OTRS queue; you've probably noticed my block of Jytdog. Having looked into things I noticed you got a similar block the other day, and obviously I've seen the oversighted diffs. I don't know what conversations you've had with arbs about this, and if I'm a day late and a dollar short feel free to ignore me, but I wanted to offer some advice in the hope that there won't be any more oversighting and blocking and hard feelings. I strongly advise you (and all parties to the case, and ideally all Wikipedia editors) to focus your criticism on editors' on-wiki conduct, backed up with diffs. I would strongly counsel against looking for information about things they do elsewhere than Wikipedia, and if you have any information about off-wiki activities (however it came to your attention) to keep it to yourself and—for all intents and purposes on the wiki itself—pretend you don't have it. If you come into information that isn't freely available on Wikipedia and you think it has a direct bearing on an arbitration case, email it to the committee. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on policies and procedures around here, but why would Jytdog have their talk page access revoked? Is that something you can answer HJ Mitchell? It seems heavy-handed at first glance. Couldn't Jytdog have made a simple mistake? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: Revoking talk page access is standard with that sort of block, because discussion of the block on Wikipedia itself would be inappropriate. As for a simple mistake, he made a very similar edit 36 hours earlier which was oversighted and he was warned not to do it again; he'll probably be unblocked before long, but that's a conversation that needs to take place behind closed doors. Apologies, Trytpofish, for using your talk page to reply to Biosthmors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you very much for your message. Please let me assure you that I agree with you entirely, and I have no intention of doing any of the things that you advise against doing. Indeed, I never have had such an intention. You seem to be assuming some things about me that are not accurate, and of course I cannot know what misinformation might be circulating on those mailing lists. Please do not assume that some statement about my intentions that you may read is true, where I do not have access to it and do not know about it. I am sympathetic to where another editor may be upset – really! – but I am concerned that messages sent privately to functionaries may be misrepresenting me and that functionaries may be drawing incorrect conclusions based on misinformation.

Please understand that I have no control over Jytdog. He and I are two different people. I looked at his talk page, and his response to your block appears to include some argument with you about whether he had really done any outing, in a way that might reasonably lead administrators to want to make sure that what he did would not be repeated. In other words, your block of him might reasonably be considered to be preventative. In contrast, my edit that you saw was something that I said carelessly rather than with intent to harm, and after I made it, I apologized for it, and made it clear that I regretted it and would not do it again. I said that in three edits, not just one, on three different pages, two of which were ArbCom case pages. Having done that, I would think that reasonable people could have concluded that I had made it clear that I understood the situation, and that I was very determined never to make such an infraction again. Therefore, I remain unable to understand what my block was intended to prevent. ArbCom had me email them, and say in effect what I had already said three times on-site, and they used that as the reason to unblock me. I remain unable to understand what I said in my email, that I hadn't already said on-site before my block, that provided a reason to unblock me, different from the reasons not to block me in the first place, unless the point was to issue a punitive rather than preventative block.

It's not just my opinion, when I'm saying this. Here are comments about it from some experienced members of the community: [64], [65], [66], [67], and [68]. I'm afraid that some people are making me the target of a battleground, but let's keep things factual. And I'm wondering why no administrators are taking an interest in this, where an editor had been blocked for saying something awful, and it was redacted (not oversighted, just deleted), and yet other editors recopied it and engaged in mean-spirited mockery.

You talk about focusing on content and not on editors, and backing up accusations with diffs. Of course! It appears that some evidence I presented to the Arbs was found by them to not be convincing. OK, I can accept that. That's how the system works. But I see that some Arbs are trying to cover their own mistreatment of me by fabricating a claim that my evidence combined with my workshop proposals constituted casting of aspersions. That's patent fiction. I presented evidence, and I made proposals. If they decide that they are unconvinced by my evidence and are going to not use my proposals in the PD, that's fine. But that does not mean that I was tossing around personal attacks.

Again, thank you for your advice to me, and please rest assured that I understand it and will do my very best to comply with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to accuse you of anything, merely to suggest the best way forward, and I based the advice on the oversighted edits rather than comments on a mailing list—yes there was some discussion among oversighters, but it was more of the nature of one list member asking others to look into something, and various people responding with their conclusions. Nobody is casting aspersions about your actions, at least not on any of the lists I have access to. Obviously it's difficult to judge intent, especially in text-based communication, but as far as I can see you haven't done anything like that before or since so if you tell me it was unintentional I'll take your word for it. Obviously I can do little other than speculate on what prompted ArbCom to block you; I'm just a humble oversighter and not privy to their deliberations. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I appreciate your helpfulness. I am writing an email to ArbCom at this very time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your voter guide

Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]]. To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you so much for being so kind as to ask me. I did it myself. Happy to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)