User talk:Coffee

This user is more awesome than you.

GMO RfC language transfer

@The Wordsmith:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Nakon:, @Deor: I am quite troubled by the way Kingofaces43 has replaced the language that resulted from the RfC to the applicable articles: In at least 3 5 articles--including 2 leads--he deleted additional material without notice, and used an edit note that implies that NONE of his edit could be reversed or changed under threat of sanctions. The edit note suggests the entirety of the edit was specifically authorized by the ArbCom committee. This is very misleading.

The RfC says here that this is the language to be revised is:

There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

King removed such language and replaced it by Proposal 1, which is fine. But he has additionally removed material not specified in the RfC and did not put in notice of the removal and added the misleading edit note I described above. Often the removed material is critical of GMOs, so the removals are POV. I have restored the deleted material in those threefive articles, and will continue looking:

(1) Genetically modified crops lead (added 03:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

additional text deleted:

However, opponents have objected to GM crops on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

deleted by King: [1]

edit note:

Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.

restored by me: [2]

(2) Biotechnology

additional text deleted:

GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, if not used in excess. However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

deleted by King: [3]

edit note:

Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.

restored by me: [4]

(3) March Against Monsanto

additional text deleted:

Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.

deleted by King: [5]

edit note:

Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.

restored by me: [6]

(4) Denialism

additional text deleted:

However, opponents have objected to GM foods on grounds including safety.

deleted by King: [7]

edit note:

Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.

restored by me: [8]

(5) Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms lead (inserted 21:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

additional text deleted:

There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health. Some scientists and advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund, have however called for additional and more rigorous testing for GM food.

deleted by King: [9]

edit note:

Replace wording per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms - Proposal 1 - do not remove or change per discretionary sanction by the Arbitration Committee.

restored by me: [10]

This is already creating problems as I have been accused of "going against the RfC consensus" by restoring the additional material that King deleted. [11] by 107.77.212.117. (added: 22:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

I will continuing reviewing King's replacements of the RfC language. I request that King be admonished for these misleading POV edits that have a misleading edit note, and be directed to only revise the sentence that was the subject of the RfC if such an edit note is to be used in the future with any of the other articles of the RfC.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC) [more examples added 03:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)]

citations

Pinging @Esquivalience:, who did made the change correctly to Genetically modified food controversies without deleting additional material. [12], but did not include all of Proposition 1. However, I see Esquivalience did do something similar to King at Genetically modified organism and deleted a good portion of a paragraph, but at least added a notice at the talk page "Posting on talk page regarding the third paragraph." [13]. I restored additionally deleted material [14]. I would add the rest of Prop.1 to GM controversies, but I need to rest. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless I missed something – and I didn't – there was no language in the RFC authorizing deletion of any supplementary text. Kingoffaces43 has some explaining to do. It amazes me how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices. Katie^talk 11:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm out for most of the day, so I won't be able to respond for awhile. Katie, I'd ask that you strike your language that I'm somehow trying to "twist" things. Each article has a slightly different iteration of how the previous language involving the scientific consensus was handled within the paragraph(s) and my edits were a good-faith attempt to implement the language while dealing with that. The RfC was meant to replace the general chunks of text relating to the consensus including how to appropriately weight what the "opponents" (typically the general public) say. That was done in proposal 1's language. If I left some of these things in the replacement, I was also risking changing the meaning of the RfC results, so it's a damned if you, damned if you don't situation depending on how someone wants to spin it.

With that in mind, the specific text changes mentioned by David were done with the expectation that I would be facing something admonishable if I had integrated them into the new language too. I also had the expectation that editors would discuss where to readd some of this text that's tangential to the safety consensus. ecological benefits, if not used in excess is one example I eventually intended to place elsewhere. I'll stop by later today if we need to delve into more of the history of what the RfC was applying to, but I was taking an overall cautious approach with the edits. There were bound to be hiccups either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Katie. And the language used seems appropriate to me. David Tornheim is to be saluted for his monitoring of the situation, and taking action. Kingofaces43 has gone way too far, so much so that WP:TEND is now in play. A preventitave block by an admin should be considered, until such time as Kingofaces indicates a willingness to edit in collaboration and not overshoot his edits in a state of seeming triumphalist euphoria. Jusdafax 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing about a preventative blocks is that there needs to be something to prevent. There was no wrongdoing on my part to even suggest a punitive block (which we don't do here), and I've been patiently waiting for clarification ever since without any sort of edit warring, etc. It's rather silly to even suggest a preventative block.

You've been warned about your own WP:TEND and battleground behavior in this topic where you take almost any opportunity to call for sanctions of editors supporting the scientific consensus, and when editors opposing the consensus finally are warned about their behavior issues, you attack those admins or those reporting it. It's really time to knock that posturing off while we're trying to focus on content. I highly suggest striking your direct personal attack of "triumphalist euphoria" though in that sense. There could be potential for that from someone in general just like how there could be battleground behavior where other editors would want to lash out against certain editors because they didn't get the RfC result they wanted. However, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I haven't seen direct evidence of either case from a specific editor yet to justify such a claim beyond aspersions. We don't "win" or "lose" here, and that should have been apparent from my comments here so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your attempt to make this about me is both transparent and puerile. Editors commenting here, including one of the Rfc closing admins, have noted your edits are dubious and slanted. I agree with them. I believe the community at large, given a review of your evident lengthy obsession with the GMO topic, is likely to agree. I stand by my comment, as your reply shows nothing but the very battleground mentality you decry. You are, as noted here, by any standard, the definition of disruptive. Jusdafax 02:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I urge editors to calm down. As I indicated below, most of the changes that are in dispute have very little impact one way or the other, in terms of the POV balance. They are largely matters of transition into and out of the RfC-mandated language. The way that this discussion on Coffee's talk page was begun, it made it sound like a POV-war. It really isn't. @KrakatoaKatie: when one reads what actually happened, things are a lot less dire than what first meets the eye in the discussion here. As far as I can tell, neither Kingofaces nor David really did anything to shift the POV of the pages in a significant way. It's just a matter of some poor judgment followed by some over-reaction. Nobody needs to be blocked, banned, or burned at the stake. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• I was quite concerned when I saw this, and I have gone back and carefully examined the edits at the three pages identified by David. It seems to me that the situation is more complicated than what at first meets the eye.

(1). Biotechnology:

Here is the text of the relevant paragraph prior to the end of the RfC [15]:

There is a general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[42][43][44][45][46] GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, if not used in excess.[47] However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

Here it is after Kingofaces' edit [16]

There is a scientific consensus[42][43][44][45] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[46][47][48][49][50] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[51][52][53] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[54][55][56][57] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[58][59][60][61]

And here it is now, after David's edit [17]:

There is a scientific consensus[42][43][44][45] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[46][47][48][49][50] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[51][52][53] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[54][55][56][57] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[58][59][60][61]

GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, if not used in excess.[62] However, opponents have objected to GM crops per se on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and economic concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law.

I see it as rather subjective, and I'm not particularly seeing any intentional "twisting" by either Kingofaces or by David. One can interpret the RfC rules either way, and I don't think that either way is inherently unreasonable. I can see David's concern that the edit had taken out a list of critics' concerns, but I can also see how Kingofaces could believe that the list of criticisms was implicitly part of the language that was being replaced (note that the community rejected some proposals that had language similar to what Kingofaces deleted).

(2). March Against Monsanto:

It's a somewhat similar pattern. Here is the end result [18]:

However, there is a scientific consensus[19][20][21][22] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[23][24][25][26][27] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[28][29][30] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[31][32][33][34] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[35][36][37][38]

Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.[39]

Kingofaces added the word "However" at the beginning of the RfC language, and David did not remove it. It seems to me that there should not be any changing of the language, but in this case it does not look like anything done in bad faith, just an ill-advised attempt at providing better continuity. David added back the part about labeling in the US. There are two ways to look at this: that Kingofaces was correct that the sentence in the RfC material about regulation country-by-country should replace that language, and that David was also correct that the RfC language does not specifically mention the US, and that US regulation is relevant to a page about a US protest.

(3). Denialism:

This strikes me as a more ambiguous case. David made this restoration of what Kingofaces had deleted: [19]. It's a single sentence about safety, and it does seem to me that Kingofaces was correct that it was expressly superceded by the RfC consensus about safety. I don't see what the value was in adding it back, given what comes directly after on the page. (David also followed that edit by another revert, albeit of content that was not about GMOs: [20]. It strikes me as testing the boundaries of 1RR, although it probably does not quite amount to a violation, given that the first edit was only a partial revert, and the second was in a different subject area of the page. But it's close.)

• Taken together, I think that "However" should be deleted at the March page, and I have mixed feelings about the restored sentence at Denialism, but I don't really see enough evidence of bad faith here to make a big deal about, and I don't see anything else that needs to be changed from what it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• After posting that, I remembered that David had also noted the pages edited by Esquivalience. David seems to be saying that Esquivalience only added part of Proposal 1 at Genetically modified food controversies, [21], but I can't find anything missing, so I'm not sure what to make of that. At Genetically modified organism, [22], here is the material that Esquivalience deleted and David put back:

No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food.[167][168][169][170] Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA. In a May 2014 article in The Economist it was argued that, while GM foods could potentially help feed 842 million malnourished people globally, laws such as those being considered by Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, could have the unintended consequence of interrupting the process of spreading GM technologies to impoverished countries that suffer with food security problems.[167]

It seems to me that some of that actually is a much bigger deal than anything that Kingofaces did. That is clearly separate material. On the other hand, I also think that it's possible that it could have been an error when making the edit, rather than an intentional deletion. That would be a pretty easy mistake to make. Alternatively, I can also see how the first sentence and the beginning of the second sentence could reasonably be considered part of what is to be replaced by the RfC language. But I do wonder why David appears to consider that to be no big deal while complaining about what Kingofaces did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, but I see now (missed it before) that there is discussion about that content at Talk:Genetically modified organism#Third paragraph in Genetically modified organism#Controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that integrating the language into the relevant sections isn't covered by DS. That work still needs to be done because as pointed out by Tryptofish above, there are then redundant pieces of text and pieces that were not supported in the RfC for inclusion with the consensus "suite". If part of my edits weren't covered by the DS, then worst case scenario is that someone made normal content edits alongside the implementation of the RfC close, so these calls for heads to roll is rather silly. We definitely need clarification on what is exactly covered though for future reference, but I do agree that there is no raging fire to put out here in terms of current editor actions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of what you and Esquivalience deleted was redundant, but your deletions went far beyond that, deleting an entire sentence in the lead of GMO crops with numerous concerns about GMOs that have nothing to do with food safety [23], and using a misleading edit note making it appear that the RfC allowed you to delete all criticisms of GMOs under the auspices of ArbCom and that reverting you was punishable by ArbCom DS. Such POV deletions are unacceptable. One of the closing admins. correctly pointed out that this is an example of "how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices." [24] --David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm having difficulty keeping up with what is going on, but I can see that David is restoring deleted language at some more pages, and an IP editor is reverting David. I'm giving up on figuring this out for now, but it does look like the situation is unstable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've quite frankly been sitting things out too because of this tempest in a teacup situation after my initial edits. All we really need here is clarification on what the DS should actually apply to when it comes to integrating the RfC results (I'm not really sure how or if they do), but that honestly doesn't really affect the situation at hand all that much either if they don't. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You make a mess of things by deleting material under the auspices of ArbCom and the RfC that you were not authorized to delete. When it is pointed out to you, you do not acknowledge the problem, apologize and clean up the mess. Instead you expect others like me to spend hours cleaning up your mess, while you "sit things out". Not only that, you tell a closing admin, who correctly pointed out that your behavior is an example of "how people can take concrete results and twist them to their own devices," [25] that she should retract her correct assessment of the situation [26]. Even Tryptofish who usually defends you says your behavior is "quite concerning" [27][28]--David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect to you were not authorized to delete, I think you need to make up your mind. If the RfC (and DS) had a scope within some text I deleted, then I was "authorized" by the RfC to do so and it couldn't be reverted. If the DS do not pertain to those certain parts of the text, then I made edits that can be reverted (as you did) and discussed as part of the integration. In that case, the RfC cannot prevent an editor from deleting (or restoring) something as part of the normal editing process. I've made it clear a few times now that I expected the latter case (and this talk section should've been 20x shorter). Either way, the integration needed to happen, so no one should be crying foul that it happened and that we're at the point where we should be figuring out additional relevant content tweaks instead of all this posturing that I'm up to something nefarious.

As for "sitting things out" I was referring specifically to the drama-fest that's being whipped up towards me and the ramped up battleground behavior we're seeing here (especially the incorrect picture you paint of me above). I'm not going to participate in that and instead am focusing on content. The question has been raised on what exactly the DS pertain to in this context, so I'm waiting for an answer from the admins before going back into the content discussion at the articles. Unless the DS actually do apply, I was expecting to handle the content discussion at the articles without needing to come here, but here we are instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note about the IP accusing David Tornheim of going against consensus. I believe that the person behind this account is using several IP addresses (although several people with the same agenda is possible I guess) at Musahiban (they seem think that they are, today, a royal family allied somehow with Israel and descended from King Saul). I've had some unpleasant but pathetic threats made against me. All the IP addresses making these threats on my talk page and disruptively editing are from the same area of California, as is this one who I've reverted today at Musahiban. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought the revert looked suspicious. Only ~20 edits and already knows about the GMO RfC? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

To the supervising and closing admins: Here is the tl;dr, in one fish's opinion.

1. The disruptive IP is being watched. Thanks Doug.
2. I might be missing something, but the only alteration that was made to the RfC-mandated language was adding the single word "However" at the beginning of the passage at March Against Monsanto. I just changed it back, and it certainly had no effect on the POV balance. As far as I know, the approved language is now at all the pages where the closing admins instructed it to be.
3. The other changes are mostly matters of language transitioning into and out of the RfC language, and many of them have already been turned back to the pre-RfC state. There are some editorial judgments about these changes, but they are not emergencies.
4. At this point, editors should be going to the talk pages of these pages, to discuss what is best about the accompanying language. From what I've seen, about halfway between Kingofaces' version and David's version would generally be about right.
5. Perhaps it would be a good idea to full-protect all of the pages listed at the RfC for a few days.
6. Nobody needs to be sanctioned. It would be great if everyone just calms down. Nerves are understandably frayed after the RfC.

Peace, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is TL;DR, maybe we should be asking who is saying "too much". You and King who often work together, make up almost 2/3rd of the discussion above:

• Trypo 41%
• King 24%
• DT 24%
• Doug Weller 3%
• Katie 4%
• Justdafax 4%

There's is very little room for non-involved parties to comment, as usual. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't helpful. About us supposedly working together, have you already forgotten that just a day or two ago, I reverted King's revert of an edit you made, and took your side in the discussion? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You did restore my edit [29] saying you are agreed with me and opposed King, but exactly 24 hours later you restored it to King's version [30] taking out all mention of Monsanto's contracts that have limited independent research on GMOs. I have seen this pattern more than once, including the RfC rule-making. Like I said, you work with King. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. An examination of the talk page discussion will show that it was nobody's version but mine. If it makes you feel any better, tl;dr refers to my own comments. I was not telling anyone not to read your comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

It seems that this got out of hand. Yes, King was WP:BOLD and approaching reckless, and he should have asked for clarification before changing the language on non-listed pages, or started discussions on their respective article talkpages. Now that the die is cast, we need to calmly discuss whether or not the wording is relevant on each of the other pages it has been added to. I would also strongly suggest a moratorium on adding the wording to new articles until we figure this out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree (and I wouldn't mind a moratorium on some editors saying shit about me). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, although I could be wrong, I don't think that it's the case that the RfC language has been added to any unlisted articles. The disputes have been over changes to language that falls just before and just after the RfC language, on the listed pages. But I do agree that language other than the RfC language should be discussed separately from the implementation of the RfC. I think most of those disputed changes have been reverted by now, and I also agree that things should be taken slowly and calmly from here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I actually only went and made edits to the specific pages and sections mentioned in the RfC, so nothing was unlisted at all. As for the comments by other editors, I do hope that DS do kick in if we get repeats of what went on here with the various aspersions, etc. I could easily ask for sanctions right now, but I'm more focused on ignoring that to get the content settled in instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to move forward on. I will note that I actually was ready to start talk page discussions if there were objections to my integrations (and I unfortunately really did assume in good faith that editors would engage in that), but this escalated so quickly it was never even given a chance. That coupled with the overall tone by some editors above, it seems high time to get back to focusing on the content at the pages instead of battleground behavior. I don't think that anyone is arguing at this point that the text surrounding prop 1 is broadly subject to the DS restrictions, including myself, so there doesn't really seem to be much of any other purpose to serve here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Continued Problem with POV edits by Kingofaces43

Kingofaces43 is continuing with the POV edits of deleting criticism of GMOs in the lede without first gaining consensus and giving a misleading edit note.

Deleted:

Some Medical Associations say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling or a moratorium on such products. Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States or Canada and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Edit note:

General cleanup. Redundant with the following paragraph on scientific consensus and WP:UNDUE to basically repeat the concept twice in the lede.)

Diff: [31] Reverted by me: [32] Talk page initiated by me: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#POV_change

Only some of the language is redundant, but much of it is not. I again ask that King be admonished for this behavior. Do we need to take this to another board to get action?

Pinging @KrakatoaKatie:

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

citations

Pinging @The Wordsmith:, @Deor:, @Nakon:, per the principle of not playing admins off one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I think it needs to go to AE. We're not going to get this resolved here. Katie^talk 23:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually almost just reported David to WP:AE for this and other ongoing battleground behavior that's still antagonizing the GMO topic by escalating the situation instead of trying to engage in the normal editing process. This would have normally been an extremely uncontroversial edit at face value considering the RfC language already says The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation. I'm not going to try to argue content here, but even if it could be considered a controversial edit, all David needed to do was bring forth reasoning for why the text should remain on the talk page (as is ongoing now) rather than refer to my edits as "POV" and try to escalate this situation too. I actually had a minor followup edit requesting people to follow WP:BRD in addition to opening a talk page section myself, but David was again extremely quick on the revert and escalating the situation here, just like how it happened in the mess above this new section. These visceral reactions by David are becoming problematic. I've been trying to be patient with them (and am willing to give them one more chance), but I'm convinced that AE will be the next stop otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Coffee and I held the RFC, you closed it, that ends our obligation to resolve this ourselves. Bring it to AE, and let some more sunlight shine on the issue. As the only admin who has been involved with the RFC from the beginning (and, in fact, proposed it), I know I'm exhausted by this conflict. I'm sure the other admins and participants are as well. Let's let some fresh eyes take a look. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as well, please take this to AE. Nakon 01:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll just note that David reverted Kingofaces, and David's revert appears to be holding, while discussion is continuing on the talk page. I really hope that David and King will work it out amicably, without the need to escalate the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Articles_on_controversial_topics. Post at Jimbo's about how this kind of problem is unlikely to be solved as long as POV editors work together and flood forums with their comments and defend bad behavior. It's the reason I did not take this to WP:AE. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Also. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Monsanto_must_be_pleased. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, @The Wordsmith:, @Deor:, @Nakon: FYI. Kingofaces43 has filed an action at WP:AE for my above post at Jimbo's talkpage. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#David_Tornheim. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

ani which you are mentioned in

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

deleted but helpful

A long time ago, you deleted Tim Bosma but a related article is in Wikipedia and has survived deletion and could use some improvement.

Would you show me the deleted Tim Bosma article? I don't plan to try to keep it but want to see what, if any, info is useful in the Bosma deleted article. Thank you. Fiona Gump (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fiona Gump: From the wayback machine, I found this.

On Wikipedia it says:

Tim Bosma: Revision history

There is no revision history for this page.

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

01:13, 4 March 2015 Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page Tim Bosma (Deleting redirects to "Dellen Millard" after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dellen Millard)

17:19, 15 May 2013 EclecticEnnui (talk | contribs) moved page Tim Bosma to Death of Tim Bosma (This is more suitable.) (revert)

reference

Death of Tim Bosma: Revision history

There is no revision history for this page.

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

00:36, 23 May 2013 Spinningspark (talk | contribs) deleted page Death of Tim Bosma (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bosma)

[reference

Dellen Millard: Revision history

There is no revision history for this page.

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

01:13, 4 March 2015 Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page Dellen Millard (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dellen Millard)

reference

Does this help? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Padajijo.png

Hi, the above photo was deleted but the same photo had the OTRS permission that has been archived in the wikimedia OTRS system (available as ticket number 2014100910013282), so I believe this file is eligible for restore as OTRS ticket was approved only after necessary research on the photo.Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Graeme Bartlett replied as stated below.

• This is too complex a situation for WP:REFUND. You will have to ask an OTRS member who is an admin, or ask at WP:DRV. Note that the FFD was after the OTRS, and that you did make a statement at the FFD. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 19#Files uploaded by User:Rajeshbieee that was considered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So Coffee....I am requesting you to take care of this issue and undelete the photo.Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

[[[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Shaikh]]

Good close, which will be helpful in the future with other TED fellows DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Another article you might want to keep an eye on

I came across Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands today, and it seems like a BLP vio waiting to happen. I've Watchlisted it, but I can't admin this area. I edit in American Politics, so i'm WP:INVOLVED here. You might want to extend the DS restrictions to that page, though. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

UTRS

Just FYI, you've got a reserved appeal in UTRS that Ponyo returned to your queue on July 5. :-) Katie^talk 13:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump AN/EW

Please take a look at this edit-warring report, which could use some timely administrative review! --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Coffee - since you were the last admin to add a 3rd extension to the Afd for Kanwal Ameen 7 days ago, I was hoping the discussion could be closed by you or other admin. The last round of discussions has me a bit concerned considering I simply followed your original suggestion to other editors here but it now seems that the lengthy timeframe may have created elevated tensions as indicated here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, I just wanted to add that I really like your TP design - it is very well done - and was hoping it would be ok with you if I used some (or all) of the code on my TP with a few changes. I will make sure to credit you for the original design. Thank you in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing panel for New York naming debate

A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Would you be willing to exercise your wisdom and participate in a closing panel tasked with adjudicating this 15-year-old conundrum? Apply here: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Closing panel. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. You might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG ^talk 19:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible discretionary sanction violation

Hi, Coffee! Sorry to dump this in your lap (and please tell me if I should report it somewhere else instead), but it seems you have been pretty active in enforcing the Discretionary Sanctions at American political articles so I thought I would see what you make of it. I am involved in the relevant discussions so I can't fairly evaluate the situation myself. The article in question is Tim Kaine, which is under discretionary sanctions, applied and posted at the article by Zzyzx11 at 06:35 on July 23. (Although it looks as if the action was not logged.)

It looks to me as if User:CFredkin's edits violated the sanctions in two ways: they violated 1RR, and they twice in the same hour restored a paragraph that had been challenged (via reversion). Diffs: 17:32, July 23, 2016 "Undid revision 731140506 by Volunteer Marek (talk) restore reliably source, neutrally worded material." and 17:49, July 23, 2016 "Undid revision 731188227 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Fox News and MSNBC are considered reliable sources." They made no attempt to discuss on the talk page.

I see that User:Volunteer Marek also violated 1RR, but did not restore any challenged information; instead they were removing it a second time after it was (improperly) restored. Thanks for any opinion on this! --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see that discretionary sanctions had been added to the article. I've self-reverted, if that helps.CFredkin (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see now that Coffee is offline and has not posted since the 19th. So I'll assume that your self-reversion is enough and the matter is closed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed it twice per WP:BLP. It's highly contentious material written in a way intended to push a POV and based on dubious sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)