User talk:SlimVirgin

RfC (procedural) question

Hi there Sarah,

I'm thinking you might be able to point me in the right direction. Remember the infamous GMO RfC? Well, I need to know how to go about enforcing it. Editors are re-arguing its conclusion, and have been reintroducing and group-edit-warring the language that was deemed unsupported back into the Pedia. I pinged the closer, but have received no reply. Is there a noticeboard for this type of problem? As this is under DS, I had assumed there would be an obvious source for help, but instead there is the same 'ole free-for-all taking place at 3 separate noticeboards.

Many thanks, petrarchan47คุก 03:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Petra, I have only a vague memory of it and don't know how to find the links. So I don't know what was decided or who closed it. More details would help me work out what to suggest. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC question

Do the sources support the content?

Content:

A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food.

Final statement by closer:

I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording.

Archive 12 shows us that no one disagreed with this, and we tried to move forward:

• A quotation from the author of the RfC might be relevant to this discussion: "[I]f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." - GrayDuck156 23 July
• the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. - Jytdog 23 July

The scientific consensus statement was created and then added to roughly 15 articles. Because (i assume) it is so agonizing to try to change anything in this suite, only one article (GM foods, where the RfC was held) had the language changed. Though I requested that Jdog list the articles where this SC was added so that we could set things right, I never received a response. The fact that this language remained intact at GM crops paved the way for the recent edit warring I mentioned.[1]

The RfC result is being re-argued here and here, but no where is there an official acknowledgment that we are indeed questioning the RfC. Editors are simply claiming that of course this consensus exists, and anyone questioning any aspect of this is lunatic fringe.

I figured there was a simple way to deal with this due to the enormity of that RfC, the fact that for a good 6 months no one has had a problem with the closing result, and that no new sources have emerged that would justify a re-do. Further, because of the equally gigantic ArbCom case, it seems that this sort of thing would be impossible to pull off. I expected to see swarms of good faith editors and admins making sure things went by the PAGs, but it still seems a bit like the wild West. petrarchan47คุก 05:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• From David's section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prokaryotes

The problem is not Prokaryotes. The problem is that Tryptofish, KingofAces43 and likely also Aircorn want to change language that was already settled upon and had been stable since last August 2015-early September 2015. That language used the term "scientific agreement" to replace "scientific consensus". The stable language was the result of a compromise created and executedhere by Jytdog and agreed to by Prokaryotes at this end of this lengthy discussion that I was also involved in. Others like myself saw the change as a slight improvement and allowed it to stand. That language was incorporated in the lead of the Genetically modified crops article here on September 4, 2015. Prokaryotes inadvertently had not revised the language in the body during that edit. That was the status quo ante consensus position on the language in the lead during this dispute. Now the three editors I named want to go back to the disputed "scientific consensus" language, despite significant opposition to the change here, and to the fact that the term "scientific consensus" is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN explained here.

• Sarah, I have another question, and if the answer isn't a simple one, we can put this on the back burner, but it should be simple. I ran across an MIT scientist today who had done some research on glyphosate, and the results weren't great. I find that her WP page is 2/3 criticism, and it looks very obvious that this was intentionally done; any criticism that could be found was slapped onto the article in no particular order, and with no concern for prose or balance. I looked at the talk page, and editors had suggested that she wasn't notable save for the criticism from industry and their journalists. I agree, and think this page should either be deleted or somehow made more neutral. What would you suggest in this case? petrarchan47คุก 05:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Petra, do you have a link to the actual RfC close? Re: the BLP, you could try taking it to AfD for other views. If there are any non-BLP sources in it (e.g. blogs), they could be removed to see what's left. See WP:BLPSPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• [2] Here is the RfC, and I'm adding a comment from David Tornheim above, since he was around to see what happened. Most importantly, I believe there is a plan to circumvent attempts to address this sanction-able activity, by creating chaos and making up new rules, like that we can self select in a closed door process which editors shall take part in writing our content. petrarchan47คุก

• Sorry, I misunderstood. I have a vague memory of commenting in an RfC about a lead where the WHO was a source, and I left a comment only because the WHO comment had not been summarized accurately. So I was looking for the close of that RfC, but it was months ago. I don't remember when or where. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, here it is. petrarchan47คุก 01:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So the question was "Do the sources support the content?" of the "scientific consensus" paragraph. The close was "no consensus" on the grounds that the question was ill-conceived and the content kept changing. The closer concluded: "I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording." So that's what needs to happen now. A different paragraph and a new RfC, unless you can gain local consensus without an RfC. If one group has gotten together to produce a new paragraph, you could put together a second group that comes up with one too, then hold an RfC for others to choose between them. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. Thank you. When the RfC was concluded, we were too exhausted to follow up on crafting a replacement. Now we realize this is a backwards approach, and that we need to be summarizing content already agreed upon and added to to the article. None of the sources supporting these "statements" are actually fleshed out in the body. I assume it's because once you look at the sources closely, they support the notion that the science is not settled. Editors are having none of it. So for now, my question remains a procedural one - how do i take action on 3 editors going against consensus on pages under DS? Another way to ask would be, what would happen to me if I had pulled something like this? petrarchan47คุก 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the suggestion for two paragraphs, i think in theory this is beautiful, but at the GM suite this is untenable. Every single source will need to go through perhaps its own RfC, but at the very least each one will require a good deal of discussion (given past history) before being accepted. Only after all sources have been discussed and added, can we come up with a summary of the content. An RfC asking editors to evaluate 2 paragraphs full of sources that each need their own evaluation, is too much. That is why the first RfC, which asked us to look at 18 sources, was so exhausting. The fact that is was so exhausting, and is now being ignored and misrepresented by the very folks who took me to ArbCom for no reason, is why i am popping back in here and asking you for advice on the proper response to this behavioural transgression. petrarchan47คุก 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Petra, I don't know what to suggest because I don't know what is happening that is against consensus. The RfC closer wrote that it had been an ineffective RfC, because in his view the text or sources had changed too much during it (writing from memory). He asked that people formulate alternative wording. So that's what needs to happen now. I realize that this is very cumbersome. Perhaps a subgroup of you could get together, one that represents opposing views, and propose a new RfC question to the larger group of regulars on those pages. Or maybe an RfC wouldn't be needed at that point. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:@Petrarchan47: I'd advise against an RfC. The resolution to this will involve either significant changes to WP:V or ArbCom. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47:, I've been dealing with some of the editors you are mentioning at another article. From that experience, I can tell you that you basically need more allies; they have a view that their POV is "mainstream" or correct, and that anyone who disagrees with them is... somehow not, plus they are lightening fast to go to the drama boards and demand that you be sanctioned. Plus, they will apply the sourcing rules vigorously, which means you need to b meticulous in your sourcing. So be careful. I've nibbled around the edges of those articles and one does so at your own peril. Even where you are correct (as I think I am in the article I'm working on), you have to be aware that there is strength more in numbers than in argument. I'm not going to let those individuals drive me to being blocked or sanctioned, and they are very rules-savvy. As long as you are rules-savvy too, just bide your time and find allies with even more clout than you have. Patience. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is so good to see the three of you here - three of the best of the best editors that are well-aware of the problem of the bias that exists and continues to grow in some of our articles. I can see it and I've given up on trying to fight it and given the make-up of our mostly male, technical-minded group of editors I can't see much hope - unless there would be a united effort to work for change. I've been saying for years that at least some of this is the result of the over-representation of males that edit our articles. On the other hand, always fighting the system robs the Wikipedia Editor experience of all the joy that one would hope to find in a hobby-like effort that is supposed to be fun. Furthermore, it is not fun to have been labeled a woo-editor because one believes that Wikipedia should have articles that represent current thought in an unbiased manner - acupuncture is a good example of that. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty sad state of affairs, I must say. Recently at AN/I, one of that group completely misrepresented 3 papers, flat-out lied about their contents, then bashed the people who were telling the truth - in front of all the admins. I asked them to do something, and was asked "what should we do, actually look at the papers in question?" The query was supposed to be sarcastic, I believe, however I cannot imagine any other reason to be here if not to ensure accuracy. I figured it would be exciting to investigate which side is actually representing the facts here, especially after ArbCom, when all we had were accusations flying back and forth. This was an opportunity to find out whether the quack watchers or the (supposed) anti-GMO cabal were lying. If anyone did actually investigate, they would have been shocked to see that one of WPs most prolific and self-assured editors is completely full of it or entirely inept. I believe this is why we didn't hear a word following my challenge - David and I are accurately representing science. The (MEDRS)science says that GMOs have been found to cause harm. I am convinced now that in many areas, this is not at all an "encyclopedia", but rather a fraternity where science that exposes uneasy truths is ignored, shunned, and criticized, as are the NPOV editors trying to include the facts. The PAGs are a lie if there is no one to ensure their application, and if our one recourse, the admin noticeboard, is a... what is the word... joke? disgrace? I give up. petrarchan47คุก 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I have just read the paper you cited. I was quite surprised by the contents, and suppose I will have to stop using the phrase "GMO paranoia". I also looked at the three papers which supposedly criticized it and found that this assertion can only be interpreted as, just as you say, a flat-out lie. I do not intend to press the issue. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Break

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.

---

Thank you. I will check with you about the sources before removing them. Frankly, considering there are 4 blogs, and one Discover article by a man outed as having taken money from Monsanto to promote GMOs, we are left with only one primary source about her employment. I do think there are BLP issues that should see her page deleted speedily. petrarchan47คุก 23:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've entered the page at AfD here. petrarchan47คุก 06:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No self-published material is allowed in BLPs, even if written by an expert in the field, unless the author is the subject of the BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Many editors do not seem to believe this. I'm not sure if it's canvassing to say who, but there are ongoing discussions in various places about weighting BLPSPS versus FRINGE (specifically PARITY). I think this is almost certainly what Petra is running into. Are you sure you're right about this issue? --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely sure. See WP:BLPSPS, which is policy: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. It seems like you're in a minority. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP is a strongly supported policy, and that part of it is very clear, so anyone can remove an SPS from a BLP. If someone restores it report it to an uninvolved admin or WP:BLPN. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I "hate to agree" with Sammy1339, but that's definitely not true any more. merely arguing removal is considered heretic as I had to find out the hard way from one of your colleagues slim virgin, someone who is now an arbcom member.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevant cases are highly watched. Would it be canvassing to mention them here? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be canvassing, but it's better to report them to BLPN. The first step is to remove them with "per WP:BLPSPS" in the edit summary. If someone restores them, BLPN is the best place to attract more eyes, or if it's happening a lot, then AN/I. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 30 January 2016 (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.

Proposition

Hello. Since this is what we've come to, I have a proposal. If you withdraw, I won't edit the main article ever again. Lately I've seen cases on ANI where people have broken promises like this and have gotten instantly blocked for a long time, so it is taken seriously. Also, I don't have a history of breaking promises. I also promise not to make any new sections on the talk if you're worried about something like that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo, if you are making this offer to bring about an end to the AN3 case, I suggest you accept a voluntary topic ban from Veganism and all forms of vegetarianism, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, accepted; but talk wasn't specifically included as I hadn't edit warred or done anything wrong there. I'll limit my posting there though. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Can I post to ANI?.
Message added 08:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Elvey^(t•c) 08:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing vs. FRS bot

I happened to notice, as it's on my watchlist, your note to Martin re canvassing, in which you listed two dozen diffs. I'm not involved in the RfC in question, but I do belong to the Feedback Request Service so I am familiar with that. Regardless of whether or not a recipient is on the FRS, it seems to me that explicitly asking for RfC participation does indeed represent canvassing. Thus while you were gracious to apologize I'm not sure it was necessary, as it does look to me like canvassing. Or maybe I'm missing something. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, thanks. I'm trying to decide whether to ask an admin to weigh in. He has continued asking others to comment, and is focusing on the "maths, science and technology" list at the feedback service, rather than the "religion and philosophy" list, even though the question is about the philosophy of veganism. As a result, he has turned the RfC into chaos. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh is he? Well as far as I am concerned the practice you describe is out-and-out canvassing. Just because someone is on the FRS list doesn't mean that he or she is somehow invulnerable to canvassing. Volunteering for the FRS means that you get randomly assigned to RfCs by bots. If there are sixty RfCs of bios you might get notified of two, or one. Something like that. It doesn't mean you are told of every RfC, so what Martin is doing is canvassing. That's why I was surprised that you apologized. Again, unless there is some other element I'm not aware of. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Martin Hogbin cites this as justification for his actions. However, I wonder if this is problematic. As written it seems that it is supposed to be used in when there is insufficient participation, which was not the case here. The timing of Martin's notifications is also questionable. The first sting of them immediately followed a heated argument over the word "both", while he notified the second bunch immediately following this comment on the AN discussion concerning his disruptive behavior, wherein he acknowledged that I was going to list the discussion at requests for closure. It looks to me like the notifications were part of a self-defense strategy; he hoped that generating more confusion would help him look better, by, hopefully, making it seem more plausible that the issues he has been bringing up might have made some sense. I'm not sure if this kind of strategic notification is allowed or not. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologized because it doesn't seem to be regarded as canvassing on Wikipedia. The RfC page says you can notify people via:

"Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service. You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on 'your side' in a dispute."

It does seem that, by choosing the math/science category, he has picked what he might see as a certain type of editor, because the RfC question has nothing to do with that category. I think for the future that section of the RfC instructions ought to be changed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Well, then maybe it wasn't canvassing (that's why I added the caveat). First time I've heard of editors being allowed to solicit editors on the basis of their being on FRS lists. I'll keep that in mind in the future myself! SlimVirgin, given that rather odd and peculiar loophole in the RfC instruction I think that ok, he was trodding the straight and narrow in this instance. I agree that it is not a good provision, but it is there. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WT:RfC#Feedback Request Service in case anyone watching wants to join in. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Endgame

I've been a little slow to pick up on this, but I think Martin & Co. are trying to intentionally disrupt the Veganism topic to force it to go to arbcom in which case all of the primary editors will be topic banned. This is sort of like tossing a rotten apple in a barrel full of good apples and complaining about how the entire barrel is rotten. Hopefully this strategy will become apparent over time to the more gullible among us. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's his ultimate aim, though I do agree that the intention is to disrupt. But I think I'd prefer to keep discussion about that editor and article elsewhere. I've started a discussion about the future of RfCs and the feedback service on WT:RFC if you're interested. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He's already said he's planning for arbcom. Anyway, please feel free to remove this entire section. I just wanted to see where this was going to go and why, and now I know. Let me know if I'm wrong in six months. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think people will increasingly see what he's doing, particularly as it's happened elsewhere. Anyway, I want to reduce how much I talk or think about him, or talk or think about anything else because of him. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Page Protection

Can you restore Boomer's edit[3] or [4] with the compromised revisions before it is locked up? You have accidently locked up the edit-warred WP:SOCK version. I also requested this in my report. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JustAGal2, I protected on the version in which I found the article, because it's a content dispute, not vandalism. If there is a long-term, consensus version, or if the current version is demonstrably false in some way, I can protect on a different version, but you would need to make that case with diffs. It's probably easier just to wait.

There was no mention of SOCK in the report. Can you elaborate? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's in the "old diffs" and the comments section [5]. I never stated it as "sock" but it's obvious. Same user for the past 7 years. The IP removed the undefeated seasons, awards, and all the compromising edits to push his agenda. You should restore it to the version before the edit-war started which is one of the versions [6] or [7] posted above. I even requested that to be fair, at the bottom of the report. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2, I didn't see that report. I was responding to an RfPP request from another editor. I'll take a look at the edit-warring report now. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2, at RfPP Boomer Vial requested full protection because of a content dispute, which means a regular editorial disagreement. If this is in fact long-term disruption, I can semi-protect the page instead, which means the rest of you can continue to edit and revert to whichever version you prefer. So please let me know which it is. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My point was that a protection should not protect a version of multiple reverts of 3 editors by an old edit-warrior or sockmaster. That's why I requested a previous version to be fair. I intentionally didn't do any reverts and supported a more objective one. JustAGal2 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomer requested it wrong because he didn't know about the history of User:129.252.69.40, GarnetAndBlack or my report. The user's goal is to try and make the Clemson University look bad and disrupt. I tried to restore some, and just wanted to protect the page from the versions that the IP has been pushing through edit-warring reverts of multiple editors. Should I have filed this as a SPI or will that report I worked on all of last night suffice? I have been waiting almost 24 hours already. JustAGal2 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2, I see that your account is a new one, yet you seem to be an experienced user, which is adding to the confusion. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is that confusing? It's personal but basically I more or less had a stalker who aquired my email address so I adandoned an older account. I also left wikipedia because too often good editors have to lose work and go through redtape to lose out to edit-warriors with less scruples who get by because often, admins don't have time to look at the details of things, and it's too time consuming. I respect good editors because they actually have to do the research and the actual writing. So in trying to understand, why has my incident report (that I spent a couple of hours researching) taken so long to process? I noticed some other ones got processed in a couple of hours? And is the page protection a final result? I don't understand how the admin areas of wikipedia work sometimes. JustAGal2 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2, I understand the frustration. The issue is that I can't tell by looking at the edits who is in the right. So I have to rely on reports from others, including you (a very new account) and Boomer Vial, an established account. Boomer seems to think this is a content dispute, so I protected on the version I found. That's what we normally do. I can revert to a previous version, but I need a strong argument. It would be helpful if Boomer could offer a view here. Boomer, in your opinion, should the article be fully or semi-protected, and if the former does it need to be protected on a different version? JustAGal2, I'm not sure what you mean about your report not being actioned, but I have now closed it because the page is protected. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would recommend a full protection, seeing as the editors are at odds as to which version is the correct version. Reverting the page back and forth numerous times only leads to further frustrations and shredded nerves, especially if there is a content dispute. Boomer Vial^Holla 03:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, Boomer. It's currently fully protected for three days on the latest revision. I can extend the protection if needed, or if I'm not around you can ask at RfPP. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and will do. :) Boomer Vial^Holla 03:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked because I just didn't understand the process. And to me, this is more a disruptive user dispute than a simple content dispute, which is why I filed it as a edit-warrior report. Should someone have filed it as a SPI report since the user and page disruptions go back beyond 6 years? I just requested the additional page protection to help protect the content and other editors who have had their contributions reverted over the user's obsession with his sports rival's success. I requested Boomer's edit even over my own, because it was before the IP reappeared, and seemed to be the most "compromising" edit in comparison. JustAGal2 (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How come my page doesn't show your last post to Boomer? Must be a glitch of some kind. I can only see my last response? JustAGal2 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you removed some posts by mistake, but it's fixed now. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I must be having technical difficulties. I think you missed my post above, earlier. I filed that report as a (6 year) edit-warrior report which is why it took me so long to research it. The IP was blocked the last time for 6 months by slakr^\ talk / which did cut back on the edit-warring because it removed the IP sock, according to the page logs. Out of curiosity, should I have filed it as a SPI report? I intentionally didn't restore or revert anything on the page until my report got reviewed in good faith. I am requesting that you at least page protect it with Boomer's last edit or an earlier editor's version of the page. I don't want to feel like we just page protected by default for a rather disruptive edit warrior. JustAGal2 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)