Hello, SageRad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Shiftchange (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
gut microbiome and glyphosate
i think i just reverted you for about the fourth time on this. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not cool with me. Your edits to remove this point strike me as a propagandist agenda. Other people's citation included Huff Post. How is Grist different? You've also removed other posts on the same topic of glyphosate's probable effects on the gut microbiome, and the fact that animals do contain the EPSP synthase molecule, when i did cite more "reliable" sources, i do believe. Why do you do this? What is your agenda? It is very clear that glyphosate can act upon the very microbes in our guts, and that it is present in our guts. This is basic science. I can link to peer-reviewed articles from the 1980s that shows this effect. Actual studies on effects of glyphosate on the gut microbiome have not been done, but the hypothesis is very likely according to the basic science, and the lacuna in the scientific record the notable thing. The Grist article makes this point, and describes reasons why the hypothesis is serious. Please allow it to be referenced. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you are unhappy but I am just telling you how Wikipedia works. You are pretty new here. You cannot add stuff to articles because you think X is true (that is original research which is not allowed here). Everything must be verifiable. (Those two links point to Wikipedia policies). What does "verifiable" mean" It means that there is some "reliable source" out there that says it - that this is really a mainstream notion in the relevant field. For health related matters, reliable sources are defined in WP:MEDRS which was linked-to in my note to you above. Grist is not a reliable source per MEDRS. The whole point of all that - no original research, verifiability, and reliable sourcing - is to make Wikipedia really useful and reliable. These policies and guidelines were developed by the Wikipedia community over the years, to guide itself. Think about what a garbage dump this place would be, if anybody could add any old thing they wanted. And think about the very ugly arguments that would break out. Right? Instead of a Mad Max, wild west kind of place, Wikipedia has a sort of "body of law" that governs what we do and how we treat each other. The spirit of that "body of law" (we actually call it policies and guidelines not "law) - is really beautiful. It takes some time to learn. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i can accept that and acknowledge your points. So, if i cite peer-reviewed research paper sources that show that glyphosate does act upon the very same microbes that are in the human gut microbiome, that would be a valid addition, right? I also wonder why the HuffPo sources are allowed if my Grist reference was not allowed. Is HuffPo more valid or is it because the article in HuffPo references more valid sources than the one in Grist? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. i do hope you do read MEDRS. you will see that popular media sources like grist and huffpo are not OK for health claims - you need reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. we have high standards for sourcing for health claims because they are so important. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then i will reference peer-reviewed articles to note the likely connection of glyphosate to disruption of the human gut microbiome. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just "peer reviewed" articles. please do read the definitions section of MEDRS. PRIMARY sources are original research papers; SECONDARY sources are review articles. There is a difference, and an important one! let me help you. so, to find anything in the biomedical literature, the best place to look is pubmed.gov, which is a huge index of the literature. So if you go there and search, (see here) you find there are 2 papers on "glyphosate gut bacteria". But what we want are reviews (secondary sources). there is a "filter" function on the left side there, and if you select "review" from article types, you get one result. PMID 24678255. That paper is, in my view, not reliable. The journal is very very low quality, and it is by Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist at MIT who has gone off the rails on glyphosate. Please see the two discussions of her work linked at the very bottom of the pubmed abstract at PMID 24678255, in the comments section. (the "science based medicine" link there is especially useful) The upshot of all this, is that there are no MEDRS sources to make the kind of claim that you want to make. In other words, the claim is not supported by science, at this time. It may be later, but is not, at this time. So we cannot have content in Wikipedia about this now. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, this is a conversation we should be having at the Talk page of the glyphosate article. Would it be OK with you, if I copy this conversation there? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so the content you added at Monsanto was not about health, but rather about biology so MEDRS does not apply there. But in general, we look for secondary sources across the board... it is the secondary literature (literature reviews) that helps us in many many ways to do our work here. We can talk about that, if you want. And really, content about glyphosate belongs at the glyphosate article. that herbicide is off patent and has been for 15 years now, and is sold by many companies. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, as well, and this makes sense to me. I could also fruitfully spend my time reviewing claims to safety that may be made by reference to review articles, such as those that review feeding studies of glyphosate, to make sure that it is noted that they do not test for health or effects on the gut microbiome in the animals studied. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i want to thank you for being patient as we work through this. at the end of the day, everybody wants our articles to be as close to the truth as we limited humans, working within our limited institutions can make them. with science-based content things tend to be more sane because the literature is so deep and scientific publishing is an institution itself. things get really crazy in articles about things like... say, video games, where the sources are blogs and crap like that. thanks again for hanging in there. please know that the articles about monsanto, glyphosate, GMOs, and all that, have been heavily worked over. there is always room to improve them but it is unlikely you are going to find anything that hasn't been worked over in one way or another. the gut microbiome thing is an interesting angle as focus on that is pretty recent, and i appreciate you bringing it up. i am looking forward to seeing how the science unfolds on that. thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JYTDOG, i am very displeased with the fact that you are undoing every one of my edits, and i don't think it's justified. Sometimes, it is on a sentence that does not reference any citation, and i know the basic science and then edit it, to reflect the basic accepted knowledge, such as the fact that glyphosate does uptake through roots as well as foliage. Why did you reverse these edits? Tell me simply, with no fancy language, please. And why did you delete my section on correlation to changes in rumen of dairy cows with citation to a peer-reviewed article? Why? I need simple direct explanation. Since when is a peer-reviewed article not an acceptable source? Explain simply please. This was NOT a human medical question. This was on dairy cows. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please don't take it personally. please. as i wrote above, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY are really fundamental policies here, and those two, and our third (and final) key content policy, WP:NPOV, all call for editors to use secondary sources, not primary sources. The 2 content guidelines, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, also call us to use secondary sources. And on contoversial articles, everybody should use the best sources, not just what is at hand.
about you being expert.... you ~could~ be anybody, including WP:Randy in Boise (a mythological idiot child who acts like they know everything) or John Franz. You are anonymous. As am I. Part of what is beautiful about WP, is the radical equality that exists here among editors, andthe same policies and guidelines that apply to all of us. btw, You may want to have a read of WP:EXPERT, which is some guidance for experts who come edit Wikipedia in the field of their expertise. again, please don't take anything personally. the glyphosate article is controversial, and on articles like this everybody needs to go slow and surely. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not finding that the reality of the guidelines jives with what you're saying and doing. The page on "what constitutes a reliable source" includes journal articles, and does not specify that they have to be
"secondary sources". I cited a paper on dairy cows and that got removed. That was a report on research that was in a peer-reviewed journal. Is that not an acceptable source?
(exhale) are you really asking me? i am asking because it is not clear to me that you are reading what i am writing and i have a shitload of work to do today in the real world. i am happy to explain but not if you are asking rhetorically.... Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am asking you, because you are the one removing my edits, and i think that i am doing it alright. I have been reading the links you provided, and i think you're acting strangely based on what i am reading. What i see about primary versus secondary sources are not -- as you say -- that primary sources are not allowed. It's that secondary sources are preferable, and it's not ok for the Wikipedia author to interpret a primary source to their own ends. But it *is* ok to use primary sources, and to describe what they find. You've told me to opposite of that. From the link that you provided: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." And then, there is the issue of basic facts in sentences that are not referenced at all but describe basic background knowledge, such as about glyphosate. If a sentence that is not even referenced to a source is incomplete or incorrect, aren't i allowed to edit it, as someone who has been researching the basic science around glyphosate for a while? I think that is the beauty and power of Wikipedia, and you've prevented me from doing so. That is why i have these concerns. I am sorry to use your time, and i am also busy, but you're the one who reverted my edits, into which i put some time to begin with, you know. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes i am the one removing your edits (although Kingofaces is too now) and it is also true that you are completely new to wikipedia, are working on a controversial article, and are editing aggressively. right? so really, please slow down. as i wrote on the talk page, there were two kinds of problems with your edits. some of it was WP:OR, and some of it was badly source. ok, please see this thing on my user page. Also, please see WP:Controversial articles. The experience of editing this article, is not like editing something obscure, like the article on Chorismate mutase which is the next one in the chain after EPSP. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not completely new to Wikipedia, as i have been using it as a resource for years, heavily, and i have edited anonymously now and then to correct grammar or details about which i know solidly, and have never had an issue like this before. Sure, i guess glyphosate is "controversial" because there is a very heavy vested interest in the industry to maintain a certain illusion about it, to not provide any clues that it may be less safe than they claim, and that may introduce a tension in the results of the page. I suppose in that sense, but the things i've been correcting on the page have been factual points in the basic science about the chemical. I know from using Wikipedia for years that the sources i'm using are reasonable and generally accepted on Wikipedia. That is why i am bothered by your aggressive reversion of my edits. I would not say i am "aggressively editing". I would say that i made contributions and it was strikingly bad feeling how they were reverted and the reasons given for those reversions did not make sense. Primary sources are *not* prohibited by Wikipedia policy. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes you are clearly are not completely new, that is clear. I cannot speak to other edits you have made in WP nor whether they "stuck" - your edits on glyphosate have been unsourced or badly sourced. And the stuff about glyphosate being taken up through roots (in addition to leaves) -- there is almost no root uptake, based on sources we already use in the article. i don't know why you added that.
about "controversial" - i've worked a lot on articles related to GMOs in the past few years. Most strongly POV edits (unsourced or unreliably sourced with clear POV content) come from editors who are clearly anti-GMO and are adding negative content; i have seen very few (like maybe 10) edits by editors who make bad edits with a favorable POV. It is hard work to keep the articles NPOV and well-sourced; i get flamed all the time. Note - I am not saying that your edits were POV, only that they were unsourced or badly sourced. And yes it is true that primary sources are not prohibited (few things are here), but the policies and guidelines are consistent that secondary sources should be used, and primary sources used only with great care. If the stuff you want to add is really solid, it will be discussed in reviews - there is rarely a good reason to use a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my edits are meant to be factual. The inclusion or exclusion of facts can be value-laden of course. The frame of an explanation can be value-laden. The claim that animals do not contain the shikimic acid pathway and therefore glyphosate has no effect on animals, though, is not a real fact. It's not true. It's a weasely lie which is in favor of the industry that wishes it to remain the de facto assumption about glyphosate. EPSPS being present in microbes in the human gut means that the human organism has the shikimic acid pathway, in an organismic sense. To be human is to have a gut microbiome. To call it otherwise is, to me, a distortion of the truth that does not serve human knowledge and transparency. As to the "primary vs secondary" distinction, i'm still working on understanding precisely what this means. I get a sense of what it means, and from what i gather, it would tend to make Wikipedia reflect a sense of "scientific consensus" but this can be manufactured by attentive effort by an entity that has an agenda, as has been the case sometimes in the field of climate change study. There may be no review-level paper that reports something important that is reported in a primary research paper. Or, the review-level paper that does mention it may be disallowed by things like your assertion that Seneff papers are not worthy of being cited as sources. I do not like Seneff papers, and i haven't used them. However, who gets to make that determination? Who gets to decide whether a fact is to be reported fro,m a primary source or omitted, or whether a particular source like a Seneff paper is to be excluded from the realm of possibility? [I am going to copy this text to the "Basic Science about Glyphosate" section in the talk page for the entry itself, as i think this ought to be more public of a discussion. If you would reply there, it would make this more public and open, i think.] SageRad (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wow man you are on a high horse. i am actually glad that you are bringing up the gut microbiome stuff and i agree that there is something potentially interesting there. we (humanity) are just starting to learn about the importance of the gut microbiome and while we have learned some stuff, there is a lot that we don't know yet and there is a lot of wild speculation about it in the popular media and by companies that are already looking to make money off it by selling probiotics and the like. with regard to this particular issue within that field - the extent to which herbicide or pesticide residues on food may be effecting it - that too is very much emerging, and there is also lots of wild speculation about that. we go slow in WP. We are not "cutting edge" here. Please go slow. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was including basic known facts about glyphosate in the story about glyphosate. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring at glyphosate
It appears you're pretty new here, so I've leaving this template below to guide you on how we handle content disputes here at Wikipedia and what to generally avoid. Just focus on talking things through on the article talk page or in the section above and you'll hopefully get up to speed without any problems.
Your recent editing history at Glyphosate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it's gone back and forth once now, and that is where i'll leave it, as i have put comments onto the "talk" page at the glyphosate entry. Is that acceptable? I have questions about how these things work, and i have some issues with the reversions that have been done. I'm discussing this with the person who reverted the edits. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sage. You've chosen a difficult place to start editing. Even those with a strong grasp of wikipedia policies can have trouble on articles like Glyphosate, and Jytdog's recent report to the edit warring board suggests the degree to which some people take these articles seriously. I see you've now replied on that board. I advise caution here as taking disputes personally can lead to insults/leveling accusations at specific editors - a quick way to get blocked. It might be in your best interest to edit on other articles for a few days to see how things work in other less-heated parts of the encyclopedia, and to get a deeper understanding of how WP works (and sometimes doesn't).Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that, but this happens to be an area that i have been learning about intensively, lately, and therefore have some things to offer the general population in terms of knowledge about glyphosate -- and i do NOT mean "original research" but the offering of relevant but little-known facts about the chemical. I take your point, but i also see that the reason why this article is flawed at the moment is precisely because it's a "controversial" article which comes from the fact that a huge vested interest exists in management of knowledge about this topic, and this is what Wikipedia in spirit is supposed to help humans become liberated from. I have indeed now and then contributed to other articles of which i had solid knowledge, and corrected a few minor mistakes here and there on obscure topics relating to microbes or other basic science that i work with. But when it comes to this one, it seems there are serious challenges that seems rather extreme to me. SageRad (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what "vested interest" do you see at play here, SageRad? Dialectric how does my editing and discussion at Glyphosate demonstrate how Wikipedia "doesn't work"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic around which there are serious vested interests. That is clear. That is why it's controversial, isn't it? There are potential conflicts of interest in this field of study as there is money on the line and there are other important things on the line, like ecology and human health. All of these things drive people passionately toward different goals, sometimes. SageRad (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that is not an answer, really. glyphosate is generic - if the "vested interest" is Monsanto they would appear to have very little interest in glyphosate per se (they may do, to the extent that glyphosate-resistant crops are still an important part of their business even as that trait has also gone off patent). As i wrote above, most of the conflict and personal attacks in these articles comes from anti-GMO activists. (by the way i appreciate you removing your reference to "fascist" and removing your other personal attack at the glyphosate talk page without being asked to; i do understand that learning how wikipedia works can be frustrating, especially if you come here with burning issues) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I trust my gut when it tells me something is wrong. Glyphosate knowledge is an area of great vested interest. I know this from experience. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, you should read the humorous essay,. Wikipedia:The Truth. a lot of new editors come here talking about "their gut" and "the truth". it is not a way of talking here, that is helpful to anyone. mostly it is not helpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole episode has been a huge sham and i don't need you to lecture to me from a high and mighty place that there is no such thing as truth, or that it is something worthy of pursuit and gradual approximation toward. I disagree with the outcome of this tribunal, and did not get any sort of a fair hearing. This is not what i expected from Wikipedia. There was not an intentional "edit war" on my part and i do not think there was a 3-time reversal on any particular point that could be fairly called such. Just so you know. I see thinkgs very differently from you and just because you know the ways & means around here doesn't make you right in a factual or ethical sense of the word. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "war" -- I edited and i learned something about procedures, and i discussed in the talk sections after that became apparent to be the preferred method, and i stated that would hold off from editing the disputed sections when the allegation of an "edit war" came up. I do not like the atmosphere of this place. It's hostile. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been talking nicely with you and taking an inordinate amount of my time and effort to explain things to you. you have no grounds to claim hostiluty. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the atmosphere of this place. I feel it's like walking on eggshells and that people hold power over others in ways that are not right, and use bureaucratic means and fancy language to shut down real pursuit of accuracy. I didn't ask you to donate your time to block my edits and then launch an investigation into a supposed "edit war". SageRad (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, SageRad, hell is other people. And in Wikipedia, it is other people, all the time. As i wrote to you way, way above, there is a lot to learn about this place. if you take the time to learn how it works, it can really be beautiful. you really try to communicate with other people, and base discussions on policy, guidelines, and sources. it can be exhilarating. i will tell you that things get the most difficult when people arrive here with a really strong POV and their goal is to content reflecting that POV into the article, first and foremost. not starting with the mission of Wikipedia, not starting with sources, but starting with their own ideas about what they want. that is pretty much you in this case. i have been trying to ask you to go slow and learn how this place works, and start with sources. I hope you will start doing that. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i can chuckle with you on that thought. Still, i really was only attempting to edit the article to reflect some basic facts about glyphosate, how it works, and what it affects. If it were something less "controversial" then i think it would have all been fine. If i were correcting some aspect of an article about Geobacter spp. and electrogenic metabolism, because it's an area of my expertise, i doubt there would have been opposition to using a primary research paper to note a fact. I am committed to accuracy, and i know i make mistakes as do all people, and love the concept of mutual co-editing and checks and balances. I understand that glyphosate is a primary interest of an industry that does pay a lot of attention to what people say about the science around it. I've noted this already in my discussions with people in various forums. It can be rough going. Anyway, here's to three days of peace and quiet, Jytdog. Cheers. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you keep skipping right over my telling you that the most hellacious editing in these topics has come from anti-GMO activists. they come here with that as their primary interest. that is true. it is bizarre to me that you are acknowledging this. anyway - another thing about how Wikipedia works. The point of page protection, is that editors are forced to discuss content on the Talk page. That is why i listed the article at 3RR - to get it locked down and drive discussion on the Talk page. If there are further changes you want to make, would you please use this time to suggest them - and their sourcing - on the talk page, so that we (you, me, dialectric, and anybody else who cares) can talk through them, before they go into the article? That is not normal, but that is what happens in situations like this. Would you please consider that? Again, that is what this time of protection is for -- it is why Wikipedia has it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge you saying that about anti-GMO activists. I have seen blatant disregard for facts from people on both "sides". I would prefer to avoid sides altogether and look at the science to discern what is real from what is fiction. I've seen anti-GMO fanatics calling people names and citing studies that are blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand -- for example, using studies that test full formulation Roundup to try to assert that glyphosate alone has a certain effect on cells. I have also seen pro-GMO activists call people names, and cite studies that are blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand -- for example, referring to a chimerical wall of animal feeding studies to assert the safety of glyphosate, when on further examination, most of the studies on Roundup Ready feed do *not* include glyphosate in the feed, and even among those that do, none of them do any assessment of gut health other than a visual glance at the intestines after dissection (along with basic clinical assays). So, i guess i've seen it from both "sides". On the other hand, i have had amazing conversations with people on both "sides" who were good participants in dialogue. I have learned a great deal from certain people who were clearly pro-GMO in bias, but who took the time to look at evidence carefully, and to speak carefully and respectfully. I also recognize in myself an occasional tendency to get my hackles up, and to prejudge some people as being more oppositional than they are, from dealing with seriously low attacks by other people -- a problem of deaggregation of individual, by another name, the formation of prejudice.
I also acknowledge with respect your invitation to use this time to discuss possible changes to the page, and i think that i will, starting tomorrow morning. I'm a little too burnt out today to continue right now, though. Thanks, Jytdog. Maybe we can get along and make this a more accurate and complete page. SageRad (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lord knows we need more science-based editors, solidly grounded in policy and guidelines, working on these articles. i look forward to talking with you tomorrow. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, now that the page protection is in place, it won't be lifted until the 3 days are up, and arguing over the protection will not be productive. I appreciate that you may have specialized knowledge of glyphosate, but I imagine you could find other articles to add to if you do some searching. If you are interested in this I can point you to some wikipedia resources for newer editors. Part of the problem here is - being highly focused on one article or narrow set of articles sometimes raises a red flag for long time editors. It can be seen as pushing a specific point of view, and whether or not the view is supported by good sources, a better approach if you have the time is to learn about wikipedia by working on a range of things without getting to invested in any one debate.
Jytdog, in answer to the above, 'how does my editing and discussion at Glyphosate demonstrate how Wikipedia "doesn't work"?', what I said was that editing around the encyclopedia, rather than just on Glytophosphate, would give Sagerad an understanding of how WP works and sometimes doesn't. I was not pointing to Glytophosphate as an example. I think you will agree that there are times wikipedia doesn't work or doesn't work smoothly - hoaxes, COI and copyvio articles that stay up for years, discussions that devolve into personal attacks, etc. I think a new editor can learn both from seeing the implementation of policies and the limitations of policy.Dialectric (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectric, i can appreciate all that you've said there. I wanted to simply voice my disagreement with the decision, although i accept it, of course, and i was already not editing anymore until further discussion anyway. This is an interesting mechanism. I can see that some articles will be highly contested as there will be interested parties with different perspectives and different goals in editing an article. SageRad (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your Glyphosate technical Question
Do you mean notified of page changes on your watchlist or by email? Each article should have a watch/unwatch tab at the top, and if this says 'unwatch' you are already watching the page. There are also a number of relevant settings in the preferences menu on the top right of the wikipedia page for logged in users. Preferences -> watchlist tab and Preferences -> Notifications should cover what you are looking for.Dialectric (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectric, thank you. I did check and had the Talk and the main article marked for "watch" and i was referring to receiving the notifications on the Wikipedia page itself on the top bar near my username. Somehow it hasn't been showing up like it did before. Your message on my talk page did show up just now on the top bar, however, and i also did receive and email.
Also, am i doing this right in terms of replying to people? Should i be indenting by one more than what i'm replying to, and then signing the last paragraph? Like this? Thanks for your help. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I see - you only get notifications like that three ways. 1 is if someone writes on your talk page (this page). 2 is if somebody "thanks" you for an edit. The third is if someone "pings" you like this SageRad anywhere in Wikipedia - that will also give you a notification. (Quick note on that - the "ping" only works if there is a fresh signature with it (the four tildas). if you misformatted the ping and notice that only after you save your edit, they will not be pinged if you fix it and resave; if you fix it, you also have to sign again. So the times you received notifications were times that you were pinged -not when someone edited the article or the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if you just type someone's name like this - SageRad - they are not notified, btw. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you very much, Jytdog. I understand it now. What a place this is, Jytdog.... trying out the pinging thing on you. So am i using the indentations correctly? I guess so, if it's just for formatting purposes and not to ping. And i guess to keep aware of changes on watched pages then i need to go to my watchlist page. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yep i was pinged - and you will be notified by this comment, b/c it is here on your Talk page. and yes you are understanding indenting, signing, pinging, and watchlists. the logistics that take a bit of learning to master and can be so baffling. hooray! Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Monsanto etc
SageRad - Different areas of the encyclopedia have different cultures, and as a controversial subject, Monsanto discussions can be particularly contentious. You might find looking through the archive of discussions on Jimbo Wales (cofounder of wikipedia)'s talk page useful. It is the place where big picture issues like those you mention in your Monsanto comment are most often discussed: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. The essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth might be of interest, as well.Dialectric (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dialectric. I appreciate the pointers. I did find a section called "How our "Due Weight" and "Proportioning" policies have degraded some articles" on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page that seems to discuss these issues. Is this what you had in mind for me to look at? I fully support verifiability, but i worry about the framing and weight given to various aspects of topics in terms of struggles by groups with different agendas. I'm also concerned about the nature of consensus as used by some people who urge compromise on what the facts are, or what facts are included or excluded, and sometimes the way that very strict interpretation of guidelines can limit the usefulness or completeness of articles. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, you edited my talk page to add indenting on my above comment to Dialectric -- what's that about? Is that a signal like "I have seen what you wrote?" SageRad (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, it means that your page is now on my watchlist, that I read what you wrote, saw it was misformatted, and fixed it. i thought about writing, but didn't. but in light of your comment, i will write now what i was going to then, since your comment is right in line with it... you are kind of overthinking things and you are writing about your overthinking on article talk pages. There is a reason why assume good faith is a pillar here, and why so, so many of the policies and guidelines are focused on the surface of things - one content, sources, policies, and guidelines. Anonymity allows people to speak freely here and is a very deeply held value in the community, but it also can breed paranoia. AGF is meant to be a bulwark against that. (please think about that) I wrote to you way, way early in our interaction, that this this place is very well thought out, on a very deep level, in such a way that this place can be beautiful when people fall in line with its vision (you saw some of the kind of interaction that is possible here on the Glyphosate talk page). Policy X can cause Y kind of reaction, so policy Z arose to correct that or guideline W arose to give nuance. The structure of PAG is also beautiful. But there are also still some pitfalls that people can fall into... and you are falling right into one. For what it's worth, i advise you to keep it simple. "Verifiability not truth" is advice along the same lines. The thing to aim for, is well sourced, NPOV, encyclopedic content. Try to write it, and when others differ, talk about it with them, simply and directly, based on sources, policies, and guidelines. please leave Truth and speculation about other editors' motivations out of it. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume probable good faith in a new person, and then i judge a person's character by their actions. There must logically be a point at which "assume good faith" no longer applies, as people do get banned from Wikipedia for vandalism and impetuous edit warring, don't they? After first contact, then people are being judged by their actions to a degree. That's a fact, isn't it? Do you disagree with this? Do you think that any judgment of a person by their actions is forbidden in Wikipedia-land? Trying to clarify your meaning. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, i found this on the Assume Good Faith page: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." One must use one's judgment and not be paranoid, is what i take from that essay. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
people get blocked based on their behavior, not on why they do things. we cannot know why people do things. (i'll add here, that it is really, really interesting to read the drama boards. this place is a laboratory of human behavior. it is amazing how often people get all mad at other editors and bring something to ANI, and end up with the case turning against them, and action being taken against them, because they have no idea how wrong they are -- in other words, editors often don't even understand themselves, much less other people.)
please focus on content and sources and whether they comply with policies and guidelines; focusing on what might or might not be motivating other editors is missing the mark - that is the pitfall you are falling into. going down that path leads to no where good. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, chill with the telling me what to do. SageRad (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking to sociological dynamics that i know exist in the world as relate to power and knowledge, and spoke in general terms. One can indeed, however, use judgment to discern probable motivations in people. It may not hold up as a criteria, but the related behavior can. If someone is overly contentious on a certain set of topics, then that in itself can be a problem behavior, can't it? Of course what constitutes "overly contentious" would also be a matter of judgment. SageRad (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
of course you can do whatever you like. i've been around a long time and worked on controversial articles for a long time. i'm telling you that you are driving over a cliff with regard to what you are doing here in Wikipedia which is not just any old place. you are free to keep driving in that direction, of course. i'll stop trying to help you. good luck! (i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, i am really finding it very difficult to work with you. Really difficult. You come up with allegations against me in nearly every comment of yours. And they acting like you're just trying to be nice an helpful and neighborly. And not even addressing the actual questions or points that i raise, generally. And then citing me for alleged violations of policies and guidelines. It's caused me to feel a very hostile environment here in pages you are involved with. You also seem to include condescension and veiled threats so often, sort of like "Watch out, boy! There's a line here you better not cross..." I tried asking simple questions, like about the relativity of what is deemed a reliable source, and i end up getting an accusation against me... I would not be surprised if you now try to block me or ban me from Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no ill intent toward you - I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to help you understand how Wikipedia works - working here is nothing like writing a blog or commenting on some website. nothing like that. i told you above that there is a kind of "body of law" that provides the foundation what we do here and how we interact here, and that one of the hardest things for new editors to grasp, is that it exists at all, much less how it works. i have celebrated at times when you did get it. But overall you are not getting it; i do hope you eventually start to. going forward i'll be limiting myself to interactions with you about content and sourcing based on policies and guidelines. Done here too. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, if you find interactions with a specific editor contentious, you can request that they not post to your talk page. These requests are almost always honored. There is an exception of notification of postings to admin noticeboards concerning you. If you find you cannot assume good faith in a given discussion, one approach that works for some editors is the 'assume nothing' viewpoint. This is summed up effectively in a quote from wikipedia editor JeffBillman below.Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume that another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume that another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap. Cheers, JeffBillman (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Dialectric -- that is pretty much what i've been doing and when successful, it works out best, but it is true that a person with an identity (even a virtual person with a screen name) does automatically build up a profile in the human mind. The human mind is built like that for social interaction. It's hard to see and feel a pattern and then to ignore it completely. Thank you. I always welcome your unsolicited advice. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
misrepresentation
Your charaterization of the sources i use here is not accurate. per WP:TPG:
discuss content, not contributors
Do not misrepresent other peopleJytdog (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's quite a stretch. I was asking a question about relativity of what gets called a reliable source versus not a reliable source, and you didn't answer the question and instead cite me with this? Ridiculous behavior. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the claim that "On the other hand, you seem willing to allow statements supported by citation of research reports from the industry and their allies about their own products, when they report the opposite sorts of things, claims to the absolute safety of glyphosate based on research that i know is not comprehensive" is a misrepresentation. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPA /COI
Hi SageRad. I am sorry to have you ask this, but now that you made this edit and added the same content to a second article, I have to ask you the following. (Please do not take this as a personal attack; about half my work here is dealing with COI issues in WP and I ask folks questions like this all the time.) Pretty much all your edits to date have been focused on gut microbiota and glyphosate. Today per the link above, you added content about a lawsuit focused on that issue, sourced to the website of class action suit. I'm providing you with our COI notice, and will have some comments/questions for you below.
I have nothing at all to do with the lawsuit against Monsanto that i noted in a news story last month and then edited into relevant locations at glyphosate where there is a section on legal things to do with the herbicide, and also Monsanto legal cases, which is a compendium of legal cases having to do with Monsanto. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SageRad. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of userequire disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, disclosure of conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. COI issues get a bit ... interesting in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous here. Please do read WP:COI, and please note that being involved in litigation is a conflict of interest.
While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some relationship with litigation you wrote about? You can answer how ever you wish, but if there is a relationship, please disclose it. Thanks!
I will note that because you and I have tangled, I am starting this conversation but I will not continue it. Instead, I am opening this to the community by posting at COIN. Please see the notice of that below. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. Let me just say simply: I have nothing at all to do with the lawsuit against Monsanto that i noted in a news story last month and then edited into relevant locations at glyphosate where there is a section on legal things to do with the herbicide, and also Monsanto legal cases, which is a compendium of legal cases having to do with Monsanto. I noted the case a month ago when i did a news search for "glyphosate" as i have been doing lately, and then when in noticed a section in the glyphosate article relating to legal cases, i thought it would be appropriate there. I do think the lawsuit is clever and i think it's a great idea, but i have no part in it nor do i know anyone involved directly with it. All i know is it's been the subject of a lot of talk and it's pending. I did try to cite the news story that described it instead of the legal filing itself, but i found that the website was blacklisted on WP and i have made a special whitelist request for that specific page so that perhaps we could cite a news article instead of a filing document, but i like the filing document nonetheless, as a reference. SageRad (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
I went ahead and closed this. You have said you not connected to the litigation. Please do pay mind to avoid WP:ADVOCACY per the comments of others there. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
accident, i hope
in this dif you deleted my comment. i have restored it. i hope that was an accident. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, Jytdog -- a total accident. I didn't know that happened, and i'm really sorry. Thanks for asking instead of assuming i did that intentionally. I wonder how that happened. I would not ever do that intentionally. I respect integrity of dialogue fully. SageRad (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits on Polychlorinated biphenyls are noticed and greatly appreciated. Bfpage |leave a message 10:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing content
it is a simple thing to write:
the following content "X" was removed in this diff (with link) with edit note "CCCC" by (username X with link). (I don't understand the reason you gave) AND/OR (I don't agree that this should be removed because (reason grounded in policy and guideline)). Username X would you please respond to that? Thanks.
That is what we do here, per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to second this warning. The comments on the MEDRS talk page and on the Polychlorinated Biphenyls talk page are really over the top. Not everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda, is ill-motivated, or intellectually dishonest. Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement 12:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You think i "attacked" others? Really now? SageRad (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a very real question about a very real thing that happened, and i was seeking guidance and input from others on interpreting MEDRS since you and others have used it in ways that would exclude very solid data in the article, and i found that challenge to be in my opinion excessive and not to serve the article's best interest. This is still remaining highly contentious, and i would suggest it's not due to my actions. SageRad (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If i were of a litigious mindset, i'd be plastering your walls with warnings and citations and crap like this, more than you've done to me. I hope someone takes the time to look at actual actions, and doesn't fall prey to the sophistry of your accusations, and makes some kind of independent assay on what is going on here. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a real dynamic going on that i described over at MEDRS discussion, and my bringing it there was a good faith effort to defend against what i see as excessive deletions of my edits with the citation that MEDRS applies, when in my estimation that is not the original intended purpose or the spirit of MEDRS, and therefore i started a conversation over there and described -- in the abstract -- not naming anyone -- a situation to get people's feedback and to explain why i wanted this feedback, what prompted me to ask the question. And then for you both to comment like this at my personal talk page, seems to be harassing. SageRad (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What i wrote in the MEDRS discussion:
Suppose that there is a single editor among 10 who appears to want to minimize any statements that may sound bad for chemical companies. Say that this editor cited WP:MEDRS on this, claiming that it's a biomedical claim that falls under the scope of MEDRS and therefore i need to find a MEDRS-qualified source or else the text that i included will be removed. Is that how we want Wikipedia to work? Please consider carefully, is this a MEDRS claim that would affect people's health decisions badly in the future, or is it historical data? Is this a synthesis or is it ok that i am simply reporting readings of PCB levels that were in the paper?
So, based on actual experiences, i made up a hypothetical situation and posed it as a question, as a thought experiment, for people to use in seeing why i am asking this meta-level question about when MEDRS does and does not apply strictly. I am working hard to figure out how the balance of powers and tensions among editors works out here, and those who are quick with a policy citation, or who "know the ropes" can be hard to deal with when they use that knowledge to be obstructionist -- and yes, i have been interpreting some actions as obstructionist, and i've been speaking to that, and i don't think you can really shut down a person speaking to their interpretation of reality, if they do so in a grounded way and with reference to behavior. I mean, i've been cited so many times now, each time being a form of you speaking about my behavior, i suppose, though i find them in the main to be frivolous. We have very different perspectives, apparently, and it's also impossible to know who a person is and what their motivations are, but from a history of actions, one can build up some interpretations. You've attempted to charge me with "advocacy" and with "conflict of interest" so it's sort of pot calling kettle black here, and i really think my observations hold a lot more water and have more real evidence than the ones you've charged me with, and you've done so formally while i am just trying to find a way to work here and asking for 3rd party opinions on interpreting MEDRS. I've seen your interpretations of WP guidelines being not such good interpretations in the past and i'm subjecting them to more scrutiny now. History of actions leads to characterization of a person's nature. That's not a crime you know. It's how society works, and it's how people figure out organically how to work together, and in some cases, who cannot be worked with because of obstructionism. SageRad (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i will say this one more time. Since almost your first day here, you have spent more time discussing your speculations about the motivations of other editors than you have discussing content and sources. This is all documentable through diffs. I have told you many, many times that this is not what we do here. You saw at the glyphosate article that it is entirely possible to have a conversation about content, based on sources and policies and guidelines, and to get content changed or added, through simple discussion.
All that your discussion of motivation does, is add static. I gently warned you about this several times above, and on talk pages. I have now formally warned you. You are not taking seriously the behavioral policies and guidelines set up by the community. This is not any old website - there are behavioral norms here in Wikipedia. Please do not continue to ignore them. Please read WP:TPG and WP:NPA and follow them.
this is the last time I will say this. Making personal attacks as you are doing is not allowed here. If you continue, I will take action against you. You will of course do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So much of what you said is interpretation, and yes, it's all in the diffs, thank goodness. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
pcbs
I think I understand where you are coming from and in spite of our heated differences I sympathize.
Wikipedia is the most widely accessed site on the internet. For all the discussion about "building an encyopedia", an obvious part of the draw is to influence the tone and content of articles that are seen by hundreds or thousands of people each day. Thus articles about controversial subjects or those which some people feel have underappreciated ethical aspects become very contentious.
This is why things are so legalistic here. The range of opinions is so wide that we long ago gave up on the idea that we can agree what the Truth is. Wikipedia instead aims for the more modest goal of reaching consensus on what is verifiable using a complex set of rules about what is a reliable source. New editors, especially those who join because of an interest in (and often, a strong viewpoint about) a controversi topic often couch their arguments in terms of Truth. That isn't very effective here and they feel beat up and angry. But those sourcing rules are like the rules in football: they are all that separates this place from anarchy.
When I urge you to read the various policies and guidelines, I'm not just being condescending (though I susuppose that's part of it). It will help you be more effective and more politically astute. You'll get more of what you want and feel less frustrated.
Formerly, i appreciate your note and you taking your time to type it on your phone.
I really do understand what you're saying about legalism being an effect of needing to stop quack pseudo-science and other things from taking over.
---Not just quack pseudoscience but legitimate and irreconcilable differences in opinion, at least from my POV
As to "The Truth" -- this theme has come up many times, mostly from Jytdog, as a trope. I think there is a reality that we can know, and yet that we as humans mostly do not know. Science is a great tool in helping us understand reality, but we must also be very careful to understand probability levels, and to use discernment and guard against bias. I think you and i agree on this.
---There are all kinds of issues here, partly value related. I guess I see the truth as relative to some extent. Did Monsanto "know" that PCBs were toxic in 1939? Almost certainly. But put in context, the role of chronic toxicity was not really appreciated until the 1970s; people thought all you had to worry about was avoiding the dose that produces acute toxicity. To what extent should the article imply moral turpitude on the part of Monsanto? I'm not sure there is a single right answer to that
Sometimes, there may be a model about reality, for example, something about the effects of a chemical on an ecology, that has a lot of evidence to suggest its probability, and yet is not definitely "proven" (a misnomer in science, but meaning that evidence is very strong supporting it). Sometimes, as well, there may be strong evidence, and yet that has not yet made it into a review article. In both of these cases, i hope that a comprehensive article about a subject would be able to evaluate the state-of-the-art knowledge about a topic, and to represent the best understanding that a group of editors can achieve. Sometimes, this might even include mentioning of different models of reality with indications about the likelihood and the weight of evidence for each. I know that this does exist in many articles, and it is a reflection of reality. I think that reflecting reality from the most unbiased place possible would be a great goal for an article, and for a group of editors.
---I've often added or tried to add (see Marijuana (drug) material that states that a certain toxicity is suspected by not proven. The sourcing rules are tolerant of this if you can find a secondary source that says as much.
I see this place as somewhat like a courtroom, when there is contention, and somewhat like an editor's roundtable when there is more cooperation. I like the latter but i see the need for the former on occasion. I think that being too frequently legalistic, though, slows and hinders the process which could be done in a spirit of cooperation.
---I hate it too. But I have to accept that the reason for it is that I choose to edit articles on controversial subjects almost exclusively. If I write articles on drugs like penicillin, no one is going to have a strong, differing opinion
I tend not to be a legalistic person, and to feel like "Come on, people, can't we discuss the content, without citing guidelines as if they are a legal code?" I really can be cooperative, and i know the goal is to make the best articles possible. I know it's not the place for me to insert my pet theories in a synthesis, of course. This is a place to reflect what is known, and also to sometimes reflect what is not fully known. It's also a place to discuss weight and emphasis of representations, and what to include and exclude.
--Agree Wikipedia is less than it could be. I come close to quitting about twice a month. It probably won't change
I have felt that some interactions with other editors have been contentious and legalistic when they didn't have to be -- and that's of course a judgment call -- and this got my hackles up a few times, and then i went the route of "fire with fire" and asked for others to help interpret MEDRS for me, based on a simplified hypothetical situation -- a thought experiment to make the issue more plain by exaggeration. I see how you and Jytdog could see that as a personal attack, as we all tend to see critique of our actions defensively -- at least i do. I did not mean it as an attack, and i left out any identification an presented instead a hypothetical situation.
--Both Jytdog are in some ways "conservative" editors (Jytdog will likely object to that characterization, but that's how I see it). We have both spent a lot of time in content disputes with people who are very anti-corporate and who (from my POV) see Wikipedia as a place to soapbox and expose the evils of capitalism. (I think capitalism kind of sucks myself, but the other systems do too). The disputes have been pretty heated in some cases, and I actually have people who dislike me so much that they routinely show up to vote against me in any ANI or RFC proceeding on general principle, irrespective of the issue under discussion. From my POV (and I hope you won't hold this against me), your early announcement that you were here to change the tone of the articles and educate people about the chemical hazards they faced set off some alarm bells that a new activist had joined our ranks who was determined to push their personal view of the Truth and would not abide by the rules that the community here has adopted by consensus. The addition of some material that I felt was poorly sourced and the undoing of reversions of those additions set off additional alarm bells. I likely over-reacted and I apologize for this. On the other hand I'd really appreciate it if you tried to keep the aspersions about motivations off the article talk pages.
I appreciate your note. I hope my response was helpful in explaining my interactions. I hope we can work together as it seems you and i have been doing in the last 12 hours on the Belgian Dioxin Affair.
SageRad (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ideally I would have found a better source for that material rather than simply deleting it. Things got too confrontationalFormerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note - I have talked about WP:Truth only in response to you bringing it up, SageRad.
fwiw, i will say here, that i agree with you that we humans are limited, and we use the best tools we can (scientific method as practiced by the community of scientists; historigraphic tools) to discern 'reality' as best we can, at any given moment. And since each of us is limited, it takes dialogue - a community effort - to get there.
In Wikipedia, we do that in a certain way. Which is what I have spent a ton of time and effort been trying to get you to understand and work within. The foundation that policies and guidelines provide is important; the spirit of it is beautiful and makes this place possible. If you interpret my effort to teach you that, to be "legalistic" that is your problem. Not mine.
what i care about more than anything, is high quality content based on high quality sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; yes it is conservative - we provide information that is reliable. that means we are careful. there is tons of POV-pushing on the articles i work on, and nobody - not pro-industry people nor anti-industry people - get to add crappy content unchallenged. On articles I watch, you will figure out how to write good content (and I try to help people learn how to do that), or you will continue to fail to have your content "stick".
I have tried to help you - i spent an insane amount out of time and energy trying to help you - and in response you have attacked me. I will continue to explain my edits but I am done trying to help you. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, i don't know about Truth, but i know there is a reality. We are trying to approximate reality with our models. Our models must include the nature of Power/Knowledge relations, which means that we must acknowledge that different entities have different interests in knowledge outcomes. However, we must remain dedicated to the *actual* knowledge, which is perhaps what is denigrated as "the Truth" but in fact is a simple sociological fact that different groupings of people want different outcomes. We must allow for this in articles, and explain the different interests in content held by different groups. This would be a way to escape the endless tussling we have been doing over which details get included in a story. It would be a way to make it objectively more accurate, as well.
I feel bad for how this has taken up your time and gotten you a bit upset. It's been frustrating to me, as well. I hope that we can get along and work together to make some great edits. SageRad (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With good sourcing, we can create some great articles. SageRad (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
responding just to the last bit... that would be a good thing. i remain hopeful. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sage,
I noticed your removal of the citation from the Gorski article. I believe your reasoning is at variance with WP:ABOUTSELF, which states that self-published sources can be used for non-controversial statements about self. I did not revert as I have not editing that particular article before and did not want to give the appearance of WP:HOUND.
It is also my understanding that Gorski's blog represents an exception to the prohibition on using blogs and other self published sources for more general content, per WP:V, which says " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." A" pubmed search confirms that Gorski has an significant publication record in high quality, peer reviewed journals on the subjects of evidence-based medicine and alternative medicine. Again, I have not reverted anything, but am simply drawing this to your attention for consideration.
Enough said. As I do not edit any of these articles on a regular basis, I want to be careful to avoid both the appearance and reality of hounding, so I will not pursue this issue further irrespective of what you decide to do or not do.
Why would Gorski's blog be considered a reliable source for anything? Or, you might ask, why would his blog be a reliable source for anything about which he has no publications?
On the other hand, why would Chemical Industry Archives *not* be a reliable source for anything, and not admissible on a story about Monsanto's history regarding PCBs?
I want to cut through legalism and say simply that bias is bias, no matter what. It is clear to me that Gorski has an agenda and it colors his reliability greatly. He publishes completely untrue statements as facts, and he censors people who attempt to corrects such facts. Plain and simple. SageRad (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He publishes completely untrue statements as facts, and he censors people who attempt to corrects such facts. Plain and simple" Interesting POV. I don't mean to harrass you here, so tell me if you want to drop this, but what exactly are these untrue statements? Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About glyphosate, for one thing. I don't have time to go into detail right now and i'm not going to get pulled into legalism. Just saying, he's a biased person publishing a blog with an agenda and i'm not going to see his blog used as a source for things to push an agenda, especially in a rarified atmosphere where other things that publish actual documents as evidence are not admitted due to allegations of bias. It seems bias is not bias if you called it "Science-Based" or pretend that it's "objective" and yet this is not acceptable to me. There is bias where it's not stated, and it's actually more honest to state your point of view rather than to pretend to be unbiased or objective. I think it's an epistemological failure of a lot of rationalization about what constitutes reliable knowledge. SageRad (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'd just say that the bias that is most easily detected is the one that most differs from one's own (including mine, not a pot shot at you). So its interesting that you see Gorski as having an "agenda", which is exactly how I would tend to characterize many of his critics.
Wtih respect to the legalism: Its easy to trivialize legalism but without rules we're all just a bunch of guys going through and deleting everything that disagrees with our personal opinions. In fact it is the rules that currently are preventing me from going back and reverting the edits under discussion now. I think you misapplied the rules here in a couple of cases, and would request that you reconsider. These things tend to come back to haunt one later when somebody drags you into ANI for an unrelated issue. But I'll leave it up to you and not trouble you further, at least on the topic of Gorski. Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement 16:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with your first statement.
I'm fully willing to have a dialogue about specific cases.
This page is sort of like my own blog, where i can make statements based on my own experience, which does not include PubMed indexed articles, but does include a huge amount of experience and deep thinking on the world.
As to the function of legalism at staving off anarchy, it is also possible that we can be a bunch of humans discussing what we think is true and what should populate the knowledge base of the human species, using common sense about the nature of power and knowledge, and about the basic kinds of deception that people often try to perform as a facade to try to force a fact into the human knowledge base that is not legally defensible, such as the statement that glyphosate acts upon an enzyme not found in humans.
We, as conscientious citizens of the planet Earth, vow to present reality as we understand it, as clearly as possible to other humans on the planet Earth.
To me, it's as simple as that. I will call out an over-zealous GMO critic just as loudly as i will call out an over-zealous GMO defender. I will see the reality as clearly as possible, without bias. That is what i think we must strive for in Wikipedia articles, as we form human knowledge.
And, of course, we must source claims as well as possible, especially controversial claims, and in areas where there are vastly differing theories, we should present serious minority opinions in a proper framing as such.
Dr Gorski banned me from commenting on his website "Science-Based Medicine" for presenting evidence that dissented from his claims. At least one other person i know was also banned from commenting on the website by Dr Gorski. SageRad (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under what name or names where you posting under at Dr. Gorski's site? 96.40.168.101 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? He was in his good right to keep misleading comments off the website. If you have a blog, you too can censor the comments. That is none of Wikipedia's concern. Don't misuse Wikipedia to right great wrongs or use it for your battles with Gorski. Only content found in reliable secondary sources can be used for such content, and I really doubt that any truly reliable secondary source has commented on that. It's totally insignificant trivia anyway. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It's censorship, that is the answer to your "so what?" And how do you have the audacity to assume that my claims were the misleading ones? I'm using Wikipedia to make sure that good and solid and factual information is presented to the public. To hell with your legalism. SageRad (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, it's the hypocrisy of someone posing as "science-based" and yet blocking science-based critique of statements that he has made, and posing as opposed to censorship, and then censoring a person from presenting such views in a forum for public comment. If you cannot see the problem with this, then you're blindered by your bias. SageRad (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with that assessment of the use of that guideline in that way. SageRad (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here i am trying to help you again.... but it is just so hard to watch this...
Four things you should know, SageRad. 1) WP:BLP is a policy, not a guideline, and it is a policy that is pretty important here as there are legal issues with libel etc on articles about living people. (remember that anyone can edit wikipedia, and that people carry all kinds of grudges - you can imagine what happens to articles about living people here all the time, can't you?) 2) Guy is an uninvolved admin as he addresses you on this. He can take action against you. So you should not take his warning lightly, at all. (note, MastCell told you at COIN that you were violating BLP on the Gorski article. MastCell is also an uninvolved and very experienced admin) 3) Even without a BLP policy violation and an admin looking at this, there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions available both for BLP articles and for pseudoscience topics. 4) Guy is giving you every chance to say "Oh, please help me understand what I am doing wrong."
End of four things. At this point, claiming that what you are doing is just fine, is driving over a cliff - the cliff edge is not far away. You will of course do as you like. Good luck, as always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand for truth. Reality. Representation of reality. An encyclopedia like no other. SageRad (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:Advocacy. This may be where your objectives and those of Wikipedia diverge. If the divergence is too great, you will have driven over that cliff that Jytdog mentioned. DwpaulTalk 00:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Representing reality is the mission of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, yes. You keep acting as though they don't exist, but they do, and they are what make achieving the mission possible.Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, man, JzG -- and what i'm trying to do is NOT to create a reality, but to represent the reality of the world as it is, using the best research possible. I'm doing exactly that talking about hoes over here and you may note that i'm being very careful there to use sources to find out the real etymology of things like the term "dago hoe" -- and to prevent the creation of a new false reality by Wikipedia -- for that's what has happened. For a few years, that article had the term "Dego hoe" as a primary name for the draw hoe, and that made it into a couple of books, including one from an academic press. That's the power of false representations of reality in Wikipedia, and it's why i do care about what Wikipedia says. You and others seem to think that i'm on a rampage trying to insert fake things according to an agenda. Well, my agenda is accuracy, as well as good writing, and balance in terms of weight and focus. Some articles are really important to the world, in the sense that they tell the human history. The article on PCBs, for example, tells of contaminations around the world. There, several incidents got disappeared through the years, and they are fully evident as reality from many reliable sources. That, to me, was a tragedy, for people were hurt in those incidents and we all need this in our collective history to be careful about future incidents. But seriously, it's about being accurate and real. And then, i get name-called and told that i'm some "activist" trying to use Wikipedia to "blaze a trail" to "show people The Truth" -- all this really distorted characterization with insinuations of evil motives. It's kind of sick. And so you might understand why i can react to that with some disgust or discomfort, and get defensive -- and then when i do get defensive, it's used against me again, saying "look how hard he's fighting! He must be an activist!" It's a pattern that is seen in so many horrible situations, like inquisitions. SageRad (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you're doing it right there, JzG, with your links, calling me "megalomaniacal" and stuff. Come on, really? I research, and i think. Sometimes i happen upon something unique or not well known. With glyphosate, i researched the chemical carefully, and i found to a decent level of confidence that there seems to be significant risk that it affects the gut microbiome, and that it has not been shown otherwise, although people claim it to be safe. Therefore, i do make this concern known, and then some people try to call me all kinds of names, and i have heard the term Dunning–Kruger effect so many times now, that it makes me sick. So many people use this term for anyone who questions some official story line. So, it's not like i'm a megalomaniac, but i'm driven to find out reality as best i can. Is that a sin or a syndrome? Really, this is weird. SageRad (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what is happening. You are taking an issue on which reasonable people can and do differ, and asserting that only your POV is valid. Moreover, in context, you were insisting on pursuing this argument in a venue where it is of only peripheral relevance. A blog post covers a person who says 100 things that are wrong, you want to debate one of these because you think he is right in his agenda on that item, even though much of what he says about it is wrong. Bloggers see this all the time, and it is common and uncontroversial to shut down such debate. You are exhibiting a bunker mentality and it is not helping your cause at all. I do recommend you watch John Oliver on Dr. Oz, as a Brit I find it very funny and I am told by my many American friends that the humour translates well. Try laughing along with m:MPOV, the joke is on all of us. Anybody who asserts that they never succumb to this is deluding themselves. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really do want to be working on weed science, agronomy, farming tools and techniques, etc... i want to be learning and contributing to these articles, but when i touched Monsanto / glyphosate / PCBs, i got dragged into all this conflict with people, and then my stubborn bone kicked into action and i recognized that there was a pattern of information disappearing and also high resistance for any edits in one direction, and very low resistance to changes in the other direction, and these were red flags to me. I am against censorship, and that's why i take issue with David Gorski, as well, and why i wanted it to be known that he does practice that. Wikipedia is wonderful because there is a record of all changes. With enough time, things can be sorted out by a reasonable person reading the records. SageRad (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take you apart right here, JzG, You wrote: "You are taking an issue on which reasonable people can and do differ, and asserting that only your POV is valid" -- no, i am not. I am saying that my point of view is valid, but certainly not saying that only my point of view is valid. The trend has been that others are saying that my point of view is not valid and in the process calling me a whole slew of mean nasty names, and questioning my character for having the audacity to even think that i small puny human being could ever have a valid thought... there is a psychological process going on here. There is a continuous demeaning and insulting frmo a small corps of very dedicated people -- dedicated to demeaning me and trying to make me feel unworthy. That is what happening, and what you just did is called a strawman argument, by the way. SageRad (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the significance of this, however, it's not a small thing, as you claim. It's significant, because it's a case in point about the nature of knowledge and power. David Gorski is a lightning rod precisely because he takes a very specific position on some things, and claims to be doing it from pure rationality and evidence. Yet, when examined closely, in the details, in the weeds so to speak, one can find errors, and when one points out an error, one gets censored. That, to me, is extremely important insofar as David Gorski is used to knock down critics of glyphosate's inclusion in the human food supply. See, this is not a small matter. It's an epistemological question of power/knowledge. SageRad (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As one who does not really have a stance on GMO I can tell you with fair confidence that you are wrong. Again, see the XKCD cartoon. Not every post that mentions GMOs has to be the venue for yet another battle in the GMO wars. We'll know it's actually significant (rather than significant in the mind of someone who very obviously has a dog in the fight, i.e. you) when reliable independent secondary sources pick it up. If I had a dollar for every person with an agenda who has screamed censorship and suppression when their attempt to proselytise on someone else's blog has been shut down, I would be a rich man - and please bear in mind that the important thing here is precisely that it is someone else's blog. Your right to free speech does not confer a right to have it published in any specific venue. There are endless good reasons why a blog that specialises in critiquing pseudomedicine, would not want to go down the rabbit hole on GMOs. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "that you are wrong" what are you saying i'm wrong about?
I am not making every article on GMOs a venue for yet another battle... i've been learning about glyphosate specifically and wanted to make sure the page on it does not contain factual errors as best we know from the best science possible.
As for the Gorski page, i first removed a badly sourced claim that was a self-reported rumor mill type of thing that he wrote about some other person trying to censor him. When that was reverted, then i added a claim by myself that he censored me, which he did, and it was removed. That seems to be rather alright to me. And the resulting freakout was informative. I was not trying to proselytise, but was writing about a subject that he had written about, and saying the reasons why i had some issues with some parts of it. Censorship is not predicated solely on ownership, and in the age of internet, ownership means less anyway. There are essentially public forums where the expectation is that voices of reason are allowed. It was indeed hypocritical how he banned me while he didn't ban the multiple people who attacked me like piranhas smelling blood. It's to be expected, and it's ok, but it's also ok to say it how it is when it comes to this forum, which is Wikipedia, which is definitely intended to be a place where there is freedom of reasonable speech, and where dialogue can proceed to completion and things can be hashed out, and where the public has a reason to expect a fairly unbiased base of knowledge, and i see such a serious bias in the article about Gorski that i needed to address it for the very basic purposes for which Wikipedia was established. SageRad (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong in stating that this has any significance other than to you. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That, or drop it. And that, as far as Wikipedia policy goes, is an end of it. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COI
SageRad - you mention above that you have a real world dispute with David Gorski (or at least his blog). Having a real world dispute is a conflict of interest in Wikipedia. Please do not directly edit the article going forward, but rather make edit requests on the Talk page. I am again providing you with our COI notice.
Hello, SageRad. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of userequire disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
I have placed a connected contributor tag on the Talk page, and placed a box there that can you help you make edit requests. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a relationship with Monsanto in that their product polluted the rivers near my place of birth. Does this mean i cannot write about them?
I have a relationship with Monsanto in much of the food i eat, for i eat their chemical glyphosate. Does this mean i cannot write about them?
I have a "relationship" with Gorski in that i read his blog and commented on it and he banned me from future commenting. Does this mean i cannot write about him? (If so, in the latter case, then he also has a relationship to the group that he claims wanted to stop him from blogging and therefore his statement on that topic would also suffer COI, probably more severely.)
The COI notice is with regard to David Gorski only; above you described that you have a real world dispute with him. That external dispute is a relationship that causes a COI here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough then. I guess that is a reality. I'll blog somewhere about how he banned me from commenting, and then if someone ever picks it up as a tidbit of information then it has a snowball's chance in making it to the page. I'll refrain from any further edits to the page about him. I may still comment on the article's talk page if there's more about that conversation there. Thanks Jytdog, for looking out for objectivity. SageRad (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging the issue. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alerts
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
These are relevant, please take note of them. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do with either of these pages, to my knowledge, and my username is not mentioned in either of the pages about these cases. But thank you, nonetheless. Just clarifying that these have nothing to do with me to my knowledge. Perhaps i did make some minor edit to those pages, but i do not recall doing so. SageRad (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a formality, to let you know that you are editing in areas covered by these discretionary sanctions, and that you might therefore be subject to restriction should you step outside the bounds of what is acceptable. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page usage
Please place all replies at the end of the discussion so that the discussion can be kept in a meaningful chronological order. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i will do. I didn't know that was the etiquette and i was using the indentation to multi-thread but that makes sense. SageRad (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final warning
If you mention Gorski again, I will initiate discussion on the appropriate scope for a topic ban. I hope this is sufficiently clear for you. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. I suppose you mean, if i mention Gorski anywhere on Wikipedia, right? Because you can't prevent me from talking about something outside of here. Well, it seems i did mention the forbidden subject in this very comment. This illustrates the ridiculousness of dealing with issues by shutting down dialogue. I believe strongly in the power of good dialogue. This would have been over long ago if not for the persecution aspect of it. I'd be gone. Counterwill is a useful instinct in humans to avoid domination by undue authority, and freedom of speech is a deep instinct as well. You talk to me as if i'm a dog subservient to the master, and i am bad because i won't obey and "drop the stick" -- the metaphor of which shows the power relations you'd prefer. SageRad (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you continue to make the mistake of personalizing things, SageRad. WP has policies and guidelines established by the consensus of the community. Individuals try to teach other individuals to understand and follow them (the policies and guidelines), yes. Individuals enforce them, yes. I and others have tried to tell you about the policies and guidelines and their origin in the WP community many times. By continually ignoring them (the policies and guidelines) and saying you will not follow them (in your language, "submit" to them), you are saying very clearly that you are WP:NOTHERE. You are now, right at the cliff edge. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else in the whole stupid Gorski saga used the phrase "he refuses to drop the stick" and i am using this to illustrate the nature of the dynamic and the power relations.
WP guidelines are to be used with common sense, and exist for very good and understandable reasons, Jytdog, but you are using them legalistically, Jytdog, too often, against me and against the spirit of the guidelines themselves. You're wikilawyering me in a death by 1,000 paper cuts way.
I'm not personalizing anything except to base judgments on people's behaviors.
I reject your condescension and your threats, both of which are a constant in your talking to me.
I am most certainly HERE, and my standing up to bad behavior is a sign that i am HERE to make a great encyclopedia where good dialogue determines outcomes, instead of bullying and hyper-legalism to promote agendas.
You're continuously acting in ways that erode my ability to assume good faith about you. I begin assuming good faith, but actions cause revisions of this assessment when warranted, as it says in the guideline about good faith. I find your applications of guidelines very often to show lack of good faith. SageRad (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you will. Many folks have tried to help you. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See, condescension and lack of real dialogue, and threats. SageRad (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the WP:IDHT behavior is continuing. Since you're still trying to engage in this battleground behavior, you have set yourself up for a topic ban, which exactly does prevent you from talking about a particular topic on Wikipedia. If you really want to continue this slog, I agree with Guy in favor of opening up the topic ban discussion at ANI. The community has invested a lot of time in you with no improvement in your behavior (though I still do wish this would change). Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your judgment. SageRad (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:IDHT -- "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."
Others are bringing it to me.
Someone posts on my talk page, "If you mention Gorski again..." What is that? What kind of threat, ultimatum, whatever you wish to call it. It's like Florida telling people not to mention climate change. What are the parameters, the limits? Here, i wrote the word "Gorski" -- are you going to shoot me now?
I do not want to be wasting my time on this.
Too many dialogues have been far from good in completeness or quality.
A "community" pile-on does not make a point valid.
There's been abusive behavior targeted at me.
This is a farce.
I'm not edit warring.
I'm not repeating the same action over and over.
I'm hearing and participating in dialogues.
All i did this morning was to post on the talk page, for the record, that the claim in the header of the talk page is not correct. I have not been convicted on a COI charge regarding that article, and that there was indeed another source to the banning of me from Gorski's web blog.
I have voluntarily recused myself from editing that article, and the only debate i've been engaging in has been about the principle of the thing, in forums where charges have been brought against me by others. I wrote a few days ago:
I'll refrain from any further edits to the page about him. I may still comment on the article's talk page if there's more about that conversation there.
and i haven't edited the article since saying that.
I have admitted that posting my claim in the article was not a right action, but i did explain that i did it only after i removed a similar claim sourced to Gorski, and it was reverted, and i posted for dialogue on the talk page and there was no dialogue regarding it.
There is not the pattern of ongoing behavior that you're claiming.
I'm not a dog and i won't "drop the stick" when ordered by someone due to authority level, because that is not just or right. This is a place where dialogue and reason are supposed to prevail, and guidelines followed in the spirit of their intentions, and common sense used, and general good behavior expected.
If i felt like bringing charges on people, i bet i would have some good cases for abusive behaviors.
I advise the inquisitors to think again, try to look with fresh eyes, see the strangeness of whatever is going on here.
There is nothing wrong with being stubborn when you're right about something.
Four people saying something in a bad way with incomplete dialogue does not mean that it's correct.
Can we drop this? I have a life. I have other things to do and other articles to edit. I hope you do, too.
It's people telling you to disengage because you are risking having sanctions brought on you. It is best to stop your crusade against Gorksi by just dropping the topic not only on his BLP, but other related pages like this recent edit. The more you entangle yourself in Gorski related topics, the more likely you set yourself up for bans. That is not intended as a threat by anyone, but an effort to alleviate the problems you've been made aware of by you being involved in those topics. At this point, it's up to you what path you choose as I don't think anyone is looking to dedicate more time to trying to help you with this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some guideline against hounding people, dog?
Isn't this a threat?
Intimidation to not talk about a topic. Go away.
False charges, trumped up accusations, Inquisition-style hounding.
Intimidation to cause self-censorship.
What's wrong with my edit to add my reckoning about "Science-Based Medicine" on a TALK page in which people are discussing the bias of one thing versus another?
You and others trumped up this entire thing and it's so ridiculous. Leave me the hell alone.
Go away and leave me alone. SageRad (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think y'all need to have a read of WP:HOUND and drop YOUR shtick. SageRad (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You do not seem to understand warnings, so perhaps you will understand a block. Your comments re. David Gorski are pure trolling. They are unwelcome. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what's that mean JzG? By the way, you're wrong. You don't seem to understand the necessity of not blocking dialogue with a false accusation. SageRad (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i see what it means. It means you abuse your authority. SageRad (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does one user unilaterally block someone from editing at Wikipedia in general? Your accusations and dialogues are completely wrong-headed and bullying. How do you simply declare someone blocked? From where do you gain your authority to do so? You know you're dead wrong in your accusations about me. You cannot shut down a dialogue, with an accusation, and not give a person a chance to defend against the accusation. That is Spanish Inquisition style "dialogue" and you've done that several times now. That's why i posted -- or rather -- didn't "drop the stick" when the master told me to. Because you're not my master. SageRad (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, whatever, dude. You know you're engaged in censorship here. The only thing i posted on the talk page was a correction to the banner that said i was banned from editing the David Gorski page, and that was not correct. There was not such a verdict against me. So i edited the talk page there to note that, and got shit for it, and you hatted the conversation. Then i posted to protest the hatting of that conversation, and you hatted that with an accusation of "grandstanding"... and then i commented on the hatting of the conversation on the closing of dialogue itself, and you then blocked me for "disruptive editing".
I am not being "disruptive" but i am only refusing to be subservient to you and to be silent when you levy an accusation against me. In other words, i retain the will to refuse your judgment. I refuse to stand silent in the face of an unjust authority, and to pretend that i accept the charges, and to pretend that i am shameful and guilty of what you say i have done. This is not an evidence-based process, and there is not justice here. This is you and a few others simply accusing, and asserting. It's a kangaroo court if i ever saw one. And you're a real piece of work. JzG -- you would do well in a regime that enforces obedience, whatever the end of the regime may be, even if it's the domination of a whole people or peoples in the name of profit. You would do very well in such an imperial role. And so you are. You're an imperious person who uses censorship and abuse of authority to get your way. Aren't you proud of that? You are a very good subject of the kingdom. Good on ya, dude. You injure your own soul when you do these things. You act inhumanely toward other human beings on the Earth, for what? Out of a distorted sense of reality and a missing ethical basis. Humans know dialogue, and humans know methods of control. You cannot control me. You can ban me, but you cannot control my mind. And it is obvious what you've done. Censorship. I did not disruptively edit. I've been doing very productive work here, very good and careful and judicious, and engaging in dialogue with many people about hoes and glyphosate and the like. People can read my history and my comments on Wikipedia and judge for themselves. I protest the closure of dialogue and the false accusations that you made against me, and that's a basic right of humans. The same spirit of resistance that leads to good things and ends unjust authority when it exercises censorship. SageRad (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you've got to live with the karma of what you've done, JzG. It may take you a while to understand, but you eventually will. SageRad (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last King of Nepal banned my website from the entire country, and three months later he was no longer King. I edited a news source called "International Nepal Solidarity Network" and the king did not like information about governmental human rights abuses being presented in that way, and banned the website. He also shut down the cell phones of targeted people and shut down the Internet in the entire country for a while. He reached too far, and completely lost his grounding, and he soon lost his authority. The Sword of Damocles hangs over those who would exercise censorship, which is the very problem i have with David Gorski to begin with. One should note that i was not even commenting about David Gorski directly in the instance in which you decided i needed to "drop the stick" -- but rather had corrected the statement on the talk page banner that i had been blocked from that page due to BLP or COI concerns, whereas that was not a verdict that occurred in the places where it was discussed, so i corrected that, which was relevant to the page, and you hatted that and accused me of trolling or grandstanding or some such thing. I would have been long gone by now, if you had not felt threatened by my correcting of that piece of information. I do not suffer censorship with a meek smile. I simply call it what it is. SageRad (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand Healey's Law of Holes. Everything you have just written argues for an indefinite site ban. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. And you sound like someone who's also quick with the "Dunning Kruger" effect accusation, too. Everything i've written, JzG, shows a pattern of abuse of authority by you. SageRad (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. And everything you've written shows a pattern of refusing to listen to anything you don't want to hear. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, JzG -- i listen and i respond rationally and calmly, in most cases. I do show a pattern of not believing things blindly, of using my own mind, of reckoning for myself what's going on based on preponderance of evidence, and of not cowering to authority appeals for the sake of authority alone. If you told me to say that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth and not vice versa, i would not do so. I would say "I don't think that's true, based on available evidence." I will not tell you "Yes, sir" just because there is a threat of punishment or banning me, and that does cause me trouble sometimes, but i think it shows the trouble with the system or person who wants to enforce a ban on dialogue, and not on me personally. I think it's a valuable thing to resist censorship and control when it's unjustly applied, and history would support my point on this. SageRad (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be laughably silly if it were not for the fact that it's real. It's hard to believe that someone takes their time to do this kind of thing -- to hold down another editor for such a silly reason. SageRad (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was wrongly blocked for "disruptive editing" whereas i posted to a talk page only to correct the wrong information on the banner on that page, and then was repeatedly shut down by JzG in what seems to be a grudge-based "drop the stick" sort of need to feel his authority by having the last word and closing dialogue, treating me like a dog, whereas i'm doing good work on many pages and have voluntarily recused myself from editing the actual article page in question and simply made that last statement on the article's talk page and would have been long gone if not for the excessive control and shutting down of dialogue
Decline reason:
Talk pages are not a venue to pursue your personal vendettas. I see no indication you recognize the underlying problems with your own conduct. Huon (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to admins reviewing this block: There was not a COI declared, and the "verdict" refers to the BLP page, here, where it was discussed at length and there was also not a verdict declared there, and the final comment by Roxy the Mainstream Dog is "I suggest you take a couple of days off, then return to the Gorski talk page, and open a new discussion, particularly if you have decided not to edit the article again. I bet you find a number of eds willing to try to understand the issue, and who will examine any proposal you want to make, and discuss a new beginning to this." -- and essentially i've decided not to work on the David Gorski article any more, and simply wanted to note on the talk page the erroneous allegation against me that was in the banner at the top of that talk page, and that's where this "drop the stick" thing got to be like this. It's a waste of time to me, but for the principle of it, i refuse to accept a person who tells me to "shut up" with an accusation hanging in the air, and uses authority to block me from speaking to the accusation. It's just not a right way to act in the world, in a society that aims for freedom and accountability and transparency. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad you were warned so many times above that you were heading for the cliff, that you were getting close to the edge, and that you were at the edge, and then you went right over with that additional POINTY posting at the Gorski article. The block is meant to be a wakeup call that there is a real problem - civil discussion has gotten no where, so your editing privileges were temporarily removed. Instead of taking it as a lesson, you personally attacked Guy and have insisted that there is no problem. You are now heading not just for a cliff edge (you already went over that), but now for oblivion - an indefinite block (aka, a ban). Everything I have told you so far, has been true and come true. If you want to stay in WP, I hope you listen to me now. If you want to avoid an indef, you have to acknowledge that you cannot use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, promise to work to build an encyclopedia based on WP's policies and guidelines... and then do that. But as always, you will do as you will do. best regards. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I engaged in good dialogue about many things. The way you attempt to boil down a narrative here as me being the fool who went over the obvious cliff is so untrue. You're railroading. Civil discussion has gotten many places, but your lack of good dialogue has been a source of a lot of problems. You're quite skilled at lawyering, Jyt, but you're not so good at real human dialogue with real good faith and real good intentions. I do laugh in the face of your threats. I call them what they are -- kangaroo court tactics. You're not the boss of me, and yet you seem to think you are. I would sooner listen to a 5 year old child than to you. There are other editors in Wikipedia whom i respect greatly, but you are not one of them, and i would not trust your reckoning to be worth the electrons they use to reach my screen. Your tone is clearly a threat, and it's also a positioning of yourself as an authority above me, and it's also a chokehold attempting to get me to submit to your will, and this is not what Wikipedia is about. This is not the Spanish Inquisition. Those days are over. Your threatening and toxification of the editing environment are the real crimes here, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale and Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."
When McCarthy tried to renew his attack, Welch interrupted him:
"Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
McCarthy tried to ask Welch another question about Fisher, and Welch interrupted:
"Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could have asked me about Fred Fisher. You have seen fit to bring it out. And if there is a God in Heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness."
the Mccarthy analogy is not apt. I have discussed your concrete behavior and how that has violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You were blocked for concrete violations of policies and guidelines after being very clearly warned to stop by two admins and at least two regular editors. You continue to very firmly ignore these community norms and warnings. You really don't seem to care about Wikipedia itself, at all. You are indeed doing, as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed with you, Jytdog, specific guidelines, and reasons why your interpretations are not always correct, and other editors have discussed said issues with both of us as well. And, you are simply wrong about the block. There's no ban on me posting to the Gorski talk page, and i have recused myself from editing the article, and i'd be gone completely from there as well, if my simple correction of the incorrect statement about me on that talk page were not there, or if my comment correcting that would have been left standing, and yet the darkness of control and censorship ineluctibly destroys itself by overreach. Your assessment of the series of events is by far not reliable or equanimous. Your narrative is a railing against me. Your generalizations of my behavior are way off the mark. The record is there if anyone wants to devote days to figuring it out, and i doubt anyone will, since there are bigger things in the world that need attention. In a nutshell, though, your characterization is dead wrong. I am a good citizen here, participating in good ways with many good people. There are a few people who seem to want to exercise undue control over others in very disrespectful and harmful ways. Those people are the problem people. I want to help to refine a great resource for humanity, the Wikipedia. You continue to allege that this is not in my interest, but it's a thing of beauty, and can lead to a lot of good in the world. That's not wrong. That's a good goal. Representing reality and propagating knowledge. Community working together to create a human knowledge base. I am a human who cares and thinks and uses discernment, and works well with others. I do not suffer undue authority well, and speak against it when i see it. That's what you don't like about me. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. SageRad (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a human who is demonstrating more and more that he is WP:NOTHERE - that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have said this to you before - WP's policies and guidelines are deeply considered creations of the community - they have authority over us, and individuals enforce them. (we do have a "rule of law" here) Your refusal to acknowledge that, and your casting of the discussions about your policy violations, as personal disputes and power games, is a huge problem. Your actions at the Gorski article and Talk page were violations of WP:SOAPBOX; you abused your editing privileges and were blocked for it. If you were HERE, you would get off your high horse, acknowledge your mistakes, apologize, and move on. The more you grandstand here, the more you show you are NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Talk pages are not a venue to pursue your personal vendettas. I see no indication you recognize the underlying problems with your own conduct."
The above judgment implies that i was pursuing personal vendettas in the action for which i have been blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Can you show that this is true?
I will tell you what i was doing, very simply and clearly:
I was posting to the talk page of the article, in order to clarify that there was an incorrect piece of information in the header of the talk page.
After i did this, someone removed that comment, and said that it was not the use of the talk page.
I posted again remarking on the removal of the comment and that it seems like this is a use of a talk page, to discuss information about the article, and that would include what bans are listed in the page header.
Then that was removed too, and i remarked on the irony of the removal of dialogue about the removal of dialogue.
So, about whom is this alleged vendetta and how do you glean from what happened that the action for which i was blocked was such?
Seriously.
Please give me specific behaviors which you think are wrong.
I think it's just because i won't shut up when told to shut up.
Jytdog "You are a human who is demonstrating more and more that he is WP:NOTHERE" --- nope. I'm glad you think you can read my mind and determine my motivations. I'm here to help refine a great Wikipedia, and to be one of the millions of contributors who helps to shape the human knowledge base. Period. Full stop. So i touched some "controversial" topics which are essentially controversial because there are vested interests who would rather have some information remain hidden. That's not my problem. That's the problem of people who want information to remain hidden. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is not wrong and it's not in conflict with the mission of Wikipedia -- in fact it's highly in line with it. So you can take your toxic obstructionism and go away. I reject your charges wholeheartedly.
And then you have the gall to go and say that my refusal to accept blame and guilt is another sign that i am guilty... do you realize what a kangaroo court argument that is? Seriously, i am not making it up nor am i being too rhetorical when i use the terms inquisition and kangaroo court. Nor when i compare to the McCarthy hearings. I mean it. If you could take a step back, honestly, and view it from a bird's eye view, i'm sure you'd see it. If you could get our of yourself for a moment, i'm sure you'd see it. Do you honestly think this is a worthy way to spend your time in this world?
you are just getting angrier and angrier, and missing the point more and more. As before, i will let you be. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, i am not getting "angrier and angrier", Jytdog, and you are missing my point. I'd be most happy if you would *actually* let me be, and would have let me be since i first encountered you, for you've been hounding me. I'm sorry you spend your days like this. Your condescension is thick, and yet i understand perfectly well what is going on here, and the "problem" if there is one, from you perspective, is that i won't bow to you and say "Oh, i'm sorry sir" for the "privilege" of editing Wikipedia. You're on a power trip. I'd much rather spend Sunday morning with some coffee, editing an article on some aspect of weed control, and yet i must encounter a litany of bully people instead when i turn on the computer. Just go. I'll be able to edit tomorrow, and i'll continue doing as i've done, and i'm not gonna take anymore bullshit. SageRad (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more harassment, no more hounding, no more bullshit. No more using "guidelines" as cops use laws against people they want to harass. No more pulling me over and kicking my headlights and then ticketing me for it. If you continue to abuse power and hound and harass me, and interfere with the enjoyment of editing, i'm taking it to the higher power. WP:HOUNDSageRad (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Massive denial and IDHT behavior. It's time for an extension of the block, a clear topic ban, and possibly blocked access to own talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, dude, you're really on some strange drugs here.SageRad (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the heat of a moment when I'd been maligned by JzG badly, and my reaction was carry over from that, and frustration at the railroading tactics above not being seen and recognized for what it is, but my comment here was nevertheless out of line and I apologize. SageRad (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why the major deletion from talk page?
User JzG, why this deletion from the talk page of the David Gorski article? I think it's harmful to remove this dialogue from that page, and seems to show evidence of a pattern of protectionism. WP:BLP is important but also limited, and does not give you or any other editor carte blanche to remove long things written by others, nor to prevent any relevant details to enter an article about a living person just because you want to. SageRad (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect header on talk page
User JzG, there is an assertion on the header of the talk page of the David Gorski article that links to what it alleges to be an admission of COI by me, and yet i maintain that it is *not* an admission of COI and that has been determined to *not* be so by two rounds of community discussion in the forum for that purpose, and yet the text remains in the header of that page and you have prevented me from making note of that misinformation on that page itself. What do you intend to do about this unethical situation in which false information is present on that page and you stridently prohibit me forcefully by shutting down my attempt to correct it, to the point of blocking me from editing all of Wikipedia for two days, simply for making note of this error on that page? I demand accountability. You wish to hold me accountable for my action? Well, it goes both ways. You need to stand up and be real. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that no response was ever provided to this very fair question. SageRad (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admission of guilt on POINTy
User Dialectric, i wish to state that i have reviewed your revert of my edit here and i agree with your point here. I agree that i edited in a "pointy" way and that was my mistake in this thing. I should have left the story as reverted, and found a better way to address my concern about the sourcing of the claim about the attempt by a group to censor David Gorski. I admit this as a mistake. It's the rest of this whole matter that bugs me. The inquisition aspect of it all, and the false flag on the top of the talk page of that article that states incorrectly that i am blocked from editing that page due to a COI, whereas i have not been deemed to have a COI. I do not wish to edit the article, but i do want that flag corrected. SageRad (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban needs to be formalized. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are in the right, once an admin has blocked you, continuing to push the issue that lead to the block will be seen as disruptive editing by many experienced editors. Admins are unlikely to overrule other admin actions except in very rare cases. At this stage, if you wish to avoid further blocks, I suggest you stop mentioning Gorski altogether. I am not an admin, but if you want to revisit the issue in 3+ months, I am open to discussing reliable sources related to the issue with you on your talk page at that time; for now, let it go.Dialectric (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to edit the David Gorski article, but i want to edit other articles on weed control, among other things.
I just wanted administrative accuracy on whether i was formally banned from that page.
Is that too much to ask? SageRad (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User BullRangifer, that seems really unnecessary to me. I've stated that i have no interest in editing the David Gorski page, and i have not, since i said that. I'm not edit warring. SageRad (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but the very fact that the discussion above has even occurred indicates a topic ban should be effected to formalize the situation. Then there would be no doubt in anyone's mind. You really need to completely ignore the subject here at Wikipedia, also in the future and on your talk page. Refuse to discuss it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. You cannot erase things from people's minds because you wish to. I will not edit the David Gorski article, but i demand that the formal statement that i have a COI judgment against it needs to be removed. This is not negotiable. You do not get to edit people's thoughts. SageRad (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To whom is this comment addressed? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To you, of course. SageRad (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
do you want my thoughts on the COI thing, Sage? Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, your indentation didn't make it plain (I have tried to fix that), and your comment was even more off track and seemed to apply more to some comment above, since there is nothing in my comment which would indicate a wish to "erase things from people's minds". My point is that you do have a clear COI because of your antagonistic relationship with Gorski. You say that "This is not negotiable." This isn't a democracy, and you will have to abide by the decision of many others. On this one you lose. If you don't choose to walk away, you'll end up blocked. It's just that simple. If you walk away from the topic, you can do lots of good here.
You came here with a vendetta against Gorski. That's very clear. That's why you have been told by many not to edit the Gorski article, and because of BLP concerns, it would be best for you to avoid the subject, since that just gets you in trouble. You can do more constructive things here where you won't get in trouble. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No i don't, Jytdog -- i don't value or trust your judgment at all, and i don't want ANY of your thoughts.
BullRangifer, you're simply not the boss of me and your attempts to hold authority over me fail.
This place is what it is, not a democracy, but not a dictatorship. It's a place where jerks who spend time to game the place end up with too much control. Witness the games and lawyering by many people here. Go away. Stop wasting my time. Stop giving me shit.
On the topic, you're *still* dead wrong. I don't have a "vendetta" against Gorski and stop saying that for the fiftieth time. You fail to hear, to listen, to be in dialogue.
What i don't like is the railroading practices being done here, the attempts at undue control over others, and the -- frankly -- reeking mass of bullshit many of you bring here.
I want to be able to edit fairly with others, and many of you are being obstructionist and seeking to make me "drop the stick" still -- and still misrepresenting things in the worst kind of lawyerly way.
There are processes and guidelines her for good reasons, but some people are abusing those processes and guidelines against their original spirit and intentions.
Let me just make it absolutely clear to you, Jytdog and BullRangifer -- with Dialectric as witness -- that i do *not* have a "vendetta" against Gorski. I have an issue with censorship and the shutting down of dialogue, and bad dialogue practices, not individual people. So stop with the attribution of my motivations which i deny. You cannot read my mind, and i assert most clearly that i have no personal vendetta. I seek transparency and good dialogue, and that includes here in Wikipedia. My *only* admission is that i made a mistake by doing a "pointy" edit -- and i stated that clearly in the talk page as well. I didn't know there was a guideline against it, though it makes sense of course, and i did it *only* after dialogue on the talk page brought no response, and others were editing without concern or dialogue about it. That is what happened. All else is bunk, and a total waste of time. The stupid shutting down of dialogue by JzG and the power struggle he had over whether i could post a note to correct the talk page meta-information for administrative clarity -- all bunk. And you all apparently think it's just fine that an incorrect header is there, and you think it's just fine that i'm blocked for two days just for making a note on the talk page that that's incorrect there? What kind of people have taken over Wikipedia? A bunch of control freaks with no integrity. SageRad (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have a bee in your bonnet about your failure to abuse his blog comments for your grandstanding, and nobody here cares. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's wrong and shows again your unilateral incorrect judgment. You cannot attribute my motivations. I have much more of a "bee in my bonnet" so to speak about YOUR abuse of power here on Wikipedia. Your action and judgment are so bad, and you seem not to care at all. You seem, oddly, willing to use power wrongly without remorse, here on this small domain called Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You use the word "unilateral" as if it has some significance. Everything on Wikipedia is unilateral, in that one person commits any change to the database. I am not the only one identifying a problem with your behaviour. In fact, the only one who does not seem to see a problem, is you. You might want to think about that. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on the word "unilateral" -- i suppose i meant "unjustified and then not listening or responding to reasonable dialogue about the action, and not being willing to admit mistakes or revert decisions based on sound reasoning" which is a lot like "unilateral". As for the statement that the only one who does not seem to see a problem, that's wrong. The gang who shows up to comment negatively are the gang who have the issues with me, and that is sampling error. In fact, i would love to be able to recruit a jury of random people to review issues, instead of whatever admin takes an interest in rejecting an appeal or blocking me. How does one get a jury of peers here, and avoid gangs who travel in packs and beat up individuals whom they don't like? SageRad (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how you sit there with your fingers in your ears shouting "LAA LAA LAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and then accuse everyone else of not listening. How's that working out for you here? Guy (Help!) 22:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what i'm doing. I'm saying that the David Gorski page has an incorrect meta-information on the talk page header and you don't seem to care. You do care, however, to block me from making a comment on that talk page to note that inaccuracy. That's strange. SageRad (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
And still, oddly, JzG, no comment on the potential memory-holing of this discussion of potential bias in the point of view of the David Gorski article. Why disappear conversation about the article by others? The page has an archiving bot. SageRad (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "drop it" are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 08:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you're not my master, JzG. What part of "You are not my master and i am not your dog!" do you not get? SageRad (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do notice that the false information in the header is gone. Did you do that, JzG? If so it would have been nice to respond to me in kind that you've done that, in the many instances where i asked you about that. Result without process is not complete result. SageRad (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you did indeed drop that here. Thank you, although an admission would have been nice, but i take it to mean you see that this was out of place there. SageRad (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Claiming to be a DRN vounteer when not enrolled as a DRN volunteer and possibly having an ulterior agenda. (Even if no ulterior agenda, not a DRN volunteer.)Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon -- what was "disruptive" about my editing? Is it that i'm required to be a registered volunteer to post on that page? I did not know that, and i made edits. That was not intended to be disruptive, but was instead intended to be helpful. Will you accept that explanation with apology that i didn't know about the registration process? SageRad (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not required to be a registered volunteer to post at that page, but you should be a registered volunteer to post as a volunteer, rather than as an editor. Identifying yourself as a volunteer, because incorrect, was disruptive. If you had simply posted a comment as an uninvolved editor, your comment would not have had to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, understood now. I just thought that i was a volunteer because i was there volunteering time to review an issue, but now i fully understand. Please accept my apology with the excuse that i just didn't know the practice, and so it was a mistake. SageRad (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NPA
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Crop desiccation that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. SageRad (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article has been on my watchlist for a long time. Please discuss content, not contributors, on article Talk pages. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog
User Jytdog has been hounding me and making my editing experience at Wikipedia rather miserable for the last couple of months. So i'm finally calling it out, after he seems to have followed me to a page on Crop desiccation and deleted my edits there with a simple assertion that "it's not relevant" which from his voice seems to mean that "objectively" this is not relevant and then he deleted that, and then i reverted it and called him "Your Highness" to express that i found his behavior imperious, then and at many other times in our past relations, and then he deleted that comment of mine on the talk page there -- a level of control and censorship that i cannot and will not put up with. He cannot go around deleting people's comments just because he thinks they're "uncivil" and yet continue to act imperiously and expect nobody to call him out on it. It's a super horrible micro-controlling behavior that he's shown toward me for my whole time that i've been here trying to improve Wikipedia for the common good of humanity, to make it a better encyclopedia with contributions and edits by all. So, he's making a toxic editing environment for me, and i have seen a lot of evidence that he's doing that for a lot of other people, too. I could use a few witnesses. Comment if you can.
Message that i left on his talk page, for the record, because he'll prob just delete my message there.
This is in response to your post about removing my comment, which you posted on my talk page. Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. I have work to do in the real world today and will not be replying here so this is the last from me for a while, but i want the world to know that i think you're a disruptive editor here in Wikipedia, and you've made my experience here contributing to this encyclopedia a whole lot worse than it could have been. No thanks for hounding me and accusing me of every paper cut charge under the sun. SageRad (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Consistenly destroying my edits and contributions and undoing them with threatening reason comments like "you are close to 3RR now!" ... oooh... you know, your behavior is very very very bad for a Wikipedia community member, and i bet there are a few dozen other people who wpould attest to very very very bad interactions with you, in which you use strawman argumentation, shifting goalposts, lawyerly language and techniques, annoyance tactics, and simply marching ahead and making edits that the group doesn't seem to want, and otherwise generally disruptive and non-cooperative behavior, anti-social behaviors that makes the whole process go a lot worse and complicates discussions that would otherwise be rather simple, and generally not seeming to be WP:HERE for real, as you've so often thrown that accusation at me, and WP:HOUND-ing people too, including me, and doing a whole lot of generally bad things. I'm gonna be gone from here for a while, but i'm leaving this extremely strong statement of my dislike for your behavior, and my general disgust at your imperiousness and obstructionism and obfuscationism. Yes, i am calling this out. I'm calling out your general bad behaviors that all seem to add up to a sort of agenda, as well, because you're ALWAYS lawyering for the side that would be the chosen agenda of the industry if they had someone working for them here, a single-direction force of non-cooperation here in Wikipedia..... why? Who are you? SageRad (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I bet there's going to be found some way to block me from Wikipedia forever now, simply for calling out my truth about Jytdog -- one of th many dogs. SageRad (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been warned about your behavior here multiple times, and this is not the way to address it. Jytdog has a lot of agricultural articles on their watchlist from the looks of it. I even saw your edits at the crop dessication page on my watchlist and was planning to take very similar action today before I saw they were already reverted. If you want to confound hounding with your behavior issues that have been brought up to you a few times now, you're really setting yourself up for a topic ban. The choice has always been in your hands, so what you do with it is up to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Way to not even address most of the issues i have. I have problems with the behavior of this editor, and there is a small gang of people including yourself, King of Aces, who are accomplice to this behavior. There's a corp of obstructionist people on Wikipedia who are unreasonable beyond caution. It's my finding after spending a couple months here. I will not censor myself on my own talk page. I'll speak honestly and openly. There's bad behavior here and it's not mine. SageRad (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem you've been pointed out to many times though. Others call you out on your behavior and instead of actually taking that to heart, you lash out at those editors and try to twist them attempting to respond to or deal with your behavior as bad behavior itself. Your edits aren't sticking for very basic reasons grounded in Wikipedia's policies in guidelines, yet you seem to consistently escalate discussions to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Editors tend to get topic banned when they persist in poor behavior while claiming it's not me it's them. I for one am done attempting to help you out here though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that i am showing a behavior, does that establish that it's a fact that i have done that behavior? That's the assumption you're making, that an assertion that i'm doing something wrong from you or from Jytdog makes that a fact and makes me the guilty party, when in fact there has been a whole lot of discussion around the many allegations about my behavior by the conservative gang here, and most things not established to have been true. In other words, false allegations for obstructionist purposes. And i am making allegations about Jytdog's behavior, too -- so is that a fact that what i say is true? Or is it subject to dialog? You see, Jytdog often MAKES it a battleground by acting imperiously and using very bad dialog practices, which has been noticed by others, as i have gleaned from many conversations around here. There's a bad pattern emerging. There's bad behavior. This place is captured by people who have an agenda. SageRad (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't messing around. Censorship is the refuge of Kings and Scoundrels, and the two are the same. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"The choice has always been in your hands, so what you do with it is up to you." Your tired, tired lines -- in other words, you're saying "Obey, or we'll f--- with you." Continous atmosphere of toxic threat frmo the likes of you, and Jytdog, and the small gang of others who swagger over these pages like it's their own property and they hold the deed to it, this domain of human knowledge surrounding agrochemicals and the food supply of the world. To the memory hole! Oh, a criticism of glyphosate finishing of oats? That's too irrelevant, a "factoid" and Wikipedia is not just "collection of factoids" -- oh, some more empty reasons to just do whatever the hell you want to do, erase other people's contributions, and not talk as an editor would talk, but more as someone with an agenda would talk while trying to appear to be WP:HERE. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
even after all this time, you are still adding unsourced content to articles like you did on June 6 in this string of diffs and this dif. I don't understand why you will not follow the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:HOUND -ing me dude. Get a life. Ever hear of copyediting? I think most people would say that i made valid edits there, and that it made a lot of sense, and that i untangled some little knots in that article by including aerial spraying instead of helicopters only, and whatever whatever. ... I'm doing good work and i stand by it. If any point is challenged for sourcing then i would do it, exceptr you and your gang use demand for sourcing as a technique of obstructionism and it's pretty darn clear. SageRad (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't YOU bother to find source for those things? Do you think glyphosate is NOT the most widely used systemic herbicide? If not, what is? Got a source on that? Or did i add a correct edit, and you challenge it just to niggle? Is the 'floater' sprayer not correct? Is aerial spraying not correct? Is the word "recognized" not correct there in the reference to the value of a weed? Do you have a point besides to WP:HOUND me? SageRad (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to find a source to use the word "is"? Is that where we're at now, the meaning of the word "is"? You know how well that plays to the ears of the public. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you are asking me actual questions or just posing rhetorical ones. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly real questions, look at how you don't answer. SageRad (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
your questions, quoted, with my answers interspersed:
Q: "So why don't YOU bother to find source for those things?"
A: I don't have that page on my watchlist. I just went to check your contribs after your messages above. You are responsible for your edits and for following policies and guidelines. We've talked about you adding unsourced content before and about how this violates VERIFY, probably our most content basic policy here. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: "Do you think glyphosate is NOT the most widely used systemic herbicide? If not, what is? Got a source on that?"
A: Per the above, you are responsible for your edits. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: "Or did i add a correct edit, and you challenge it just to niggle?"
A: I don't know if they are correct. There is no source to VERIFY with. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: "Is the 'floater' sprayer not correct? Is aerial spraying not correct?"
A: I don't know if that is correct. There is no source to VERIFY with. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: "Is the word "recognized" not correct there in the reference to the value of a weed?"
A: I don't know if that is correct. There is no source to VERIFY with. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: "Do you have a point besides to WP:HOUND me? "
A: My point, is that you are still blowing off the most basic of policies in your editing - VERIFY. You claim you are HERE but this behavior, as others, is showing NOTHERE. Why do you keep ignoring our policies and guidelines? (that is a real question) Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What i read at WP:VERIFY is "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." You see the qualifying phrase "whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged"? I think that's the spirit and intention as well as the "letter of the law" of this guideline of Wikipedia's. For example, if i were creating the article on dogs a long time ago, when Wikipedia first started, and i wrote "A dog is an animal," i doubt anyone would challenge that. If they did, i guess i'd find a reference, but how ridiculous would that be? As for glyphosate being the most used systemic herbicide in the world, i read that everywhere. It doesn't seem at all controversial. Here, for example, "Roundup is the most commonly used non-selective herbicide."
And then there's the matter of your quite often deleting my edits that ARE sourced for other reasons, to an extent that seems hounding to me.
To summarize: (1) writing copy that's not sourced is not "illegal" as per guideline, see the qualifying phrase in the guideline. (2) You also have a striking pattern of removing my edits that ARE sourced. And (3) your constant claims that i'm not WP:HERE are wrong, and tiring, and it seems to apply more to you than to me. Projection. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in the interest of integrity, do you want to make an admission that you're wrong about this point, Jytdog -- BEFORE flinging any new accusation my way? How about the integrity of admitting that you are wrong, or else further arguing -- in good faith and not with an axe on the grinder -- why you're right about this? If i edit an article to add a statement like "Grass usually grows in soil" without sourcing it, then would i have broken WP:VERIFY and subject to banning from Wikipedia? Or would this perhaps be something not likely to be challenged and therefore alright -- or if it gets challenged by someone then it could be sourced at that time? Let's get real. Let's really get real here. Let's speak honestly. Were you right or wrong about this latest accusation in your string of a thousand accusations at me? Why or why not? SageRad (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, in the interest of integrity, user Jytdog, you made accusations above saying that i was in violation of a core Wikipedia policy, and i replied with a reason why i do not think that i am in violation of it. Do you have an admission that you are wrong, or do you insist that you are right, or do you simply drop this? You made the accusation. You are not responding to my response. This is the very essence of the way in which so much dialogue with you, in my opinion, lacks integrity. SageRad (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed out tons of policy/guideline violations you have made, as have others. WP:BLPCOI, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:SOAPBOX, you name it. I can bring diffs for all those. That is almost every major policy we have. I am sorry that you are so resistant to learning. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StalkingHounding
NAC: Discussion is finished as per request of subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The policies against hounding and stalking are ambiguous, and written so as to create controversy. In my opinion, many claims of misconduct citing these policies are made by editors who are themselves engaging in these kinds of misconduct. Unfortunately, it really does appear that you are stalking the edits of User:Jytdog and complaining that he is hounding you. You went to the dispute resolution noticeboard immediately after another editor requested resolution of a dispute with Jytdog to enter a complaint about Jytdog. (You then made a disruptive comment, claiming to be a volunteer at the board, expressing a very non-neutral opinion, which would have been improper even if expressed by a volunteer. However, the real question is why you went to DRN except that you were stalking the edits of Jytdog.) Several editors, including Jytdog, have tried to caution you about your edits in general. I have not researched your edits, and if several editors have cautioned you about making unsourced additions, you should consider whether you are making unsourced additions. However, what I can see is that you are engaged in a campaign against another editor, as well as refusing to accept good-faith advice. Maybe Wikipedia really is a terrible, deeply corrupt place. If so, why are you wasting your energy in it? Either try to figure out what the culture of Wikipedia is, or stop battling. You really are setting yourself up to get topic-banned or even banned. Pause and reconsider. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT houding Jytdog. The last time i clicked on his user contributions list was a month ago at least, and i've only checked his contribs i think twice ever. I do see a pattern with him, and i am interested in seeing what edits he makes as i'm WP:HERE in part to counteract his bias for the good of the encyclopedia, but i have not at all checked his contribs lately solely to not be stalking. It's that we happen to walk around the same grounds and topics, and i see him writing things that i disagree with, and therefore i write to oppose them when i feel the need to do so. It's not stalking to be in the same domain and on different "sides" apparently. I do in fact feel hounded by him, though, and look who has taken many formal measures against me (all failed, by the way) and been obstructionist in dialog, etc. I am NOT in campaign against another editor. I am in a self-defensive position of being hounded BY another editor. Please strike your comments or justify them further. This is not an established fact, what you say. I'm being attacked and then framed for being attacked, as being the attacker. This is SO SO SO wrong. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formal measures:
3RR to get the glyphosate article protected due to the edit warring you and I did there when you first came to WP. Result - article was protected = success.
1st COIN case was about your edits on David Gorski, which resulted in you no longer directly editing that article, per WP:BLP (by the way, the specific part of BLP that was relevant is WP:BLPCOI) As i wrote to you above, I closed the COIN thread b/c others pointed out that you were violating BLP (a policy) which is a more serious matter than violating COI (a guideline). Result = success.
2nd COIN case was about your edits promoting the class-action suit about glyphosate. You disclosed that you have no relationship to the lawyers filing the suit and you appeared to understand why it looked COI-y. Result = success. Additional note. A few days later, another thread was opened at COIN, noting that the attorneys behind the suit were trying to add content about it to Wikipedia and were frustrated b/c their efforts were being reverted. So my bringing the case at COIN was by no means crazy.
Additional note to Robert - SageRad came to WP in full ax-grinding mode, wanting to add content that glyphosate is a bad bad thing, and most of his edits to date have been directed to that. We get editors like this from time to time at articles related to Monsanto/GMO/pesticides. Lots of advocacy. But i would hesitate to say stalking. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ax-grinding mode" is full subjective. Not admissible.
As to what's a "success" what does this mean to you? What are you expressing?
COI was NOT discovered.
Early 3RR on glyphosate article was BS and was very early before i even knew what 3RR was and if we really go back there with a fine tooth comb you'll find it's not true. I spoke to that at the time. Denied.
COI regarding court case against Monsanto was also NOT discovered.
If by "success" you mean what i think you mean, then it's actually failure to find.
I am sorry that you don't understand how boards function in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a sick backhanded comment attempting to pervert what happened. SageRad (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of your diatribe is a diatribe and largely irrelevant, and i could address it but i won't and don't need to. Save for one part, which is that Wikipedia is important because it's a repository of human knowledge, and often seen as an arbiter of commonly accepted fact, and if it's being gamed by people with an agenda, that is so wrong, and in fact truly a crime against humanity, the hijacking of the human knowledge base. That is why, and that does NOT show anything bad about me at all. Lay off. SageRad (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think that User:Jytdog is such a bad editor, then, rather than stalking him, you should first read the boomerang essay, and then file at WP:ANI or file a Request for Arbitration to ban him, rather than just harassing him, which just reflects badly on you. Pause and reconsider. What you are doing now won't help. Whether you really are engaged in a revenge campaign is less important than that it looks like you have a revenge campaign. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT harassing him. Please stop making accusations like that. I got to the end of MY rope with him being a very disruptive editor on pages that i am interested in, and finally called it out. That is NOT harassment. That i being direct and honest. SageRad (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just tacking on to Robert's comment (then I'm unwatching this page). SageRad, you were blocked by Guy and the appeal was denied by Huon specifically saying your talk page (or anywhere else) is not the place to pursue personal vendettas. The way you are pursuing things will not help you if your behavior comes up at ANI, so I highly suggest taking to heart what people have been suggesting to you to try to help you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proves nothing but that there's a gang of heavies who do this for a living or for fun. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what the hell is going on here? I raise a serious issue with another editor and i get nothing but punches in the face and accusation of stalking that person? What the hell kind of gang of thugs inhabits this place? Where is integrity, evidence, and reason? There is not much. It's law of power. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a matter of understanding the policies and guidelines that govern editing and behavior here. The feedback that every single person (all humans) who has commented here has given you (also a human), is that you are failing to understand them. You can dehumanize us all you want, but you are taking a stance further and further outside the community. You will do as you will. It is hard to watch, which is why I keep trying to reach out to you. That's all I will say. Stepping away again. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply NOT true that i am "failing to understand" -- what i'm doing is "failing to obey" commands that i disagree with, which i think are unjust or based on false interpretations of the guidelines. Your continuous projection that i am "failing to understand" policies and guidelines is really wrong. You also haven't replied yet, at this moment, to my demand for admission or further argument regarding your accusation that i violated the WP:VERIFY guidelines, in light of my recent comments. I'm not "dehumanizing" you but saying you're a human who is behaving badly here, to my detriment and that of others, who find a toxic editing environment. And then you have the audacity to try to make it look like it's MY problem and i'm the one with the "failure to understand". Ha. SageRad (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, you aren't likely to get answers by ridiculous hyperbole, such as claiming that posts with which you disagree are "punches in the face". What happens when an editor habitually resorts to ridiculous hyperbole is that they get a reputation for being an editor who resorts to ridiculous hyperbole. Second, you say that you have serious issues with another editor. You haven't provided specific evidence that User:Jytdog is a disruptive editor, other than to make that claim over and over again. What you should do is, either, back away, or, if you really think that he is a disruptive editor, provide diffs, and take them to WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement if applicable, or Requests for Arbitration. All that you are doing at this time is alienating editors who are trying to advise you to stop being pointlessly confrontational. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being pointlessly confrontational. I am being confrontational to put an end to a long-standing problem, or at least to call it out into the light. If this were my job and i had 40 hours to make the case, i would do so, and it would be 50 page brief suitable for court. SageRad (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are being pointlessly confrontational if you continue to say that there is a long-standing problem with User:Jytdog without providing us with diffs to indicate what the problem is. The only obvious problem is an editor campaigning against another editor. What exactly is the Jytdog problem? Either provide the diffs or stop raging. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My introduction to you is that you showed up at the dispute resolution noticeboard because a thread involving Jytdog showed up there, and you proceeded to state a case against Jytdog while claiming to be a volunteer. That appeared to be a case of being ready to fight. Once again, pause and reconsider. You say that you want to put an end to a long-standing problem, but you haven't identified a long-standing problem, except that your own combativeness is becoming long-standing. Pause and reconsider. If you think that being asked to pause and reconsider is a "punch in the face", then you don't want to edit collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) In the case of "claiming" to be a volunteer, that was a simple mistake and i admitted that once i realized the custom there, did i not, Robert? Please give me the credit where it's due. And how does that show being "ready to fight"? And what does "ready to fight" mean? Does it mean i am going to wield a knife through the screen? Or does it perhaps mean "willing to stand up for what i think is right using words" which is not "fight" but rather standing up honestly for what i believe? You can find it here where i pinged you severally regarding my admission and apology and the reason being due to lack of understanding the custom on that page which is different from all other conflict discussion boards i'd seen to that point on Wikipedia.
(2) I'm not exactly "raging" but i'm speaking out about a long-standing behavior that i have observed, and i have also noted that others have observed from their comments. Rather than suffer bad behavior silently. I do not have time right now to present a "case" in a courtroom style. It just reached the point this morning where i'd had enough, when Jytdog deleted my edit which i had carefully worked on, regarding crop desiccation, (well sourced and well written with another editor) and then when i questioned that deletion with the implication that he was being imperious, he imperiously deleted my comment on the deletion. It's another trip down the old memory hole. I'm not in for the ride. I'm not in a handbasket.
(3) I am indeed asserting that it's a long-standing problem with this editor in particular and a few others to lesser degrees, and that it creates a toxic editing environment for others. That's my statement. Your statement about me is your statement.
(4) I don't think that being asked to pause and reconsider is a "punch in the face" but some other bs tactiucs of ingenuine dilaogue are indeed a metaphorical "punch in the face". If you wish to quote me on "punch in the face" then where did i use it? Here is where: "So what the hell is going on here? I raise a serious issue with another editor and i get nothing but punches in the face and accusation of stalking that person?" and yes, that's pretty true as i see it. I raised issues about a user, and then *i* get accused of stalking and now hounding and many other bad behaviors. How is THAT ok? Phrase is "blaming the victim" and it's a technique of oppression.
(5) I am definitely WP:HERE to edit collaboratively, and when it's happened, it's been wonderful. I"ve edited with others on some pages in a spirit of collaboration, and that makes it even more ironic and hard to suffer when there are people who are ingenuine in their dialogue. Difference of opinion is one thing, but the constant moving of goalposts, strawman argumentation, and other bad dialog are horrible. I enjoy disagreeing with someone and then hashing out until we reduce it to the lowest common denominator and either name it a disgreement for some values reason, or else work it out until we agree. That's hardly ever happened with Jytdog and a few other people who seem to want to derail things that are not going "their way" and "their way" is a direction in favor of an industry, which is weird, and yes, i am implying a kind of biased obstructionism. It's far too uncanny to not notice the consistency of the direction of the pushing of Jytdog and a few others, whether by good or bad means, by any means necessary, really. SageRad (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Robert McClenon's point - focus on providing difs of edits that show a clear problem, and stop raging. Also keep your argument concise - my impression of your getting blocked re:Gorsky was that it was in part because you kept making lengthy replies to each comment. Sometimes it is best to make a statement then let it stand on its own rather than engage repeatedly with people with whom you disagree. If you do make a formal case, I suggest keeping it under 10 difs and under 1000 words. Dialectric (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Just a bit of friendly advice
Verbosity is the enemy on noticeboards. Diffs are your ally. The advice provided to you by the editors who responded to your DR/N posting is very wise advice. Avoid personal attacks, do not allow yourself to be baited, stick to policy and guideline (PAG) references. You have much to offer - don't get swept up in the drama. Atsme📞📧 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NAC: Subject said to back off, so closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have just read this talk page all the way through. I am now withdrawing my suggestion that User:SageRad consider presenting a case against User:Jytdog at WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or Requests for Arbitration. In view of how SageRad has spent the past month raging, treating advice as attacks, and being combative, requesting sanctions is likely to result in sanctions against the filer. The best approach would be to disengage completely. The second best approach would be to leave the invective here on this talk page, rather than taking it to where administrators will scrutinize his own history as well as that of Jytdog. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a new editor with a grievance against an existing editor, Jytdog. Jytdog gets into controversies because he edits in contentious areas, such as nutrition and pesticides, and tries to follow neutral point of view strictly, when there are often two opposing strong points of view, such as pro-industry and anti-industry. As a result, Jytdog does have a few enemies, but what I have learned is that Jytdog is usually right, and sometimes right in the middle when few editors are in the neutral middle. You haven't even said why you think that Jytdog is a bad editor, other than that he reverts your edits. Usually when Jytdog reverts edits, it is because they need reverting. You haven't said whether you think he is a bad editor because he mistreats you (and he is treating you no differently than anyone else who makes edits with whom Jytdog disagrees), or because he isn't sufficiently pro-industry, or because he isn't sufficiently anti-industry. All that I know is that you think that he is a bad editor. Just saying that more times will not persuade the community. However, now that I have reviewed your history, I won't ask you to present the case against him, because the admins will also see the case against you. So just cool down, if you can. Pause and reconsider. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote above: "It just reached the point this morning where i'd had enough, when Jytdog deleted my edit which i had carefully worked on, regarding crop desiccation, (well sourced and well written with another editor) and then when i questioned that deletion with the implication that he was being imperious, he imperiously deleted my comment on the deletion. It's another trip down the old memory hole. I'm not in for the ride. I'm not in a handbasket." As you stated that, it did sound as though you were alleging talk page misconduct by Jytdog, and you were making such an allegation, but the misconduct was your own. Your comment about the deletion, referring to him as "Your Highness", dripped with sarcasm, and, in this case, it was possible to tell on the Internet that you were using sarcasm as a personal attack. I wouldn't have removed the personal attack, but I won't criticize Jytdog for removing the personal attack. Maybe if several experienced editors try to advise you that you are bringing your problems on yourself, you may be bringing your problems on yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what forms of expression are prohibited from Wikipedia? Is expressing frustration at somebody's imperiousness barred? Sure, i agree, it was sarcastic -- to make a point. The point being that Jytdog disregarded discussion and removed a good piece of an article because HE thought it was not relevant to the article, although two other editors thought it had a place in the article. And the reason being "not even worth discussing in WP. a buyer of one crop in one province in Canada. meh" --> That shows that he privileges his point of view over that of others, and asserts his own reckoning as being the final word on the matter. For when i reverted it, and talked on the talk page about it, then he reverted it once more, with the note "you are pretty close to 3RR on this now..." the implicit threat being "I am having my way on this, and if you revert it, i'm charging you with edit warring." In other words, he's doing an edit war and throwing down a gauntlet with the threat that he will charge me with edit warring. And now it's all about weight.
And now the gang of conservative heavies is there saying "it's not important enough to include!" Because... because it's critical :of chemical crop desiccation. It shows some controversy over it. That's why. If it were some other detail, about mechanics of spraying, or anything else, it would not be subject to this level of scrutiny and barring due to concerns about "weight". Seriously. That's a pattern, ongoing, and clear.
Whatever. Systematic bias is very clear. People having "beats" is clear. Why are people WP:HERE? SageRad (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You ask: "What forms of expression are prohibited from Wikipedia?" I will answer shortly, but that is not a question that you should ask at all. The correct question should be: "What forms of expression are permitted in Wikipedia?" You seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of the nature of privately owned but editable web sites. You seem to think that you have rights to edit them, as evidenced both by your protestations here and your issues with Dr. Gorski. You do not. You are granted the privilege to edit them, in the case of Wikipedia, to contribute to collaborative building of the encyclopedia, in the case of Dr. Gorski, to comment within reason. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not apply. Those laws bar governments from interfering with public freedom of expression. Editing a private web site, even one that anyone can edit, is not a right, and the web site only looks like a public medium. It is private. Until you understand that you don't have the right to edit Wikipedia, you will be confused about your privilege to edit Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You ask: "What forms of expression are prohibited from Wikipedia?" Uncivil expression is not permitted. Maybe you don't realize how consistently uncivil many of your comments have been. Since you are very sensitive to any negative comments about you, referring to them hyperbolically as "punches", consider how you would feel if other editors characterized you in the way that you characterize them (e.g., as "heavies"). Edits against consensus are not permitted. If your edits are repeatedly reverted, there are means for obtaining consensus, the first of which is constructive discussion on talk pages. (Simply repeated the reverted edit, as you have discovered, is edit-warring, and is not permitted.) For following steps, see the dispute resolution policy. BLP violations are not permitted (because people who are not editing Wikipedia do have rights, such as the right not to be defamed). Battleground editing is not permitted, and typically results in topic-bans. Conflict of interest editing is not permitted. You have (selectively) read enough of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you have seen a few other types of editing that are not permitted. I have tried to provide some answers to your question as to what is not permitted, but you have asked the wrong question. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not buy the argument about "privately owned" websites negating all consideration about freedom of speech. I also do not use or accept the language of it being a "privilege" to participate in society. The reality of the world today is that Wikipedia is a source of knowledge for many people, and people see it as a publicly constructed website, presumably where anyone can participate, within reason and reasonable behavioral guidelines. Similarly, when i google "glyphosate" and a website comes up first in the news, and i click and see comments there, i generally assume that anyone can comment within reasonable behavioral guidelines, and that the comments will be allowed, and not selectively cut or blocked by someone with a particular agenda.
I ask you to back off. I do not like your tone, which i sense as rather condescending, and negating and invalidating of the value of the things that i say. And then the implied threats of topic bans. I am so sick of people who constantly use implied threats in their language. It's far from civil or polite. And other things you're doing in your tone are far from civil or polite. Maybe you, maybe others, don't realize how uncivil your comments are sometimes. Pot, kettle.
I think my question was fine, and was the right question because it's the one i wanted to ask, and so i did. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You attempt to make a lot of points, some of them marginally valid, some of them without validity. I will try to address them in order.
First, you write: 'I do not buy the argument about "privately owned" websites negating all consideration about freedom of speech. I also do not use or accept the language of it being a "privilege" to participate in society. The reality of the world today is that Wikipedia is a source of knowledge for many people, and people see it as a publicly constructed website, presumably where anyone can participate, within reason and reasonable behavioral guidelines.' I won’t provide a legal analysis of what appears to be an argument to declare private property, such as the WMF servers, to be a public resource. I do agree that Wikipedia is a source of knowledge for many people. It is a source of knowledge for many people largely because it has strict standards for editing to ensure verifiability based on reliable sources and neutral point of view, in order to provide quality content for the reader. To the extent that the WMF has taken on a public trust in maintaining Wikipedia, their primary obligation is to the reader, not to the editor. As such, Wikipedia has not only a right but a duty to prevent or revert edits of questionable veracity. Even if, as you appear to be claiming, private property becomes a public resource, it is a public resource subject to editorial controls.
By the way, although I concede that you have something of a social argument, although not a legal argument, about reasonable rules for expression on Wikimedia Foundation servers, your claim that Dr. Gorski engaged in 'censorship' is patent nonsense. There is no plausible argument that he intended his blog to be a public trust or public means of expression, and your use of the word “censorship” implies that you misunderstand the nature of media and the nature of freedom of expression.
Second, I see that you are very sensitive about the way that others address you, but persist in being insensitive about the way that you refer to other Wikipedia editors and address other Wikipedia editors. That isn’t a strategy that is likely to work well for you.
Third, you refer to threats and implied threats. You profoundly misunderstand many of those comments. They are not threats; they are cautions. If I were to say: 'Don’t drive at 80 miles per hour on the Capital Beltway, because you could be charged with reckless driving', that is not a threat, because I am not a trooper and cannot write tickets. It is a caution that I know that people have been charged with reckless driving for driving at 80 miles per hour, and so advice not to do it. That is exactly what is being said about topic-bans.
Fourth, you ask me to back off. I will back off, but you are being self-destructive in asking those who are trying to advise you to back off on our advice, since it appears that your objective is to go on with your disruptive editing while silencing those who would caution you. I will back off, but your request is self-destructive. User:Diaelectric and I had your interests in mind. You are blowing off useful advice.
I take Dialectric's advice with good care. I respect it. As for your post here, i disagree with nearly all of it and deny all ascriptions of my motivations that you make, here. I think i hear what's going on with veiled threats against me. It's not loving kindness. It's controlling behavior to get their way. I think that i do treat others with respect, when i am treated with respect. When i am not, then i don't hold back too much and say it directly. I don't have a "strategy" -- i have a solid core of integrity. As for the censorship argument, yes, the ethical argument is what i refer to. Ethically, and actually, it's a form of censorship. SageRad (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
user page
In my view [this] is pretty clearly a personal attack on me, based on what you have written above and elsewhere like . I suggest you consider removing that. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an attack on you in particular. It's a call-out for solidarity, to see if others notice such a pattern in general, and i think it's within my rights to have that here. Jeez, really? SageRad (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack on you, User:Jytdog. It's an impersonal attack on Wikipedia and its neutral point of view policies that apply both to pro-industry and anti-industry. As he says, it is a call for solidarity, that is, battleground editing. One possibility would be to nominate for miscellany for deletion as a polemic. Another possibility would be to ignore it as not worth the provocation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is it an attack on "Wikipedia". It's a call for fellowship. You all have a huge problem letting people be. Jesus. Y'all's gots problems. SageRad (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:SageRad, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SageRad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SageRad during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I just voted keep on this MfD but as a piece of advice, consider just removing the comment from your user page. Stop poking the hornets nest. Gigs (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little better now, thanks. Gigs (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coatrack
SageRad, about your adding back the content about beta-glucans. which you originally added here and just added back here, and about this comment on the article Talk page where you wrote " i think it's significant in terms of people noticing a difference with chemically desiccated crops and objecting to it"
You are again trying to add science-based content into WIkipedia about some supposed effect of glyphosate using inappropriate sources. We've been through this a few times now. It started with the gut bacteria thing, where you first just added it unsourced and then again unsourced and again unsourced with an edit note referencing "the truth" (I won't list all those), then used a primary source about cows, and then used news about a lawsuit... all with the same goal of adding content along the lines of "glyphosate inhibits microflora in the human gut". You are doing the same thing at the crop desiccation article - trying to make a claim that desiccation with glyphosate affects beta-glucan content (and thus human health), using sources that aren't appropriate. We call this WP:COATRACK. Please stop doing that.
I understand that you believe that glyphosate is really dangerous but we base content about health on sources that comply with MEDRS and non-health science-based content on sources that comply with SCIRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the statement about Grain Millers' claim that glyphosate finishing affects beta-glucan levels in oats was significant and was properly sourced to the news article that reported the claim of Grain Millers to that effect. You may reckon differently as to significance of this, but the claim itself was well-sourced. In a sense, it does relate to human health as far as nutrition, but the claim was only about the levels of a chemical in the oats. I think it was a fair claim, and well sourced. Ah, i see where you're going with WP:COATRACK, but i really don't think it's that. If chemical crop desiccation affects the quality of the product, and if that's deemed significant by reliable sources, then i think that's a relevant aspect of chemical desiccation, the topic of the article. This indeed was called significant by the article in the Carlyle Observer. They said that it dominated the industry news. I think that's significant. SageRad (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
key phrase: " If chemical crop desiccation affects the quality of the product, " - key word "if". The phrase describes something about reality testable by science. So we look for scientific sources. If you read everything about this, you will note that other folks quoted in the news about this said "where is the scientific publication on this beta glucan thing?" That is what WP says too. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a report about the action of Grain Millers to not buy oats that have been sprayed with glyphosate as a finisher, due to their report that the oat has different qualities, being more crumbly and having low beta-glucan levels, which can affect the labeling of the oats as "heart healthy". If it were a report on a major foundry refusing to buy ore from some source because of some inferior quality, it would also be admissible. Anyway, i don't want to debate the issue here because that's what the talk page is for. You came here to give me an allegation of coatracking, and i don't think that i am. Now you're talking about sourcing, a different issue. I'd rather debate that at the Crop desiccation page, but at this point i'm just tired of that too, given the shifting goalposts and strawman types of wiggly dialog going on there. I have many interests that take time to pursue. SageRad (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a better metaphor, because crop desiccation is a process: if it were an article on a smelting process, and the product were refused by a major buyer due to perceived inferiority, it would be, i think, significant. SageRad (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raise source quality
In general, it will help avoid drama if you raise source quality. For example on this lawsuit thing, if a major news source (NYT, WSJ etc) reports on this, there is no way that I or anybody else will be able to take issue with the source. Please propose content on sources that you are confident will be acceptable to people who think differently than you and write content that is solidly based on them.
I know you don't much like me but look through my contribs to the glyphosate article. The sources are always the best, most neutral, most complete ones I can find (and I sometimes spend a long time looking for sources that report the whole story, neutrally - for example I worked for maybe two hours looking for the the sourcing on which I based this pretty small edit). And everything in the content I write is solidly based on the sources. You learn stuff when you do that, too. Like the Netherlands didn't ban glyphosate - they just banned its sale to private individuals "over the counter" as it were (you cannot buy it to spray it on your driveway anymore, but a lawn service can still buy it and use it on your driveway) and El Salvador's congress acted to update their pesticide legislation which they hadn't done in a long time - things banned worldwide were still on the market there. Yes they included glyphosate in the new list, so the content went into our article. (The best sources noted that including glyphosate in the listing was controversial there, and may end up getting reversed - but I didn't include anything about the possible reversal in the content I wrote b/c that is WP:CRYSTALBALL) Stuff like that. The reality turned out to be pretty different from the content first proposed on the Talk page of that article. There is so much bad "reporting" on the internet - you really have to work to get the complete story - all the facts of what actually happened - neutrally reported. A similar thing happened with the content about the French "ban" - tabloid-y sources treated it like something legal actually happened and someone added content saying that, but all that happened was a minister making a request with no legal authority or action, and another editor fixed it.
I do that because I do want to know reality as best I can, and I want Wikipedia to reflect it -- and I know that lots of people have strong points of view and my edits must be solid if they are going to stick. And they almost always do stick. The underlying principles are simple - unimpeachable sources and fully supported, carefully neutral wording, about things of encyclopedic value. Editing that way also honors the presence, concern and POV of other editors - it takes them seriously. Please do the same.
Please stop adding and proposing unsourced and badly sourced content to any articles, but especially to controversial ones. I don't like to keep arguing with you but as long as you keep doing that, I will. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glyphosate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT engaged in an edit war. This is a false accusation. Jytdog has a history of premature edit war accusations against me. I'm not giving this any more energy. You are wrong.SageRad (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just catching up on the situation from the article talk page, but having your edit reverted and then restoring it back is by definition edit warring. You don't need to surpass 3 reverts to reach that point. When you make a new change that isn't accepted, it is best to follow WP:STATUSQUO (especially reading the last paragraph). In this case, your change was rejected, indicating you need to gain consensus for the addition. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I indicated my reason for reverting my edit back into existence, which was that the deletion was for an invalid reason based on a false statement of Wikipedia guidelines. The dialogue around that with the editor who deleted my edit did not carry integrity required to either admit this or deny it with some reasoning, but appeared to be willfully dismissive of Wikipedia guidelines instead, and therefore appears to be gaming the system. BRD assumes that the editor who originally deleted the text is willing to be engaged in dialogue with integrity and honesty about the deletion. In this case, it appears not to be the case. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you add content, and another editor removes it and provides a reason, and you add it back, in that adding-back, you are edit warring. Per WP:BRD the correct move is to open a discussion on Talk if you still believe the content should be included, instead of just adding it back. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 7 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
What you wrote here on the Talk page, about this edit to the article, is the definition of WP:POINTY. I won't argue with the change to the article, but in general you shouldn't make edits that you don't actually support. That kind of behavior is sanctionable. So please don't continue doing that. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, i actually support that edit. The sentence in question reported on assays of sensitivity of bacterial species found in milk, in a section on soil microbiota. I support the removal of this from that section. Previously, i had added the Jaworski (1972) paper to contrast with that sentence, to show that some bacteria are indeed highly sensitive to glyphosate, and i used one that was actually found in soil. Since that was deleted by another editor, then in the context, i fully supported deletion of the claim that i deleted. I will not use the reason that it should be deleted solely because it's a primary source, but in this case i did do something "pointy-like" perhaps by saying "So, i can just delete things if they're primary sources just because i want to?" But that's not the sole reason i deleted that claim from the section on soil microbiota. SageRad (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awhile back, you mentioned that you have some professional interest in microbial ecology, glyphosate, etc. Considering how much you are trying to insert content on microbes, etc. in the topic with solely primary sources, it looks like you are creating undue weight for your topic of interest in general (the definition of advocacy). The way around that is to simply cite secondary sources as everyone has been requesting that you do. Instead, you have yourself set up pretty handily for a topic ban on microbial topics and glyphosate in general even judging just by the various warnings and blocks you've received on your talk page. I'm not going to pursue such a ban at this time, but I do want to make sure you're aware of how precariously you're sitting on the edge of the cliff right now.
Also, please remember not to resort to personal attacks as that does violate policy WP:NPA. You have been misrepresenting editor comments here by claiming people are saying primary sources can never be used. Whether one is assuming good faith that you are just rushing too much and not catching what others are actually saying or just assuming something other than good faith is going on for your part, both cases are disruptive. I assume the former at least, but you'll run yourself over the cliff just as easily with that too. Do try to take to heart what others have cautioned you about behavior-wise on your talk page already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note referencing this post you made and deleted, talk pages are the place to discuss editor conduct. We don't do that on article talk pages, so this is the place to do so. It looks like you still have the blinders on and aren't quite catching what everyone has actually been saying at the article, and claiming that my post was meant as intimidation is just showing more problems with WP:BATTLEGROUND that got you blocked once already. This is a last-ditch attempt to make sure you are aware of your conduct issues so you can fix them instead of trying yourself off the cliff. Nothing more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason i deleted what i had written. SageRad (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, take a look at my talk page under BATTLEGROUND. It appears that we are both being targeted by coordinated harassment for our discussions on Glyphosate. I suspect we are both being goaded into taking out an AN/I or some other action whereupon all sorts of non-involved editors will suddenly rise to attack us. Please be careful.DrChrissy(talk) 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
drchrissy, i wrote on your Talk page to warn you away from the cliff you are heading toward. I really do not like or want more drama. You chose to come into the glyphosate article, extending the scope of your editing into an article you know is controversial and on which you know i am active. Seeking to extend the scope of conflict is just unwise. And you are extending it yet deeper here. I know you don't like me but I am not goading you, at all. Nor SageRad. I was surprised to see Kingofaces post here, but it appears to come from the place as I was coming from - trying to work with an editor on their talk page to make article discussions more productive and head them away from directions that are not good for them, nor for the community. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i get that feeling pretty often as well, DrChrissy. I don't feel a collegiate feeling, and i see what appears to be a coordinated effort among several editors who don't seem to respect rules and guidelines very well, and who seem to edit with a particular bent in a particular direction. But even saying this will be grounds for them to bring some faux charge against me. It's kind of bullshit, to be honest. And even saying that will be seen as... violation of X... I am here to make a great encyclopedia. Their warnings of this "cliff" is bullshit, and feels to me like intimidation. I'm pretty much fed up but i'm not giving up. I do not feel like they are trying to work with me. We need some kind of neutral witness and jury, but that's not easy to find here. Dogs seem to travel in packs. Ok, fellows, fire away! SageRad (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is in fact a battleground, it's not me making it a battleground. Battle takes two opposing sides at minimum. SageRad (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
SageRad, fwiw I wish that Kingofaces had not cited the comment you had deleted. I often edit or even what I write before any one responds to it, because I rethink what I wrote. Sometimes people cite things I revised against me, and I find that to be tacky. Sorry he did that - I wish he would strike. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my post applied regardless of whether the linked post was made or not, which is why I didn't reply any further yet. I hadn't seen SageRad's most recent comment yet at the article talk page at the time of posting. I struck one sentence so there isn't any confusion on some things, but the remainder is clarification on my intent here.
Just an FYI for the future SageRad, there's no need to ping me if I've recently posted on a given page. I'll check back, and it reduces the likelihood of me responding to an edit you're in the processing of removing, copy editing, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, Kingofaces, what I find tacky is the reference at all to the comment SageRad made and deleted before any one responded. When I overwrite or delete a comment before someone else responds to it (which is legitimate) I do so because I am disowning what I wrote before; when someone tries to "stick me" with something I already disowned, especially as though I didn't disown it already, I find that just so.. icky. I don't do it to others and don't like to see it done to others. But you will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the logistical note, Kingofaces43, and thanks for the "for what it's worth", Jytdog. That said, it does feel very much like a threat, coming here with accusations about my behavior and especially my motivations, and then speaking of this "cliff" in this way. Very very much like a threat and i do not like it one bit. I do not welcome it and i think it's not justified. I think it's not a friendly warning as you wish to frame it. It feels very much like intimidation to me. I'm not saying that's your motivation but you should know that's how it feels to me, how i perceive it. SageRad (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
+
to be clear, Kingofaces, what I find tacky is the reference at all to the comment SageRad made and deleted before any one responded. When I overwrite or delete a comment before someone else responds to it (which is legitimate) I do so because I am disowning what I wrote before; when someone tries to "stick me" with something I already disowned, especially as though I didn't disown it already, I find that just so.. icky. I don't do it to others and don't like to see it done to others. But you will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
−
As for what you're calling "personal attacks" of which you're accusing me, this is my saying on the glyphosate talk page that several editors said that primary sources are not allowed. I suppose that in a very technical semantic sense, this is not correct, and therefore i have struck it from that talk page as a claim and acknowledged this. However, the actions of several editors did appear to be based on that interpretation -- actions like deleting a passage with a reason of "do not use primary sources". How else is one to interpret that? And then when i pressed explicitly for anyone to say that primary sources are, or are not, allowed, people did say that in so many words that primary sources are not used -- with some slight qualifying language. I do think that people also misrepresented guidelines. So while people did not explicitly say primary sources are not allowed, i see that people acted on that basis and a reasonable person would come to that conversation and those actions and take away a conclusion that some people think primary sources really are not allowed. I has to push very hard to get admissions of cases in which primary sources are allowed, and people are still not accepting primary sources on that article, at all, it appears, and have said explicitly that they would delete any future additions that use a primary source. So make of it what you will, but that's how i see it. I do not think i made "personal attacks" however. I think that i spoke without complete 100% semantic accuracy, and i have struck that particular sentence. I repeat that i do not welcome this constant talk about a cliff that i am going to roll over, and i think it's not warranted. It does feel like a threat to me and does feel like intimidation. I am not saying that is your motivation, because i cannot know what's in your mind, but i feel it as such. It feels strong-arming. This discussion could have gone so much more smoothly if we had a more collegiate atmosphere, and had discussed the article(s) in question specifically, and whether they should be included in the article or not based on their merit, with its being a primary source as one consideration, as well as its recency, as well as the context in the article text where it was placed and what its role was there. SageRad (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
Note also that the paragraph in which i stated that several people said primary sources are not allowed was a paragraph to attempt to get consensus on this question, and to clarify, as well. I stated that in the paragraph itself, did i not? And pinged everyone to respond. People responded with an answer, but also with this accusation of personal attack. I am sorry to misrepresent the text of another person, but i did not mean it as an attack. Attempted to clarify. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
Jytdog, i do appreciate the "for what it's worth" and Kingofaces, i appreciate the logistical note. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
If you look up this page, SageRad, you will see that me and others have tried to talk with you many, many times about how Wikipedia works. All of that is an effort to prevent things from becoming really bad to the point where your behavior will lead to dramaboard activity. You will notice that the only time I have raised an issue about you at a drama board was about COI, and that board in particular is one where issues are really explored. The outcome was that you had no COI and I was fine with that. But no ANI. I don't like trying to get action taken against people. It is not good to lose people and it is a huge time suck. I hope it never gets there with you - I really don't. But when people don't listen and keep violating policies, that is where things end up. Big picture -- as has been said to you several times above, by Guy and Robert and others - warnings are not threats. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There's a lot more to those talk page posts than just blanket statements saying primary sources aren't allowed, so if you're now starting to see that, then we can get back on track. Do be careful not to misrepresent posts in the future though. For this specific article and content, primary sources are not appropriate, which is the context everyone else has been trying to discuss under so far. That can be tackled at the article.
As for my intentions, I've made them clear in each of my posts that I was not interested in pursuing a ban, but that you are set in a position where one could be imposed if you continue down the route I described. Nothing threatening should have been interpreted on my part with a full reading of my comment. Responding to "You're almost going to walk over a cliff." with "Don't threaten me." is rather nonsensical here, so I really do suggest trying to comment with a cooler head. A common problem that leads to editors burning out is thinking people are out to get them when they are not. I mainly wanted to remind you about undue weight as a WP:EXPERT editor and previous behavior issues that have been brought up already, hence the approaching the cliff analogy. Since that's done, I don't really see a need to continue the conversation here further so content can actually be worked on at articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You matter-of-factly state above "For this specific article and content, primary sources are not appropriate...". Who says? Why? It is exactly this sort of language which is causing the problems on the article. Why is this article different from others such that policy is being ignored or misrepresented.DrChrissy(talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up - this discussion should be on the article Talk page, not here.DrChrissy(talk) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation here is done for now; again you are seeking to extend conflict DrChrissy. The discussion was appropriate for a user Talk page as its focus was editor behavior, not content. See WP:TPGJytdog (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think DrChrissy's point is good, and i welcome her presence here. I do NOT declare the conversation over, and this is my talk page. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still see absolutely NO grounds upon which you could pursue an action against me. Care to refresh me about what i did wrong allegedly? Really, now. This is getting strange. SageRad (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the way i see it. I am a person of principle, and i am here to edit an encyclopedia. I am somewhat fearless and i don't obey people's orders, but i like to work it out and work from principles. You and a few others have indeed brought issues here to my talk page many times, but i do not think that proves that i am the one at fault, necessarily. That's a fallacy of thinking. It's like if a person has been pulled over many times and gotten many tickets, does it necessarily mean they're a bad driver? Could be they're driving while black in place where that's a de facto crime. Well, i'm editing with gumption and attitude, but i believe, in a principled way. I engage in dialogue and i insist on integrity and completion of dialogue more than most people. Therefore, you and a few others perceive me as a challenger, because in a way, i am, but that is not necessarily due to a fault of mine. And, there is an aspect to this all which i resent and find harmful, which is that you and a few others have this way of privileging your own judgment above mine, and then calling it my fault that we disagree. We seem to disagree a lot, and that's ok, but then to assume that i am the wrong party and you are the right party, and then to come to my talk page often and make statements like "you're nearly going over a cliff" does seem to show that you and Kingofaces and a few others privilege your own judgment in a way that i find haughty. Undue weight is an issue other than what we were talking about on the glyphosate page. There, as i see it, i was insisting very strongly in order to elucidate the principles on which an addition was being deleted. It seemed to be deleted on the basis of being a primary article. You or someone else could have taken this and said "It's not just because it's a primary article. It's because it is ______fill-in-the-blank____" and after a while of pushing, that finally came through. Many objections, from recentism to possible POV pushing or advocacy, came through, as well as danger of using primary sources on controversial topics. Anyway, these may be valid and can be discussed, but i was pushing strongly to understand exactly why it was being rejected, as being a primary article -- in itself alone -- is not enough to strong-arm (and yes, i mean to use that verb) an edit. I was pushing against what seems to be a strong-arming mode of editing among several people. I really don't see why we can't have more collegiate dialogue. But Kingofaces coming here right after that episode, and giving me a "friendly warning" about "going off a cliff" is not alright behavior in my book, and your joining in adds some fuel to the fire. Please try to see that it's not as simple as you being the complete expert and having perfect judgment, and me being strong-willed and always wrong. SageRad (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be essentially a demand for me to obey you, Jytdog and Kingofaces, and sometimes a few other people who seem to walk in line with you. I am not an obeyer of people. I obey principles, and i obey ideals. I share the principles and ideals of Wikipedia. I sometimes disagree with you on interpretations, and sometimes i have a creeping suspicion that there is a wikilawyering that is not fully genuine going on. I get the feeling that some people want and demand obedience, and get really up in arms when compliance is not seen. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
Yes I know you view following PAG as some kind of "submission." You have said that before too. I have tried to give you some advice, so has Kingofaces.. not much more to do here. btw DrChrissy is a guy. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is an absolutely wrong attribution, in other words a nasty strawman argument. Strike that please. Do you want me to follow Kingofaces43's example and come at you with an accusation of personal attack because you mis-attribute something to my words? I mean that jokingly because i'm not the kind of person to think a mis-attribution is necessarily a personal attack, nor to get legalistic on you, but that is so so so wrong. You KNOW you have just distorted my meaning, don't you? I said clearly that i *support* guidelines and principles and ideals. In the recent conflict, do you realize that i was actually the one insisting on following the letter and spirit of guidelines? I was the one who was insisting on people clarifying their objections, and i was the one who was pointing out that guidelines do not actually prohibit primary sources, while they do give some cautions to their use in many cases. I have come to truly respect the guidelines and their spirit. I don't like a slavish adherence to guidelines when discussion can find another way, and i also HATE gaming and wikilawyering that uses guidelines in a distortive or selective way. Do you realize, Jytdog, that you have very much distorted my meaning as well as my character here, and i believe in a really poking kind of way, designed to rile? Anyway, please acknowledge or deny, Jytdog. What is your advice? To agree with whatever you say, and obey when you tell me to do something? SageRad (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43, do you see that personal attack? You better warn Jytdog that he is about to head over a cliff, just gve him a friendly warning, will you? SageRad (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
There is no personal attack in that most recent post. The "submission" comment is relatively in line with others commenting on your behavior problems rehashed throughout your talk page time and again. If you don't want to hear that, that doesn't make it a personal attack (another common problem amongst the "everyone's out to get me editors"). The same goes for the reasons why a ban could be likely. That's been rehashed on your talk page many times already, so there's no need for me to continue the conversation here as I said in my last post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." - Paul Simon. Think about that. In light of your bias in interpreting nearly everything. I rest my case. Bye. SageRad (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a sense of humor about it, anyway? My point here is that your assertions that i am continually wrong on points of interpretation are in fact a product of your own perspective. My interpretations are likewise a product of my own perspective. Everyone is seeing the world from a perspective. When these clash, they tend to get polarized and entrenched. But let's try to loosen these up, and to admit the validity of other points of view, and to work in a creative tension instead of a warlike conflict. Part of this is for you both to acknowledge that you do not know "truth" and i am not always 100% wrong when we have conflicting reckonings on something, such as whether a paper about glyphosate's effects on earthworms is a useful thing to include in a section on glyphosate's effects on soil biota, and that this *may* be worthwhile to include even though it's a recent primary research paper, or at least a discussion about whether to include it is worthwhile to have, instead of shutting it down by deleting it with "Do not use primary sources" as the reason, as if that is a hard guideline......... ah..... the layers of the onion. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." - Paul Simon. Think about that. Here's something to think about, SR. Why not follow the advice you hand out to others? Why not read what others are repeatedly telling you and take heed? From where I sit, you are digging a pathetic and pedantic hole for yourself. I've been there, and it's not a position that attracts much support. I can't make you open your eyes and accept what is plain to others; that's up to you. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because, sir, a gang of heavies does not comprise consensus, and because at this point it's on the meta-level about people being able to completely shut out a contribution simply by saying that a source is not "mainstream" and yet not defining what comprises "mainstream" adequately except that it seems to be "if i agree with its ideology then it's mainstream". From where i sit, you're a heavy-handed and rude person, and your threatening talk only emboldens me to fight back against it because it's unjust. Ever hear of the concept of counterwill? I do follow the advice i hand out. I do examine my own positions and think about them quite a lot. Sometimes i do change my positions, but in this case, i have only become more sure about the principles involved and the need to fight against bullying editors. I don't think that bullying tactics or outnumbering someone has any place in Wikipedia, which should and could be a place where rational discourse rules. I'll say it again, though. I do subject myself to a lot of self-reflection of this kind. I do ask myself whether i'm wrong on various issues. Sometimes i do mellow my position or find a middle ground, and on some rare occasions, i realize that i'm just plain wrong. I've thought about the issue involved here, however, for many days, while doing more rote tasks that leave my mind free. I've found only more conviction that the reasons given by other editors as to why this lawsuit should not be given a one-sentence mention on a page about legal issues involving Monsanto are meager at best, and continue to wonder why there is such strong pushback. First objection was that the source was not edited. Fine, i found an edited source. Objection is that it's not "mainstream" enough. Debate is not holistic. There's not the objective distance. There's not any benefit of the doubt. There's lawyering going on. It's pretty clear to me it's a bureacratic obstructionism, and that cannot stand on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you think I'm bullying you. I'm asking you to look at what we do on Wikipedia and accept that this is the way it is. All the answers you need may be found in established wikipolicy and the reasons why things here are as they are are in the talk pages and their archives. Why? Because why is that they work. Your case isn't causing more than the faintest of ripples in the real world, and no matter how much you may personally believe in it, if other editors can't see reason enough for inclusion, it's not going to happen. I haven't previously encountered any of the other editors "bullying" you, and I doubt I will again. There's no gang, no conspiracy. We work together to write an encyclopaedia. If you want to ignore the way things work around here, fine. You'll have a very difficult time. Thanks for your time. I'm done. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To begin, it's not "my case". That's a misrepresentation. It is a case in the world. I have nothing to do with it.
It is causing ripples. It's in several edited news sources. Smallish ripples, but ripples nonetheless, and in my reckoning, enough to be included in a one-line mention on a page on the very topic of legal issues involving Monsanto. It's an interesting case and it's mentioned by a lot of people.
And writing a note that ends with "I'm done" is a sneaky closure of dialogue. I just began to engage you and then read that you're done. If you're done then be done and don't write back. If you write back then expect a reply and read it. Ok then. Be done. Bye. I still hold your tactics resort to bullying behavior through ingenuine dialogue, as do several others, and that's not cool on Wikipedia despite how common it is. As for guidelines and policies, i'm well aware of them and work within them. You and a few others want to force convenient interpretations. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Monsanto legal cases. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not edit warring. Can you explain what you think is edit warring, Jytdog? Like very specifically, please? SageRad (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. See the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will also look forward to reading an explanation. SageRad, you may be interested to know that Jytdog was very recently forced to apologise to the community after he falsely accused me at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard of edit-warring.DrChrissy(talk) 16:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy you have such a .... brittle perspective on things. I apologize when I mess up; I don't have to be forced. Nobody "wins" in WIkipedia and you would have a happier time if you didn't treat this place like a BATTLEGROUND. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another note with unfounded accusations about me
As I pointed out in my post you responded to,[1] please read WP:FOC, which is policy, and WP:LISTEN. Opining about editors, calling things obstructionism because you don't agree with it, etc. on an article talk page is violating policy. Others have generally tried to stick to that policy regarding you and your various behavior problems, but it is also very difficult to focus on content when you keep interjecting things like your response in the above diff on article talk pages. You are still engaging in a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior when others are trying to help you when they could seek a topic a ban pretty easily at this point instead.
Additionally, it getting to be pretty apparent you're having trouble when consensus is against you and moving on. Multiple uninvolved editors such as Pete and MastCell (just pinging as a courtesy) cautioned you against this at the recent RSN, so I really do suggest you take what they said to heart to actually acknowledge some of the issues that were brought up about your behavior. At the end of the day, your proposals are not getting traction, and opining as you are is not an appropriate use of the talk page. In such cases, the community just moves on rather than continue to engage a rejected idea. That is why you are now seeing people just refer to previous discussions as we do reach a point where continued discussion on a topic is not helpful. That is how consensus building works, even when it doesn't work in your favor.
Either you'll have a moment of clarity after having these things pointed out to you again so you can start steering in a better direction, or you'll treat this in the same manner as the many notes left on your talk page and elsewhere. That being said, I don't intend to respond here any further since you have shown a tendency to spin and deflect trying to say everyone else but you is the problem when others try to point our your behavior issues. I'm posting one last time hoping that doesn't happen, but if it does, there's no reason for me to try to squeeze water from a rock. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This gets so tiring. I am trying to edit and things like this take my time and energy, and that is obstructive to good and smooth editing. That's part of obstructionism.
Let's see, to begin with i completely and categorically reject everything that you say and imply about the nature of my editing here on Wikipedia. You hold no credibility with me, given my history with you. I don't take your judgment as having much worth. I respond for anyone else who may read this, and because i must simply reject your polite attacks, once again. Even down to the section heading here, "A note on misusing article talk pages", which i will change to something more suitable for this topic in my reckoning. To your various general points, i *do* listen. I *do* focus on content, and i call out behavior when it's obstructing good progress on content. I don't make this a battleground. This seems to be a battleground but it's not because of my behavior here. There are many who see that it's not me who's out of line here. There's out of line behavior, but to try to pin that on me here is wrong.
What happened is evident at the "Monsanto legal cases" talk page. I added a sentence on lawsuits by three U.S. cities against Monsanto for PCB contamination. I had sourced it to four reasonable sources. Jytdog took that down. He said we don't report on filed lawsuits. I asked him if that's a Wikipedia policy. He never answered. I've asked the same thing in the past. And yet he still insists that this is a reason in itself to remove my addition. It's to the point of being utterly stupid now. I edit based on policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Show me the policy that says that and i'll believe him. Otherwise, he has no right to push his point of view and his agenda into the article by stating a rule that is not actually a rule. That's so clearly obstructionist. We know Jytdog is an intelligent person. He's able to understand but is unwilling to acknowledge or admit that he's pushing an agenda here using a rule that he's made up, to prevent addition of a single sentence into the article about Monsanto legal cases, to add mention of significant legal cases against Monsanto. The pattern is too clear to ignore. Anyone with eyes can see it.
You can see in Jytdog's response to Aquillion here that he again states this as if it were policy, despite Aquillion's very clear explanation of why this is not acceptable by Wikipedia spirit and policies.
I suppose i'll ping, "as a courtesy", DrChrissy, who's had some experience with Jytdog's antics, as well as Tsavage and Aquillion who have seen the history of what's gone down on that article.
Note that the length of past dialog on that page absolutely does not establish that i am being problematic, as you imply in your note. Another possible explanation is that i don't simply put my tail between my legs and go away when faced with wikilawyering, but instead i insist on getting to the principle of the matter explicitly. In this case, the principle of the matter is that this is a significant lawsuit filing and belongs on this page. It's been reported by enough media to make that clear. We cannot have editors just making up their own rules all the time, and then ignoring direct challenges to their fake rule-making. That's a recipe for little tyrants to control pages with their bad behavior. I have other things to do. Gotta get back to work. Please stop wasting my time. SageRad (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of wasting time… Why not drop the stick and move on? Come back to these barely-filed cases if they proceed to any sort of significant outcome or attract major coverage. So far, there's just a few dribbles here and there in local and fringey sources, and you want them included in our global encyclopaedia because you think they are important. Why not wait until there is no question, and hence no opposition? --Pete (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
I saw that you filed a closure review for the Monsanto Legal Cases rfc. While I also have some issues with the close, I think it would be best to pull the request and wait for the closer to respond on the talk page before going to review. I would be surprised if he reopens the rfc, but it is not impossible. I suggest this in order to avoid any appearance of 'forum shopping' before we've exhausted options on the talk page.Dialectric (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dialectric. I appreciate your advice, but i have just looked at some recent edits of the closer and see that he is clearly involved with the whole controversy cluster involving Monsanto and GMO foods and all of it, so i have simply put these facts out there, and i have requested another close. I understand the concern about "forum shopping" appearance, but i think that it is clear why i would be asking for another close to the RfC given the very involved nature of the editor who did the first close. I'm not shopping for a specific outcome, but only for the very basic request of an uninvolved editor doing the closing. I want to see Wikipedia actually work like it is designed to work, and it seems very clear in this case that it did not. SageRad (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SageRad, I dont think we have ever edited together. I noticed the section on WP:ANRFC and was going to ask if you had asked for a review. By the comments above it looks like you have. Where is it? Thanks. AlbinoFerret 20:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AlbinoFerret, yes, i did ask for a review, and then someone came along who was very involved in the controversy area in question and closed the RfC but i and several others do not accept that closing, as we simply want a neutral, uninvolved person to do so. Now i have put another notice in asking for a truly neutral editor to do the closing. The RfC is found here and the explanation about why the closing was not deemed proper is here. SageRad (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt appear to be the place for challenging a close. I am an editor closer, so I know that most reviews are done on WP:AN. You can read about it here Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. The advice above is good in that asking Jgz to undo the close cant hurt, and is the accepted procedure, before going to AN. AlbinoFerret 21:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AlbinoFerret, thank you for your advice. Here is where i have asked for another close, but i will follow your advice and ask JzG to undo the close first. That sounds like a good idea. Thank you for your help. SageRad (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and since you now know where to challenge the RFC, please close that requests on WP:ANRFC. It wont do any good as any closer will just mark it "Already done" because it has been done and its not the place for a review. It could also be a distraction on WP:AN when you bring it there. AlbinoFerret 21:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I obviously, per my actions, agree, I'd like to suggest we step back from the article itself, and the Talk page for a few days. Your statement of a few hours ago is brilliant, though easily mis-characterized as a "rant." At this point it's obvious to any reasoning editor what's going on, and it might be best to let the dust settle. Happy to discuss here if you like, but it appears certain talk pages are being monitored closely, so choose wording with care. Mind you, I'm not caving to fear-mongering, but this is a sensitive time. Thanks again for your fine work. I have added your Talk page to my watchlist, something I should have done sooner. Jusdafax 19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent some time reviewing the above. It explains a lot. So the same admin who blocked you closed the RfC, fascinating. I guess I have to start paying more attention. Jusdafax 20:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i didn't even notice that. Thanks for noticing. SageRad (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is this, which startled me, and If you haven't read it, is of interest. Jusdafax 21:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just taken a look at this article for the first time. I find it quite amazing. Jusdafax 22:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Kevin Folta". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 September 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Kevin Folta, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Thanks so much for expressing your gratitude. This keeps me going on. SageRad (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great search for the uninvolved
Hi Sage,
I've been noticing that with the mass exodus of independent editors, RfCs full of new, neutral voices are a thing of the past. It's been this way for a couple of years, and coincides with the decrease in editors. Those with agendas don't leave, so this creates a real problem when we turn to noticeboards and RfCs as we once did. The other issue I see is that the fringe patrol has a POV that is in line with the 'house POV' embraced by Wikipedia. Unless WP remembers that we are to present neutral information, not the views of few, then I fear we are just spinning our wheels. Anyway, after seeing the breakdown of the system here at WP, and after viewing your comments at ArbCom and then at Vani Hari, I thought I would share some unsolicited thoughts on this. petrarchan47คุก 18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Petrarchan47, and thank you for sharing your perspective. I do agree. I understand that those with an agenda also have the motivation to find and appear as neutral voices on an RfC even though they have a history that shows an agenda and bias. I do participate in many RfCs, and i consider it my "public service". I always will state my COI or lack thereof, and say that i was called to the RfC by a bot, so that people know where i am coming from, and if i am a good neutral third-party pair of eyes. It is also why, in an RfC, i will always leave a note after a comment by someone who could fairly be expected to have a bias or an agenda -- for that defeats the very purpose of an RfC.
I've been editing Wikipedia on less controversial topics, such as colonial and native history, and other topics. It is so easy and enjoyable. The atmosphere has become so toxic around agrochemical and chemical industry topics. It's ridiculous. Are there seriously real people out there who make it their mission to defend an industry in this way, with such a lack of integrity? I understand very well the need for balance and neutral point of view, and to represent the world as it is, not to write a brochure for one agenda or another. I see it so clearly that people have occupied articles, and made them into brochures for an agenda, such as the slamming of Vani Hari which makes her article primarily a soapbox for Novella and Gorski. It's such ideological warfare going on. When i do make any edit at all to restore balance to the article, it gets reverted and the flying monkeys seem to swarm in and attempt to group-bully me into submission, and use all kinds of WP-CAPS citations without integrity, misrepresent me with strawman argumentation, and all the rest. Integrity is so rare these days. SageRad (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll largely agree with you both. Petrar echoes some of my concerns, and although I just now supported the AN request for a neutral admin to review, as I stated I doubt there is a single one willing to step forward, thanks to the pending ArbCom case and possibly other factors that contribute to what could be described as a "climate of fear." Since I have not enabled my email in many years, unlike some I never talk to my fellow editors off-wiki. It could be argued that this is a tremendous disadvantage. In brief, let's see what happens at ArbCom. Engaging with certain highly unpleasant parties should probably be avoided, and feels great to boot. My best to you two, Jusdafax 12:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All. Is there a way we can respectfully ask ArbCom to hurry up and decide whether this case is to be accepted and its scope? I am feeling that certain editors are taking this time (hiatus?) to provoke and goad other editors into behaviours that might be used in evidence against them at ArbCom (if they are to be involved).DrChrissy(talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest letting arbcom take their time. If one is inclined there is a ton of background reading on this issue in ANI archives alone, and it is likely difficult for them to agree on bounds for the case. Arbcom is smart enough to see goading for what it is, and it should be pointed out in the evidence section which will open after they move forward with the case. Dialectric (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again agree, Dialectric. Just like some people in real life, certain editors are hostile and should be avoided if possible, or accorded the minimum polite response when needful. Mind you, I'm not always able to take my own advice. Jusdafax 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel a climate of fear. People constantly tell me things like "You're about to go off a cliff" and "That's just another nail in your coffin" on a regular basis. An admin, Robert McClenon, just added a statement in the ArbCom pending case, in which he referred essentially to me (given that he wrote it just a few minutes after stating that he thinks i should have a topic ban because i am "disruptive and destructive editor" and edit reason of "weak support to overturn close for subtle reasons, but topic-ban the filer"). Wow. That is an admin taking action against me for requesting a review of closure of an RfC by an admin who has shown bias. This is getting ridiculous. Thank you for being here to bear witness and take part in the struggle to retain some integrity in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he is not an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good. Thank you. It makes me feel a little better, as i hope for more upright behavior from administrators. SageRad (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the "climate of fear" statement, which is evidenced by the fact that PAs and threats, even semi-legal ones, have become the norm in certain topic areas. And no one is calling people out for acting like fascists, when this place actually used to be sane and fun. Even during the extended, in-depth discussions to reverse spindoctoring at the BP article, we never took each other to noticeboards and wouldn't have taken anyone seriou.sy if they had tried this immature 3rr crap and calls for topic bans in an attempt to control content. We had leisurely, mature conversations and over many, many months, brought about a balance to the article that nearly everyone liked. There are no POV pushers active on the BP page now, and there is no gang of anti GMO POV pushers either. But we do have the quackwatchers, who hold a certain POV that makes everything binary; they have the hammer of Truth, and almost everyone other editor here is a nail. For a particular group of people, the noticeboards exist to do their bidding, which is to harass and ultimately ban every editor with whom they disagree. They use the same, tired lines that sound as evolved as a comment from Fox News, yet no one laughs at them or offers a challenge. They have been so successful in driving people away that many editors have admitted to simply remaining in their own little corners of WP, and going nowhere near the agri chem pharma articles. These people are allowed to use biographies of those who have challenged the view of powerful industries as hit pieces, essentially. I've seen bios that read as if the editor was snarling as he wrote it. And I have been threatened, harshly, for saying so. This never used to happen either. We used to have the freedom to speak on talk pages. It is extremely litigious, at least around the GMO and pharma articles. And there is only the ArbCom now to hear our cries for help.
I also agree that it is very obvious a few folks have been trying to create situations that will provide ammo for the upcoming case. All of this is obvious, so it's astounding anyone would try it. petrarchan47คุก 01:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out this most recent attempt to create drama and to attack me with sanctions so that other editors like Dialectric, Jusdafax, prokaryotes, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47 and others might see these things that are going on. JzG/Guy and Pete/Skyring (what's with these double names?) have come at me with more allegations of me being pretty much the worst thing since moldy bread. It's getting ridiculous. I don't have the time for these things. I have a life, and i edit on Wikipedia in spare time, to help refine the world's knowledge base. I edit in non-controversial areas and it takes 20 to 30 minutes to research a point often, and then make an edit. In a page like Monsanto legal cases, however, i saw these lawsuits in the news, and thought they're relevant to that page, and made an edit, but it took 2 months and 100,000 words to get it to stick. Who has that kind of time. I really think there is a strategic thing going on, wherein some editors are trying to maintain an ideological chokehold through bad dialogue, obstructionism, and effectively filibustering. It's not okay with me. It's very unethical, and it is a huge disservice to editors who are really trying to do their best, and by extension, to the world at large, because it results in systemic bias in some topical areas of Wikipedia. That is not okay, in the world, because it is a political manipulation of the human species by an agenda that coincides with the interests of the chemical industry at large. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me, overall. We want to be fair on Wikipedia, and to have creative tension between people of different tendencies, and some level of contestation is good, but it's become onerous to the point of shutting down Wikipedia's ability to even function in these topical areas, in my assessment. Might as well label some pages "Approved by the chemical industry". I am not making this a battleground. It's a battleground because others are making it so. There is something to be said for working against bias by eager activists, but it's gone far above that to the point of an ideological chokehold by the conservative side. People are not working together well. SageRad (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious now, as Petrar states above, and even to those without background info, what's going on. The delay at ArbCom, in my view, is likely due to off-wiki discussion that has revealed differences of opinion on how to handle, and define the parameters of, this important case. There are undoubtedly factors in play we are unaware of, but I remain optimistic that reason will prevail, and see signs of desperation from some of the more hostile elements. As far as extended commentary here, less is more. Best wishes, Jusdafax 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagerad, you are spot on, no wonder you have become a target. I've noticed a pattern that those who best encapsulate the issue receive the harshest blows. As for your point about marking articles that are non-neutral and industry-slanted, I was thinking just today that if this problem turns out to be intractable (and frankly, these industries don't tend to loose, this challenge will probably only grow an even more insidious team of editors), the only and obvious solution would be to simply label certain topic areas/articles in some way, separating these from the more encyclopedic articles (i.g., topics that don't involve hugely profitable industries). But to leave the big "Wikipedia" logo on a page which is nothing more than stolen ad space and the result of slick spindoctoring, stains the whole project. petrarchan47คุก 04:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrarchan47, thank you for the compliment. I do indeed try to encapsulate issues as clearly as possible, so the light of day can work out what should be in the article according to reliable sourcing guidelines. It means a lot to me that you observe me as an even handed editor with an interest only in reality being represented in the encyclopedia. SageRad (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits and arguments speak for themselves. I have learned much from you, your integrity and willingness to work hard is rare and appreciated. You have done a tremendous amount of research for this project, and have remained level-headed, mild-mannered and forthright the entire time I've seen your around, despite the obstacles. I'm sorry that you aren't hearing praises from everyone, and that you instead have been met with hostility. I noticed someone called you "dumb" the other day. That was the second time in one day that i observed people from the same group-in-question refer to another editor as "dumb", and frankly it brought tears to my eyes. The other person was a physician who was simply trying to hash things out on a user talk page, and had actually just apologized, and the response he got was 'well you're just dumb'. (I don't quite know how Wikipedia can expect to hold on to good editors when some of the more prolific editors treat people like this.) For what it's worth, i thank you for all your effort. It does make a difference. petrarchan47คุก 05:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a lighter note, i do participate in all the RfCs that LegoBot informs me of. Do you volunteer to perform RfC assessments? It's fun and easy. You can sign up at the Feedback request service and LegoBot will deliver you messages from people who need an RfC to save them from partisan hell, like we've needed at the Monsanto legal cases article among others in this "controversy cluster". SageRad (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the trivial Googling that reveals your off-wiki agenda is not "outing". I know who you are and I have not mentioned your name. Your comment at the arbcom case page is just another data point in your "everyone else is the problem" narrative. I am done trying to help you. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure looks like outing to me by the guideline definition. SageRad (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never needed your "help" -- with friends like this... SageRad (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never tried to Google anyone on Wikipedia. I take every person according to their Wikipedia text record alone. SageRad (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it was not necessary to Google you in order to identify your agenda, but it did reveal the falsity of your claims not to have one. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great that JzG has it all figured out. prokaryotes (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very definition and spiriting of what WP:OUTING prohibits, JzG. You think you know who i am and you think you know "my agenda" and yet you do not know these things. This is a space where people are able to be judged by their participation in dialog. If a person shows integrity in dialog, then that is all that matters. You most certainly do not know who i am in any real sense, nor do you know what i stand for and what motivates me. Your bias is showing very strongly here, as you are revealing the caricature of me that you hold in your mind and that you are using in your interactions with me. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're really digging way back, and you found a link that i put into Wikispace in connection with another conversation, which connects me with another online identity, but you also admitted to Googling me and mentioned details that you intended to show that you "know who i am" and you are using these things to confirm your caricature of me as an "activist" in a pejorative sense and using this to color my work on Wikipedia as being biased, using identity assumptions from outside of Wikipedia. (And also, to be sure, faulty judgment about what constitutes bias.) So, i continue to maintain that you engaged in an OUTING violation here, and that it shows your bias and your vendetta against me. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with the details, but find that an admin, who previously blocked an editor, coming to the editor's Talk page and saying "I know who you are...'" to be one of the most remarkable things I have seen in my nearly eight years of editing here. Jusdafax 23:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. SageRad very much wears their POV on their sleeve, so why you felt the need to bring up their offwiki activities as evidence that they're not exactly the world's biggest fan of GMOs is beyond me. The only way in which offsite information would be relevant was if SageRad was coordinating offsite POV pushes in wikipedia. This digging up and trotting out of personal info is completely inappropriate. Brustopher (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that concern from others very much, and the presence of integrity among others is a reassuring thing. I would like to clarify that i am not even "anti-GMO" in the respect that most would understand that term. I'm not against any specific technology. That is the very risk presented when someone tries to profile a person and to then pigeon-hole them in that regard. If you judge by my editing record, it is to ensure integrity in claims on Wikipedia, as well as balance in overall presentation and tone. I am quite aware of moral failings in the history of the chemical industry. This is one of my areas of focus, and this is the one that gets me into controversy, as there seem to be strong agendas operating in this topical area. My focus in this area is simply to keep knowledge that disfavors the industry from disappearing into a memory hole, as seems to happen over time, and to advocate for fairness and balance, and good sourcing for any claims. If PCBs were known to Monsanto to be harmful while the continued to sell them without adequate warnings, then let that be stated on the Wikipedia article. If someone is making false claims to make the industry look bad, then let that be known, as well. Let it all be sourced, and edited with integrity and fairness. Reality is what we want to reflect with Wikipedia. Thank you for your witness and solidarity. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to accept comments from those with common ideology while rejecting any comment with which you disagree, is a shining example of how to be a problem editor. Well done. You linked to your off-wiki activities. You did it as a purported source for inserting your own off-wiki spat into a biography. It is relevant because you go well beyond simply being opinionated: you have participated in March Against Monsanto. This is more than mere POV, you are an activist. If you simply stated this on your user page, nothing more would be needed. But you don't. You assert that calling you an activist is an unwarranted personal attack. Well, it's not: you are an anti-Monsanto activist, and this is revealed by an off-wiki trail which runs directly from your own link to your off-wiki comments. You'll note that I am entirely open about who I am and who I work for (not that this stops the cranks from accusing me of being a paid shill for Big Whatever). The whole problem here is that whenever your bias is challenged, your response is essentially to assert that your bias is neutrality and everyone else is biased not you. You claim you have been insulted, but then you state that your edits to Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which are opposed by every other editor there, represent "integrity" and theirs, by implication, do not. It's the clearest case of m:MPOV I have seen in a long time. Several people have tried to talk you down off the Reichstag, but your response has been to throw dung at them. I have seen this many times before, and it has never ended well for the individual concerned. No doubt you will interpret this as a threat, because you are paranoid. That's your problem alone. It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact: if you do not radically change your behaviour, you will very likely be banned, since that is what usually happens. I don't care if you get banned, you might. That had better be my last word on the topic because frankly I am probably wasting bandwidth by even saying this. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, sir. Wrong. I've also been to the U.S. House of Representatives, and yet i'm not a Congressman. I've played music for people and yet i'm not a professional musician. I've been to a sweat lodge and yet i'm not a native person of the tribe whose tradition the lodge was following. I've been to a Pentacostal Church and yet i'm not a follower of that religion. This is the very danger of someone finding some detail about an editor's outside life and then making assumptions and operating on the basis of those assumptions. I cannot even talk about anything in order to debunk your assumptions because this is Wikispace, and yet i simply deny the validity of your assumptions. Regarding the David Gorski article, that was months ago, and yet my premise that Gorski does censor people on the basis of disagreement with their agenda is true. He did censor me based on that, although he tried to portray it otherwise, but it happened. He banned me because the evidence that i presented was inconvenient to his story line. You're really toxic, JzG/Guy, and you waste my time. I would really appreciate it if you would keep your judgments about me to yourself, and just think your mistaken thoughts in your own head, and stay away from my talk page, and stop hounding me and following me around in order to oppose my every action in Wikipedia. I'm so done with your poisonous nonsense, and it takes far too much time to debunk every wrong assumption you make. You're really out of line, and behaving in ways don't become an editor let alone an admin. You lack integrity so badly that it's not even worth talking with you. There is no traction for any ideas to be actually discussed, and it is always a battle of rhetoric that ends with no progress. Goodbye. I am done with you. I will not engage with you. I ask you to not engage with me. You're hounding me and outing me and it's not alright. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of throwing dung… SR, you got banned from the site you yourself linked to for abusing other members. Why continue the behaviour here? --Pete (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole story is that i posted about glyphosate, got verbally attacked by several members there, and responded to most of the attack responses, and then got banned by Gorski, whereas none of the people who attacked me in horrible ways got banned because they're Gorski's attack piranhas. That's what happened. SageRad (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The seems to be a difference of opinion there. Nevertheless, WP:CIVILITY is one of the challenges you need to face up to. How about you strike some of the abusive comments you have made about other editors recently? Your comment above isn't at all helpful, for example. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what you mean, Pete... you just accused me of making abusive comments against other editors, right? Will you please detail what you see as an abusive comment, and how it is so? I don't see what you're referring to. My recent history with you has been heavily peppered with your incivility toward me, down to calling me a cobber and telling me that sunlight doesn't shine out of my ass, literally your words. Go away from from my window, go away from my door. Go. Just go. SageRad (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sage, I lived in Australia for 12 years. I have never heard the word "cobber" used in a derogatory way - it is usually a term of endearment. However, I agree its use when discussing where the sun doesn't shine is a rather unusual useage.DrChrissy(talk) 13:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Gorski's blog, i posted in a civil manner, and got attacked in extremely uncivil and abusive ways by people there. That is what i refer to above. Similar things do happen here on Wikipedia, however, among groups of editors who seem to be very similar to those on Gorski's blog who have a strong agenda and are willing to use abusive language and emotional attacks in order to "fight" for their agenda -- which is the very opposite of what "skeptical" is supposed to mean, of course. It's more fascism than anything else. SageRad (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you are trying to cite me for WP:CIVILITY, whereas i feel that i've had issues with you around civility. Speak to me with respect and i will speak to you with respect. We can disagree about content and ideas, but there is no need for personal attacks. SageRad (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around this place for many years. I think I've got a reasonable handle on how to deal with editors acting in good faith. You, on the other hand, really need to work in a more coöperative manner. This comment is just abusive and many others are similar. Just because somebody differs in their opinion, doesn't mean they are evil. I differ with many editors on many subjects, but I also agree with the same editors on different subjects. You talk of respect, and respect for the views of others is important. This isn't a battleground where one side wins all - it's about NPOV, giving all views due weight. I don't want to sound patronising, but treading carefully is good practice for a newcomer. Jumping straight into Arbcom proceedings with heated diatribes against other editors, well, not so much. The experienced admins who constitute the Arbitration Committee will look at your contribution for evidence of conduct, and things like diffs and blocks and ANI threads are pertinent. Just expressing an opinion against another editor, especially when couched in aggressive and abusive language, doesn't really hold much water, and may well prove counterproductive. You have been given similar advice by others, including those who share many of your opinions. Feel free to disregard me, but listen to those who are genuinely trying to help you and keep you as an ally. In the end, I really don't care about any particular line on any particular article. What really counts with me is the sort of coöperative teamwork that yields the results we see in Wikipedia, which is now one of the most popular and respected information resources on the net. Trust me, the folk on ArbCom have seen it all before, and the way you are going is in the direction of many others before you.--Pete (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skyring, thank you for your comment. I have indeed been working on becoming better at working with people who have different points of view. I appreciate your goal of cooperative teamwork. I think that you and i can work together fruitfully, as we have in the last few days, but that it could be smoother if we really work on addressing the content, and hold dialogue with integrity by addressing each other's genuine questions promptly without commenting on conduct. It's a hard thing to do, and goodness knows i've slipped up a few times in the last few days, but i think you and i can get there. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom -- request for updated diffs
I was reading additions to your statement:
Note that Robert McClenon's newfound desire to punish people who speak up is a result of my request for an uninvolved editor to close the RfC that was closed by a biased editor (though JzG disputes such bias, it's clear to me and many others), and constitutes a strong-arming intimidation against me for asking for an unbiased RfC close. More deeply twisted stuff.
I clicked on the link provided and nothing came up, so I think it was archived. Would you mind fixing the diff for me and other readers? I hate digging through archives! Thanks, David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here it is, David Tornheim -- seems to get archived very quickly. I will update my statement at the ArbCom case. SageRad (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i see it, and it's complete nonsense, Guy/JzG. You and Pete ought to be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. I hope that unbiased admins actually do take the time to read your allegations and look at the actual records and diffs, for they will see that on the whole, you're really full of it, completely. SageRad (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence WP:AN/I. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
It appears that the above unsigned allegation of canvassing was added by Pete/Skyring and although unspecified, i believe that it refers to my recent comment in which in pinged a few people who have been witness to the ridiculous behavior by Pete/Skyring and JzG/Guy and therefore may be interested to know of the latest round of ridiculous. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vote at issue, as that is an admin board and none of the people i pinged were admins, so it's not vote-stacking and it's not an attempt to sway a discussion one way or another. It's just a collegiate discussion about a new level of ridiculous achieved by yourself, Pete, in a discussion about the same topic that was already ongoing. That is not canvassing. "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Please let me be. SageRad (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Housatonic River, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Great Barrington and Still River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have addressed these points in the articles now. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SageRad, this above is a bot message and not from a live person, so no need to reply. i delete these messages after i am done, with edit summary "done" as note to myself/others who sniff through my talkpage, to keep the page clean. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom Workshop
Hi SageRad. I noted your comment responding to my proposed finding about you. I am still looking into this, so please consider it a draft at this point. My proposed finding was based on 2 observations: 1. what I perceive as POINT-y edits re: your off-wiki interactions with Gorski, and 2. frequent LENGTHY explanations and pleas without supporting diffs.
Having said that - I also believe that you have been hounded by certain editors, and in most cases you are not the source of the battleground behavior but have been provoked and demeaned and rudely dismissed. What comes to mind immediately is Skyring's posting of pictures to mock you on an article talk page. You have some GREAT and legitimate points to make in this Arb case, but I would strongly recommend that you cut back on the rhetoric/argument/verbosity and hone in on the proof -- provide the diffs! and be clear about your assertions. Refer to behavior issues without reference to content or idealogical positions. Minor4th 16:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th, thank you for your comments. Indeed, back in May i did do a "pointy" edit and i have admitted that i was wrong here and haven't done that since. It was part of my learning curve. I will also try to be more concise and provide the diffs when i have time. Sometimes i do think general reckoning is useful, though. Thank you again. SageRad (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I completely agree with Minor4th's comment in the second paragraph /recommendation above. On the 3 Arbcom sites focus only on the behavior of Jytdog, because thats what they decide about, as has been stated numerous times by different people (could you really have overlooked that?) And everywhere else: Do not feed the trolls. Be concise. Actions speak louder than words. I emailed you weeks ago because I was concerned, but maybe you do not check it.
BTW: you (both) did see JzG's original proposal to ban you from "from the topic of genetically modified organisms,broadly construed" for 1 year, ie turning the table on you, singling you out, right? Best,--Wuerzele (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wuerzele, i did see the proposal to ban me for one year, and i think it's ridiculous. I seriously respect the ideals and guidelines of Wikipedia, and that's what i'm working for. I do have a perspective, but so does everyone, and the tension between perspectives can be fruitful, if people respect each other and work according to the guidelines, and with some generosity of spirit.
I hope this is not all about Jytdog, though. I've found Jytdog to be contentious and seriously problematic, but i've also found many other people to be similarly hard to work with. I hope Jytdog is also not singled out. I hope that we can all work to transcend our issues, and only those who are seriously stubbornly set on being contentious editors with no sign of changing would get topic bans to allow those who are serious to work in a more respectful environment. There is problematic behavior all around, and i am not above it. I've had my moments. In the end, though, i really do see the beauty of working with people of different perspectives, as we do keep a check on each other, as long as we're respectful enough to do so, and not trying to game the system. Thank you for your advice. I do agree that actions speak louder than words, and i've seen your hard work on many articles of late. I appreciate that you put in the hard work to actually improve articles, even the basic housekeeping tasks. SageRad (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I didnt mean to reply, because its not on top of my priorities in the little time I have to edit WP during the week, but your fast-paced (and perfectly spelled- wow) edits compel me, so i dont get further behind.
Re: "i think it's ridiculous". --you are a beautiful idealist, I know, and you are very optimistic. I advise you to take it more seriously than ridiculous, though (sorry for unrequested advice), because I want you to survive this war (yes, war) unharmed, without amputations, concussion, PTSD, and with a valid passport to travel all sites, no visa required. you have a very steep learning curve, yes, found out that this place isnt what you thought it was, call it a private shark tank or whatever, despite privileges and ideals that you describe in the next 2 sentences...
Re:"I seriously respect the ideals and guidelines of Wikipedia, and that's what i'm working for. I do have a perspective, but so does everyone, and the tension between perspectives can be fruitful, if people respect each other and work according to the guidelines, and with some generosity of spirit." -- completely agree, no need to convince me. your conditional sentence is the problem at hand. war is no respectful environment. and about the generosity of spirit you already found out. a fata morgana when you edit with hardliners. now you see it now you dont. you want to believe it, of course.
Re: "I hope this is not all about Jytdog, though..." --you may, but he's the #1 focus. no need to convince me of all the other problematic editors, including JzG, whom I experienced first-hand at Kevin Folta and where I got my very first block, shaming. Remember this was at the time Arbcom deliberated, and nobody had actually made a case against JzG.- It is not only about jytdog, its about power, in a system that is rigged to benefit interests of power, where COI permeates all levels of wikipedia, (ed, admin, arb and all the respective boards etc). No need to reply, unless you must clarify in 1 sentence. I really dont like many words. take care.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I see you named me there. Good job you didn't try to supply proof. No more than expected I suppose. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really see the point of your comment here. You are an editor in the topic area in which there is ideological conflict whom i do see as pushing an agenda at times, to the detriment of the encyclopedia, and if i called that out, it is in service to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and not personal. SageRad (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think that will be a good thing. SageRad (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has come about most likely because I have taken strong exception to the harassment campaign conducted against you. May I urge you to contact the committee by email regarding the particulars of this campaign? It will not be only for your own protection, but for the good of the project. An admin using these types of tactics against an editor is obviously unacceptable, and while it has gone on too long, the time has come to put a stop to it. Jusdafax 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that. Although i don't like to pursue actions, the fact that admins have requested me to do so got me to do it. All that i wish to be able to do is to participate as an editor on Wikipedia according to guidelines, and to improve articles, without having to swim through prejudice and allegations created by another editor on a regular basis. I wish others to judge me by my actions, not on some profile filtered through some other user's perspective and portrayed in a negative way. SageRad (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. The problem here is of course that power is often held by those who should not be given power. That an admin has been allowed to bully and block a decent editor is distressing to me, but the tide has turned. I thank you for continuing on in the face of his outrageous abuses. He is unlikely to return to your Talk page under these circumstances, so for the first time in quite a while I feel free to conduct a normal conversation with you. This ArbCom case has been most interesting so far, and while it's difficult to predict the final outcome, I feel that the evidence speaks for itself. Of course, it takes ears to listen with. Jusdafax 21:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also pointed out on my user talk that there was an apparent outing issue in this regard. I haven't the faintest idea whether or not it registered with the Arbs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you were good enough to note earlier on my behalf in this case, sometimes it takes a ping. Jusdafax 00:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per what is on my user talk, I fear it may take a lot more than that, but it is starting to mystify me just what is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside here. I suggest taking the advice of the Arb seriously and refraining from any comment at all, even here, and even indirectly. Your fellow editors might assist by keeping any comment on the other party to the WP:IBAN to their own pages, or better yet, refrain from offering any temptation at all. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you offer this observation in good faith, and would like to note that it appears to be just another edit to SageRad's page designed to shut him up. Further, your appearance on this Talk page is in my view a clear indicator of a disingenuous intention to disruptively continue to WP:BATTLE by any means possible. I warn you here and now that you need to drop the WP:STICK no matter how cleverly you think you can wield it. Jusdafax 10:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your views. You are incorrect. I don't want to shut any editor up. We have enough trouble attracting and retaining editors as it is. I want editors to observe wikipolicy and be well-regarded members of the community. If you want to incite SageRad to disregard an ArbCom instruction, then say so. If not, then you must endorse my comments above and refrain from offering temptation. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources in your article about Tory's Cave (New Hampshire), and their geographic descriptions don't seem to point to Charlestown. The first one states that the cave was "atop the cliffs of Skitchewaug Mountain about two miles north of the Crown Point Road overlooking the Connecticut River." That rather precisely describes the present-day Skitchewaug Mountain, on the Vermont side of the river in the town of Springfield. The second one refers to the cave being on "Schitchawock, ... lying near the Connecticut, opposite Charlestown", so again referring to the location in Springfield, VT. The third refers to the town of Roxbury, New Hampshire, near Keene. In 1903, Roxbury was "practically deserted", as the heading says, and in fact it still is, while Charlestown has been quite well populated for the past two and a half centuries. There's no reference anywhere in the Charlestown article to it being referred to as "Roxbury" at any time. I recommend that you revise the Tory's Cave article to show it being on Skitchewaug Mountain, which is what your first two sources clearly state, and add that the mountain is in the town of Springfield, Vermont. Your "Tory's Cave" of Roxbury must be a different cave. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... let's look into it, and let's use the article talk page. SageRad (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I may have over-written you comment.. sorry --John Bessa (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i don't think you did at all... but thanks for the note. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARB/PS
I note you're involved in the GMO ArbCom. I think it would be extremely helpful for you to review WP:ARB/PS if you've not done so already. I believe Vani Hari falls within WP:ARB/PS sanctions, and the article and its talk page need to be held to those sanctions.
You may want to rethink how you interact with other editors in GMO- and FRINGE-related articles, or just take time off from them while you get a better feel for how editors behave with non-contentious articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I reject your assertion that the article falls within FRINGE-relates articles. Could you give me some evidence for that? If it's just your assertion then i would be happy to discuss that topic with you, but i do not accept this judgment a priori. Hari does in fact base most of her advice and work on science, you know? You don't agree with that but i assert that to be true and could back it up if need be.
I don't see what you're referring to about rethinking how i interact with other editors. What exactly has got your goat about my behavior? What particular action are you referring to? If there is nothing specific and cross to the guidelines, then please refrain from this sort of general warning, as it creates a chilling effect on the editing environment, and seems contentious.
Please drop the condescension, by which i mean the assumption that you know everything better than i do, as in "just take time off from them while you get a better feel for how editors behave with non-contentious articles". That's placing yourself above me in terms of judging my behavior as resulting from inexperience, whereas i actually know what i'm doing and talking about, and i have opinions that differ from yours. That does not make you right and me wrong. I've been editing a number of non-contentious articles and i know how editors can interact helpfully. I can also spot when a person is being contentious pretty well.
What is the specific reason you refer to WP:ARB/PS? I looked and it's interesting but there is no mention of Hari there, as far as i can see. That topic is indeed real, though, as pseudoskeptics are indeed actively using the pseudoscience label to denigrate some valid but politically and ideologically problematic topics, including Food Babe.
Is there a specific action of mine that you think is counter to guidelines of the sanctions you mention? Please be specific. SageRad (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand how Arbcom sanctions work and are applied? --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer a single one of my questions or concerns, Ronz. I find this onerous. Answer me specifically, what is your concern with my behavior? What is your actual request or concern, as specifically as you can answer. I'm not answering your question until you answer mine. What's your deal? SageRad (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to inform you about the Arbcom sanctions. Given your involvement in the GMO Arbcom, I can understand that this could be very upsetting. How about we focus just on the applicability of ARB/PS for the moment? Hopefully this will address some of your other concerns as well, but I'll be happy to get to any that remain. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, what are you actually saying? State your piece or get out. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that ARB/PS applies to Hari, per "14) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articlespages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have you noticed that that ARB/PS page is quite old, started around 2006? A few recent comments from 2015 but generally looks like a very old thing. Also, i would not agree that Vani Hari is a pseudoscience topic. First of all, she's a person so the article is a BLP, and secondly, the content of her work is not "pseudoscience". That is a label that would be applied to her work by pseudoskeptics, a category of people who have a certain particular bent against her. Your comment here on my talk page feels a lot like it's intended to have a chilling effect on me. You haven't at all answered my question about what behaviors of mine, if any, concern you. I'd like to know, otherwise this warning seems out of line and out of place. SageRad (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you. Pseudoscience and fringe theories are strongly highlighted in the article. That's more than enough. If you don't want to believe me, we can get an admin to confirm it.
Yes, I will get to your other concerns. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope so. I'd like to know why you decided to write this note after a somewhat contentious back and forth at the talk page there. Do you see my behavior as being troublesome in some specific way? If so, as i have asked you, please tell me. SageRad (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to assume that you see why I think ARB/PS applies.
First one: General sense of bias on my first coming to Vani Hari article? yes, true, but not bad behavior.
Second one: JzG/Guy has outed me and has hounded me. We have a non interaction ban on right now. The rest is pretty neutral in tone.
Third one: The NTP study on sunscreen ingredient? Pretty milquetoast.
Fourth one: It seems a pretty even-handed statement about the ideals of Wikipedia and how to avoid POV pushing by special interest groups.
Fifth one: An appeal to reason to not use a computer programmer to source a statement on human health, as per WP:MEDRS.
I could go on, but i shan't. I think you are seeing me through dark glasses. SageRad (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've dragged your off-Wikipedia battles into Wikipedia, looking for articles where you can attack certain individuals. You've carried that attitude the seven weeks you've worked on the article, and you've been told that your behavior is inappropriate every step of the way. While I've not looked in detail, this appears to be a problem of much, if not all, of your editing.
So what questions from you still need addressing at this point? --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess none. I must simply reject your accusations. I'm interested in many topic areas. I respect NPOV and reliable sourcing. I think my contributions are constructive generally. That's all i need to know. If you can tell me ways in which i'm being less than ideal, i am interested. If you could take any of the above diffs you posted and explain exactly why that one is a bad behavior, i am all ears. I know i'm not perfect. I just don't see your point. SageRad (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" I guess none" OK. Thanks for your patience.
"If you could take any of the above diffs you posted and explain exactly..." Sounds like a good idea. I hope you don't mind if I don't get to it immediately. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this discussion, and I'll try to answer that. First, I will say that Ronz ought to back off a bit from the "warning" nature of these messages, because doing it more as a "notification" than as a warning would have been better practice, and also because the discretionary sanctions apply to everyone, including to the editor issuing the warning. But that said, SageRad, when you say things like "Wikipedia is still being used as a mouthpiece of an ideological agenda-driven person" [15], and "this article is being written almost solely by people who clearly hate Hari" [16], you are commenting on the editors, not just the content, and it isn't helpful. I actually think that you make some valid points in a number of those diffs, especially in the context of WP:BLP, but it is never a good idea to frame discussions in terms of the supposed motivations of the editors with whom you disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"back off a bit from the "warning" nature of these messages". I'll give it a shot, but I'd like suggestions. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, find Ronz waaay outta line, and strongly condemn what appears to be merely the latest attempt to shut SageRad up. I would have made this comment a couple days sooner had I noticed Ronz's "warning." I have supported SageRad previously against harassment on this page, and now warn Ronz in turn: You are strongly advised to cool it. Jusdafax 08:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions on rewording and changing the presentation are appreciated.
As far as documenting the problems, I think this is the best place to document them unless we want to take steps to having formal acting taken against this relatively new editor. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, i am highly receptive of honest criticism and advice. However, given my recent experience with you specifically, and the contentious nature of our recent interactions, i don't think you're in a good position to be giving me advice. I don't think i'm in a good position to be receiving advice from you specifically, right now. I see some of your behavior as problematic, to be sure, and i would not trust your assessment or reckoning of my practice at this point in time. I'm grateful and receptive to advice in general from editors who are not in a contentious relationship to me, which includes most editors i've worked with. I'd rather not have a back and forth with you right now, as based on our recent interactions, i think we're at momentary loggerheads. I hope to work better with you in the future. SageRad (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought, i think it'd be okay if you were to say whatever you wanted to say, at least briefly, and i'll make an effort to be receptive, and to not respond immediately. It's likely that i won't agree and i'll have a different perspective on whatever you'll say, but i'll hear it and make an effort to sleep on it before responding. Thanks, Ronz. SageRad (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for taking breaks when the editing is heated, and even when it is not. Thanks for your patience. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking this seriously, it's just that I don't know what I can do to help you at this point. And thank you for refactoring your comments. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: Offer me your honest thoughts. That would be the most helpful. But not framed in a way that would be chilling, but rather observational, if you can. I seek to understand exactly why the arbitrators seem to view me as unwanted and a bad editor when i'm really here to get the articles right, and to boil things down to their real essences, as i just did with KoA's responses to my issues in my opinion. Anyway, thank you. Any genuinely honest thoughts on why people seem to view me as a problem would be most appreciated. I don't understand it. Thanks, Ronz. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: Ah, misunderstanding has occurred. I had just asked at the ArbCom page for honest feedback about why i am topic banned, since i really don't understand it. But you were responding to my comment on your talk page which you just removed (which feels wrong, for you to remove that comment and not the whole conversation, like it lacks integrity, but that's your talk page i guess, though you're sort of misrepresenting me by doing that).... anyway, what you could do is to either explain why you think it's alright to tell me to "drop the stick" and characterize me as "i don't have to!" child behavior when i am actually responding to a pretty nasty aspersion of ad hominem on that talk page, so no, actually the talk page does not cover it and that's why i posted the question on your talk page.... so anyway what i get from all this is that it's really hard to interact with you. SageRad (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked at the GMO Arbcom much, and not at the evidence brought up about you. As far as existing Arbcom decisions go, it's the combination of poor behavior in support of poor edits that usually result in bans.
An easy example: You recently had BLP explained more fully to you, especially how it applies to all of Wikipedia. While I don't see that exact point here on this talk page, you've certainly had many editors bring up that your some of your editing/comments violate BLP. I think it is a reasonable expectation that you'd had read at least the introduction of BLP back in May. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, here is the thing, that is not an established fact. That sort of thing is a matter of dialogue, and one person's assertion does not make it correct. I understand rather well the BLP guidelines, having read it, and appreciate it. It's in the interpretation and application that people can agree, and so if you assume that another person's application is correct, automatically, you're not allowing for difference of opinion and interpretation. It was a similar dynamic on the Vani Hari talk page, where you were telling me to drop the stick, essentially telling me to "shut up!" when i was explaining why my comments on sources did not constitute personal attacks on the authors, just because i characterized the nature of their work. We need to be able to talk about things without getting Wikilawyerish all the time, to the max, and the way you were being was contentious. If someone says i used ad hominem argumentation and then i say "I don't think it was ad hominem because i was actually describing the author's apparent perspective in order to characterize the source, in order to improve the article" then i wold expect you to hear this, and consider it, instead of telling me to drop the stick and "IDHT" tags which are often used as a form of saying "Shut up and go away" and trying to force and obedience relationship which is not fitting in a place where people are supposed to interact as equals. I have a voice. I use it reasonably. Some people get up in arms at me, but not most people, and i have many many good positive interactions. I find that when people get up in arms at me, it's generally ideological in some way at the root. @Ronz:SageRad (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, i don't mean to be contentious. I wish to get along and understand why we came to this tangle on the talk page and why it doesn't feel right to me. I would like to make the point about different perspectives being equally valid through this edit that i made a long time ago to the weed control article. Peace. SageRad (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works through collaboration. When many editors suggest you are violating BLP to that degree, they expect you to pay attention enough to read the introduction to BLP, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I've read BLP. SageRad (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it appears you only did months after the concerns were brought up and you were blocked, and then only after someone quoted it for you. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to get specific? Because i cannot match the narrative as i experienced it with this summary. It doesn't fit what happened in my experience. Are you referring to the article on Gorski? SageRad (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics? Just look over the discussions here on your talk page in May where BLP was mentioned. Apparently you hadn't read BLP despite all your comments made in response to the BLP concerns prior and after you're being blocked for in part violating BLP.
Regardless of how you feel you were treated, whether or not you agree with the other editors' opinions, you didn't take the step to read BLP. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you are speaking of things that happened back in May, and not to any present actions. SageRad (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the Nov 9 discussions "present actions". --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, glad i asked. So now we establish that you ARE in fact talking about the present. In that case, i say to you strongly that i disagree that i broke -- in spirit or in letter -- any BLP guidelines. The interaction that brought us here in the first place was one such dialogue, and in that one, i was speaking on a talk page about the nature of the authors of several sources, and you seem to think this is not allowed. I understand BLPTALK but i was not breaking that. We need to speak of sources in order to write good articles. So, when we come to clarity on what is actually meant, i do not think that i was in the wrong. I would appreciate it greatly if you have n issue with my behavior, for you to very specifically, and with diffs even, if you have the will, to explain the issues that you have. I'm listening, but you're speaking more through innuendo and allusion and in snippets. One good explanation with specifics is what i ask for. Quotes and reasons why what i said was wrong. I'm listening. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that editors expect you to read policies in such situations. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that makes perfect sense, and i hope i read the policy back in May when it was brought up, and i surely have read it by now, a few times actually, in depth, carefully, to be sure that was able to parse it in consideration of a few specific situations around commenting on sources as well as what's recommended for BLPs. So, whatever happened in May is not very relevant to me now, and i have most definitely read and understand the BLP guidelines, and fully agree with them. SageRad (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KDS4444Talk 17:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: the page asserts that the subject was notable as an author. As such, it is not a valid candidate for CSD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tryptofish. I will continue to research Orcutt's life and reception and notability now. I hope i find more, as well as his authorship of about eight well cited books. SageRad (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Coalition for Safe Affordable Food shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scourge of Trumpton (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, an unsigned template. WP:DTR says it all. Their edit history is of interest. Jusdafax 16:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i am NOT engaged in an edit war. Look carefully at the editing history, and you will see the facts; i've reverted the same edit twice, by different editors, as there was already talk on the content underway at the talk page, and the second edit was against the pre-existing consensus between myself and SmartSE. I think this accusation of edit warring is probably ideologically motivated. SageRad (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the editor who brought this accusation was pinged by me before making this accusation, and the reason for my reversion of their edit (once) was given and they were invited to partake in the discussion of the edit in question. The evidence is clear in the diffs for anyone who cares to look, and this accusation is therefore spurious and probably intended to be chilling. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Jusdafax 16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please only comment on the talk page of the proposed decision --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I realized that after my second edit. Thank you for the note. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You just added another piece of evidence about K of A, but the drafting Arb said a few hours ago that no one should post any more evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frank comment
OK, here is a frank comment, per your request elsewhere. I suggest you stop your pleading at the GMO case. As things stand, you appear to be getting off lightly. Think about it. -Roxy the dog™woof 16:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think YOU'RE getting off scott free for really bad behavior. I reject your judgment entirely. Think about it dog. Think hard and long dog. Think deeply. Think honestly. Don't fool yourself longer. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It ain't pleading. It's speaking honestly about the potentially corrupt and biased nature of Wikipedia, and is potentially very important talk to hold space for. It's not presuming a conclusion, but rather making an inquiry. Asking questions in good faith is how we arrive at consensus representations of reality, both about article content, and about process within Wikipedia, in an ideal world. I hold that space must be held to talk about these issues if people have a sense that it's a topic of importance. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good, frank, and free advice, that's all. You must decide what to do. -Roxy the dog™woof 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a threat, in my view, and should be dealt with as such. Jusdafax 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IT IS A THREAT CLEARLY INTENDED TO SHUT ME UP WITH NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION and it is emblematic of the very nature of the bullshit that has been used by the people aligned with you and the industry generally. It is emblematic and it is actionable if there is integrity here. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, in my experience of Roxy, he seems to get a kick out of generating negative reactions in other editors. I suggest you ban him from your Talk Page and simply delete any further postings he makes.DrChrissy(talk) 17:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, though once banned from the talk page, leaving any further comments, if any, becomes useful as visual evidence. Jusdafax 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is useful to elucidate the bullying intimidation tactics used by the industry aligned people in this issue, and the kangaroo court non justice decision of the ArbCom case. I'll not shut up when told. That would be obeyance to authoritarian ruling the roost. That's what Wikipedia has just bolstered and aligned with. It's not my reaction that's important. It's his threat that's important, as this is exactly what this is. It's psychological manipulation in action. It's as close to direct that as possible without being blatant and is been used dozens to hundreds of times against me in the last month's of editing, always by industry aligned editors pushing an industry agenda. Let's root out and make clear the REAL problem here. Let's get to integrity. SageRad (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually grateful for his frank comment for his service in illuminating what's going on in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The response to my posting above is not unexpected; I considered that. I would like to continue, if allowed. -Roxy the dog™woof 09:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Please do. SageRad (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I have been following proceedings at the GMO case as you would expect. It seems, from my limited understanding, that the results, while not yet set in stone, are not that fluid any more. I've been in your shoes Sage, at other places on teh internetz. I know how I felt, and how much it affected me then and now. I wanted to offer something to mitigate that, nothing more. Perhaps I could have phrased my initial comment better, been a little less abrupt and waited a little longer. I apologise for not waiting.-Roxy the dog™woof 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that I appreciate. Originally you suggested that I stop my "pleading" in light of your statement that I was "getting off lightly" and ended with "think about it" all of which adds up to sound an awful lot like "friendly advice" from a mafia who suggests one stop looking into a case of a missing person or some such situation, in other words I believe reasonably interpreted as a threat half spoken, the sort of chilling pressure I've had issues with before when people spoke of "going off a cliff" and the like. They may as well have spoken of concrete shoes and the East River. I appreciate your current message, but it's not what you said originally here. I do not think justice or integrity has ruled here. So what has? What has? SageRad (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, just sent you an email. Cla68 (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will try again right now. If you don't receive it, please try to email me via my userpage. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla68:, i've sent you am email, the first email i've ever sent through Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I saw your response to SMC, and wanted to point out that This doesn't appear to be evidence of any outing by Guy to me, but I'm not ARBCOM. Did you mean to cite that? -Roxy the dog™woof 17:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i meant to cite that. If you look for Guy's citing of the wlns.com source, that would be "opposition research" with the results being reported in Wikispace. WP:OUTING says:
The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their offline opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.
My main reason to dislike Guy's behavior in this regard is that he used what he thinks he knows about me (which is not accurate in full to be honest) to poison the well time after time in dialogues, to cast me as an "anti-GMO activist" (which is not in fact even accurate) and therefore to discount my opinions in dialogues about content, and as i said, to attempt to poison the well in those discussions. That is not right, and it goes against the spirit and guidelines of Wikipedia, in which discussions are supposed to be about content, using evidence and reasoning, and not about who the editors are. We all d0 get some sense of other editors, but if there is a serious concern about POV pushing or some other aspect related to identity, then this should be brought up in an appropriate forum, and not used repeatedly to hound another editor and try to paint them in any way. SageRad (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, SageRad, but are you familiar with the concept of "hypocrisy"? It appears not, but some of those reading this may be and may be too polite to mention it. As friendly advice, you may like to look it up. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That ain't very civil. And totally wrong. Go away from my door. WTF. WP:CIVILSageRad (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You just felt a deep need to continue your abusiveness toward me, didn't you, Pete/Skyring? Didn't you. You just couldn't keep quiet when you could come along and swing your dick. SageRad (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike. SageRad (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mention WP:CIVIL and say I'm just swinging my dick. I think that underscores my point about hypocrisy. Look, ArbCom proceedings, and all the drama leading up to and following from, can be pretty traumatic. There are two ways of dealing with it. You can accept the criticisms from uninvolved editors, who have been around Wikipedia a while, earnt the trust of the community, have a good grounding in policy. Or you can take the position that it's all a conspiracy aimed at you.
The second path is false, but it carries the benefit that you can ignore any shortcomings in your own behaviour. Sure, other people will have acted poorly, but the advice of Jesus in the Mote and the Beam, is worth considering. If you want to examine the behaviour, the motives, the agendas of others, then accept that others will feel justified in doing the same to you. If you feel that your comments on others are true and honest, then maybe the comments of others on yourself come from the same source?
Feel free to disregard my comments. After all, you think I'm a shill for Monsanto. (A company I despise, so I know exactly how much weight to place on your judgements). But don't ignore the views of other, uninvolved, editors. And - most of all - don't kid yourself. That might be personally gratifying, but it's no guide for life. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To various other editors, frankly, please leave Sage alone. At this point, this discussion is no longer helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Looking at Roxy's comments, they are offering advice because they have been in a similar situation. As have I, and far worse than SR. What worked for me was accepting the criticism, accepting that the system wasn't corrupt, and changing my ideas about a lot of things. I think Roxy and I are both seeing the same things here. Having said that, I'll refrain from further comment. SR's problems are of his own making, and there's only one person can get him out of trouble. Himself. --Pete (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sage and I have history, and perhaps it would be nicer if I stayed away. I only started this thread because I was sort of invited, and frankly, Sage has had ample opportunity to ask me to stay off this page. I would not have been surprised, and would of course oblige. I note that Sage is not as profligate with the banhammer as others, though there are probably other dogs that are not welcome here, but actually, I don't know. Just sayin. -Roxy the dog™woof 09:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agent Orange
I don't think a Daily Mail article belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, hence why I removed it from Agent Orange. It's tabloid garbage, pretty much across the board. Keilana (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, although it might be serving the article well, even if it's from a source that is not top notch. I would suggest discussing it at the article's talk page. Do you have a link to a discussion on Daily Mail as a source from RS notice board or any other place that could give me an explanation as to the unsuitability of the source? Thank you. I am simply looking out for the article's completeness for the reader and would want to specifically look at this source in this article to see how it serves. Would you please post response at the article's talk page to keep the discussion centralized and before the relevant eyes? Thanks, Keilana. SageRad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a Daily Mail source deleted here[17]. After taking this up at a couple of places, I became convinced consensus is well against use of the Daily Mail as a source for anything. I'm not saying that it deserves instant deletion (I have not even looked at the Agent Orange site, but I thought I would just let you know about my experience.DrChrissy(talk) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, for establishment of facts, as in that conversation you linked, but it's been noted in this conversation for instance that it can be a good source for photographs when not being used to establish facts, such as providing some great photos when Ravi Shankar died, and that's the purpose for which it was in that article, not for any fact sourcing. SageRad (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy(talk) 20:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it turned out great and became really collaborative and we figured out a superior third solution and generated some goodwill and done learning moments. I recommend checking out the talk page dialogue there. We ended up friendly and with a good solution by consensus. This is the kind of work I do here and it's why I'm so disappointed in this really off base decision to topic ban me. In doing good work and not pushing anything but integrity of dialogue and sourcing. Thanks for witnessing. SageRad (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sage. You recently deleted a comment of yours from the talk page over at Arbcom. Deletion might not be looked upon favourably. Perhaps you should re-insert and then strike through with strikethrough. All the best.DrChrissy(talk) 20:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that which was on another user's section before I knew that wasn't the way of that page? It didn't belong there. They used that to denigrate me. I deleted it. You can't win with people who want to get you by any vile means necessary add they see it. SageRad (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know....but the problem is that after your deletion, the following editor's comments now do not make sense. If you strike through your own post, it is the same as saying "whoops - I made a mistake and I am trying to make good". Deleting from a Talk page can be seen as trying to change history and potentially deceitful.DrChrissy(talk) 21:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I posted a comment to that IP user and then deleted it, in attempt to just work it out. They could just delete the irrelevant comments, you know? That would resolve it. This thing feels silly. If people could act with more generosity toward each other, we wouldn't get into such little tangles. Anyway, it's up to them. I also posted on their talk page. SageRad (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy is correct IMO and s/he is trying to help you. Just as in RL words cannot be erased, one can only say that they regret what they have said - here we strike them. Gandydancer (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe i ought to have struck them, i guess i made a mistake. But now it's late and i think it's water under the bridge. I hope it's not a felony. Anyway, it's hard to figure out a solution with an IP address because you can't be sure that they will read their talk page. In fact not likely. SageRad (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just so you know, I appreciate your work. Thanks for being you! Jusdafax 20:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. It seems so rare to find kindness around here these days. I appreciate your principled work, as well. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work as well and look forward to doing more editing with you. Gandydancer (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awe, @Gandydancer: i appreciate you, too. Whenever you showed up in dialogue i knew the integrity level would rise. SageRad (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a debate that no other admin or editor dared to dig in and find what's important; keeping the neutrality in a jungle of arguements. Mulkhan (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the idea lab apparently isn't the place to just say if you agree or disagree - I agree with your latest comments. I think the community, in light of recent press-covered events, will gladly accept more willing volunteers geared towards ensuring bullying and harassment does not occur, and that ultimately Wikipedia stays a safe and accepting place to learn and edit samtar{t} 11:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Samtar. I appreciate your support and help. SageRad (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought you'd have seen Smallbones questions to the ArbCom candidates when you posted your own questions but the candidates' attitudes towards bullying basically determined their standing in his election guide, User:Smallbones/ACE2015. LizRead!Talk! 17:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this, probably in the next few days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that wants to criticize this guy really needs to take a look at the last few weeks of the Monsanto legal cases article. I'd never edited the article but started to make a few edits because of an AfC that was put out. No new editor should be put through the hell and humiliation that he got at that article. That's the only article I've worked on with him, but judging from that one, he only did his best to pursue what he thought was right and refused to be pushed away. I am left to wonder how he can be barred from Monsanto and ag chems in the future because I think that we need new editors that work as hard as he did in an area that I have found over the years to have a special importance to corporations: lawsuits against them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, SageRad. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LizRead!Talk! 18:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Help
Hi, SageRad. Thank you again for being so humane and for the respect you show to others. I am sorry to ask you so soon for help, but I am awed by the energy and time MVBW has consumed, posting almost everywhere to try to keep me blocked, while stating all the while that he is very busy and no longer active on Wikipedia (see his talk page history). He stated on AN that "Some contributors, including myself simply run away from all pages where Againstdisinformation fueled such divisive and extremely unproductive discussions". The exact opposite is true, he followed me on multiple articles' talk pages to thwart my editing, as is easy to check. I am not complaining, I think he has the right not to like what I do, but saying that I made him run away from articles is, well, disinformation. If you could just ask him gently to let me breathe after the ordeal I went through, I would be very grateful. Take care. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν. I actually went and looked through a whole article's history where you had edited, the Yulia Tymoshenko article, and contributed this comment based upon finding that your work there looked good to me, and friendly, and not at all how MVBW characterized it. You can see the whole comment here. I hope this helps. I would advise to simply ignore it all, go for a walk, and come back when you're relaxed and work on whatever you have interest in. Write again if you like. SageRad (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right SageRad, it is much better to forgive and forget. I am going to take a short wikibreak and I will let you know when I am back. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was up in the night and i got curious. I looked at another article. I wrote the following. Diffs [18][19][20]SageRad (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing bad in the edit summaries. I find very friendly tone generally in the talk page. I find former AgainstDisinformation in this article to have behaved well, as far as i can tell. Now i only took 20 minutes to look, so i could be wrong or missing something, and the issues with this editor might be in other articles that i didn't look at, but from this brief inquiry, i have seen the editor appears to be working hard, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and actually very impressive to me for a new user. I don't see why the negative talk about them must continue. SageRad (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I must add, however, that don't know the topic area at all, so there may be subtleties i might have missed, or otherwise not see what the problem was. I was looking more at tone and manner, and whether the editor appeared to be cooperatively editing or contentious. SageRad (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now i've again gotten curious -- what was it about this editor formerly known as "AgainstDisinformation" that so many people seem to have it out for them? I looked at this ANI case in which the user was really treated badly. Holy crap, what the hell is going on there? It looks like the user brought an issue to ANI that was really valid, and ended up getting railroaded and brought under a ban for bringing it up. The level of kangaroo court sort of stuff going on there is astounding. The user, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, brought up a serious issue about an article that had a problem of unsourced innuendo against a whole country essentially and they ended up being banned? This sounds disturbing. It's like "we'll take care of the problem" sort of language. So i go and look at the article Anna Politkovskaya and see the talk page discussion about the death and Putin's birthday and i see former AgainstDisinformation being really civil to begin with. There's an obvious problem with the article and the editor explains it well. There is this exchange:
Does anyone realize that this is libel pure and simple and that, in the extremely unlikely case Mr Putin decided to sue Wikimedia, he would very probably win in court? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia No legal threats. One can be blocked for doing this. Back to the book by Felshinsky and Pribylovskiy, they mentioned this "coincidence" also in the introduction to the book as highly significant. But it probably belongs to another page, Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
You see the disconnect here? AgainstDisinformation was saying -- obviously, to me -- that including this innuendo in the article is libel against Putin and then then MVBW responds by implying that AgainstDisinformation was making a legal threat against Wikipedia editors and says "One can be blocked for doing this"... the very gaping disconnect of meanings here is astounding. AgainstDisinformation then pings MVBW and explains the disconnect of understanding and asks a question to which MVBW never replies:
@My very best wishes: Where do you see a legal threat on my part? Do you think I am Mr. Putin? I am just saying that in a court of law this would be considered libel, I am not threatening any one with legal action, since I have nothing to do with the case and it would be quite impossible for me to sue (in fact, you know all this perfectly well). Now, is it honest to allege an imaginary violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats on my part in order to justify your threat of blocking me? With regard to Felshinsky and Pribylovskiy, you also know that their reputation as historians is questionable as is their objectivity. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
And then thankfully, Drmies comes along and applies the same common sense as AgainstDisinformation was doing, to remove the content that is conspiracy theory innuendo, and writes:
My very best wishes, I'm going to remove the phrase from this article; not from the longer one since I haven't looked at it. Any editor who wants to restore it needs to do so with an expansion of some sort in the text that explains why it is relevant. It will probably require a hell of a lot of text, so my suggestion is not to mess with it. Libel, maybe not--innuendo, that it is. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank Lute88 makes a troll accusation at AgainstDisinformation:
Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant...
Anyway, what i see here is that the user formerly known as AgainstDisinformation acted with reasonable manners even when being insulted in various ways, and then appears to have been railroaded into this ban, and then forced to change username and grovel a bit to be unblocked here. That's not a good picture of justice or encouraging good editors to do good work, in my reckoning. I'm troubled by all this. It's not respectful. What's going on here? How did AgainstDisinformation get banned in the first place, and then their nose rubbed in shit as a "disciplining" measure to learn to "correct their behavior" etc... from the two articles i've looked at so far, i see the editor acting fairly well, and getting railroaded and banned. What's going on at Wikipedia? Why does it feel so contentious? I don't think this editor brought the trouble. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is so strange. I don't believe that this editor deserved this treatment. What's going on here? Why does it feel like a McCarthyism? Like people get banned on a whim of some powerful people? Like there's no integrity in the process? Like good editors are forced to grovel to be unblocked? Power dynamic going on where some people seem to relish their small domain of control and lord it over others. Not good for the world's use of Wikipedia as a reference. SageRad (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making posts like that does not serve any good purpose. If you are concerned about any administrative actions, such as blocks or topic bans received by user X, you should ask admins who issued the blocks or rise the issue(s) at appropriate administrative noticeboards. However, doing so in this case would probably be viewed as disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made this post because i believe it serves a very good purpose. It helps the person who was railroaded and bullied to feel ok. It exposes some things that are going on in Wikipedia. It helps to prevent future things like this from happening. It exonerates a person who was subjected to a kangaroo court. You were involved in this case and i guess you don't like me having this different opinion about it. You'll have to swallow that. I post this here for the editor who was subjected to a humiliation for no reason, and for others to see, as an example, what goes on, so that people can have some more wisdom and knowledge and strength here. SageRad (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, how does asking the very people who i believe made a poor decision, to rectify the situation, make sense? If there appears to be a pattern of such things happening, then it appears the very place that is supposed to be a source of justice is a source of injustice. SageRad (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to "help" someone by bringing back and fueling old disputes and disagreements (like here or in your comment above) is not really a help for the project or the user, but WP:POINT. If by any chance user you are trying to "help" will return to editing this page, he is going to be in trouble. Note that I never edited this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor did feel helped. That dispute is not so old. I didn't "bring it back" but instead i brought an edit war to the talk page. I pinged everyone involved to talk it out. That's how it's supposed to go rather than edit war without talk. I hope the user can handle themselves and talk if they choose to. SageRad (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're sound a bit like you have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude which will get you in trouble fairly fast. Maybe you could channel this energy by doing some mediation work at Dispute resolution although this would require you to not take sides and I'm not sure you can abide by that constraint. LizRead!Talk! 01:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, what a vote of confidence. I'll bet you five Wikibucks that i could avoid taking sides. In fact, i did so recently in a place where i saw a slow motion edit war. I set up a discussion section and pinged all the people involved, and did not weigh in with any opinion of my own. I just said "You've all been in a slow motion edit war, and i think you could benefit by actually discussing this matter." I believe that i actually signed up at dispute resolution a few months ago but never got a notice. Maybe i could try again. I've heard this essay (not guideline) section (right great wrongs) cited so many times by a certain sort of editor. It's funny how there are a few particular essay sections that get cited so often in a certain sort of situation. I am fully aware of what this essay section says, basically that we must rely on sourcing and not original research, and represent the sourcing well. I absolutely know that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. However, it is the place to best represent the reality of the world as it is refracted and reflected by reliable sources, and we as editors do get some degree of freedom to use the sources well, and honestly, to write articles that are accessible and accurate. SageRad (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I will never be in awe of authority, but I stand in awe of your courage and your sense of justice. If there were more men like you, the world would be a better place. However, I fear that, if you continue to defend me, you may run into trouble. There are powerful editors who see me as a threat and may deem the mere fact of defending me "disruptive" in itself. By contrast, some editors who have leveled unsubtantiated accusations against me on every possible page, or even danced on my grave (talk page) after I was blocked, will never get as much as a slap on the wrist. You may have noticed that an editor wrote on AN that the images placed on my talk page by another editor might have been a bait. However, the editor who placed these images was never asked a single question. Someone also stated above that "If by any chance user you are trying to "help" will return to editing this page, he is going to be in trouble." This is not an idle threat, there are people who really wield such power. I still believe that Wikipedia is a wonderful project, but it has become seriously flawed. If you want to see progress towards more justice and transparency, I would advise you to garner as much support as you can and try to act collectively. As for me, my status is now that of a zombie and there is nothing much I can do. I might even be blocked again, just for having posted here and shared my thoughts with you. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, believe me, i have had similar treatment by some. There are all sorts of people here on Wikipedia. I'm getting a thicker skin by the day, but i'm in awe of the depths that some people are willing to go to in order to push an agenda. I do see a lot of power dynamics going on, but i also see some very principled an good people who stand up for what is right sometimes. I try to do that more and more, especially for people who seem to be getting ganged up on and misrepresented in a way eerily reminiscent of The Trial -- as i have felt many times in my year or so of editing.
I do believe Wikipedia is a wonderful project, but it's also in danger of capture by people who seem to treat it as a tool of propaganda instead of a common human yearning for resolving conflicts and finding the most accurate representation of reality. It's a place where people of many perspectives can discuss ideas with great sensitivity. However, it more often tends to be a place where people come to beat their chests and to try to bully their agenda into the content, from my experience.
Even editing an article like Hoe (tool) i have come up against some resistance and ill treatment, believe it or not! I discovered there a WP:CIRCULAR problem, where Wikipedia was spreading its own lie because it had made its way from Wikipedia into a source and then back into Wikipedia. I wrote to the author of a book called "Fifty Garden Tools" and confirmed that their source had been Wikipedia, and thereby i got to the root of a tiny mistake in human knowledge. But there was an editor who got angry at me for doing this. Wow... even the garden tool articles. Imagine then, when it comes to Russia and the U.S. or GMOs or many other issues with vested interests?
I advise you to keep cool, never call names, be humorous but in a good-spirited way, and simply speak about the facts and the sources. And if you seem to be ganged up on, call for some help if you like. People need each other especially when working where there may be hostilities.
Also, edit in some areas that are not controversial. It will help you to have a connection to Wikipedia that is not loaded with the difficult tensions that are in the controversial topics. I hope these advices are helpful. SageRad (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know I tried to do that at one point. I got tired after being under intense fire for my edits on Eastern Europe and I tried to edit in a completely different area. I edited the article Edmé-Antoine Durand to correct the spelling (it should in fact be Edme-Antoine Durand, without diacritic). I even contacted the British Museum to let them know that their spelling was not correct and they thanked me fo pointing it out to them. Now, guess who followed me there straight from Human rights in Ukraine. If you want to know, just have a look at the article's talk page. It's hilarious. Therefore, as my efforts were thwarted even on such an uncontroversial and minor topic, I felt that my opponents would never be satisfied by anything short of my permanent blocking and that I might as well continue editing on contentious topics. I believe now that there is a very serious issue with the way Wikipedia operates and that, if not addressed, it could eventually bring about the demise of the whole project. I really believe that it can still be a wonderful tool for the dissemination of knowledge and I am dismayed by the level of contempt in which it has come to be held in some academic circles. Those who still have faith in the project should act collectively to preserve its reliability.Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is quite unfortunate. It's always impossible to know if someone is following you and it takes a lot of circumstantial evidence to show WP:HOUNDING. The culture here seems rather hostile to me, with a lot of bullying and railroading, and then trials like The Trial... and to think, this is a primary arbiter of human knowledge for a lot of people on the Earth? It is embodying the spirit of the problems of the human species as it dominates the Earth and as people dominate each other. There is domination behavior here at Wikipedia to a huge degree. When you even speak against that problem, then some of the more authoritarian people come and attack you for doing so, of course. It's the same way as the systems of domination in the world outside Wikipedia, when you speak against the authoritarian nature of the system, the system sees you as a threat to be eliminated. SageRad (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you mentioned The Trial (Der Prozeß). The first sentence reads: "Jemand mußte Josef K. verleumdet haben, denn ohne daß er etwas Böses getan hätte, wurde er eines Morgens verhaftet", or in English: "Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.". I liked the book so much that some fragments have remained engraved in my memory. As concerns Wikipedia, I think that it is in urgent need of a major overhaul. Two issues come to my mind: 1) the exorbitant power of administrators, 2) the infiltraton by interest groups whose agendas are incompatible with a disinterested dissemination of knowledge. To paraphrase David Hilbert, Wikipedia is too important to be left to Wikipedians. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SageRad. I have a favour to ask you. Could you have a look at this [28] and tell me what you think of it? It seems I can't even ask for reference now. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your edit summaries are rude and uncalled for. Uncited material has been removed, and must be sourced before being reinstatedScr★pIronIV 18:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ScrapIronIV - I believe you've never edited that page before. It seems very likely that you recently were pinged by me in my attempt to figure out an edit war on another page that i had no part in, but wanted to see discussed. So it seems that you probably went to my edit history, chose a page, and then did this wholesale decimation of it. That feels like a violation of community spirit to me. Awaiting your answer. SageRad (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I answered on my talk page. There is nothing unique about my editing of this article. Scr★pIronIV 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor, acting in good faith, removes unreferenced content, then restoring the unreferenced content with an edit summary of "Drive-by vandalism style of editing" seems inappropriately confrontational to me, because "vandalism" has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia, and this edit does not qualify. Repeating that aggressive edit summary over and over again looks a bit like bullying to me. I thought you were against bullying, SageRad. Am I wrong? Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared to be a form of "legal vandalism" in the specific context and with the various other factors involved such as the text of the other user directed toward me on another article page where the user probably encountered my account and from which they probably found their way to the page in question. Vandalism is an edit that is hastily done and does not improve the article, in my estimation. What i find in the policy as a definition is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". This is of course a matter of interpretation, and this case in particular would be a matter of interpretation. One cannot see into another person's mind, and there is of course plausible deniability here. I do assume good faith before interacting with another editor, but this does not mean assuming good faith in spite of evidence to the contrary. I am against bullying. I do not think that i was a bully here. You may disagree and i'm willing to talk about it, but i know my intentions were not to bully another person. In fact, i felt bullied. I don't think i had a repeated aggressive edit summary "over and over" unless you are simply referring to the fact that i reverted the mass deletions that were done in six or seven parts and used this edit summary for them all. In that case, i think that the phrase "repeating that aggressive edit summary over and over" is not a realistic representation of what happened. I don't think it's aggressive but rather attempting to explain the nature of the deletions as i saw them, and why i was reverting them to salvage the article. It seemed hostile to me to delete such information in that context, after a particularly nasty comment toward me for simply trying to work out a slow motion edit war about a very touchy political topic on another page. It seemed damaging to Wikipedia, as well. That is all how it seemed to me, very strongly, although as i said it cannot be proven. It brought to my attention ways in which editors could hurt each other if they desired, within the letter of the policies of Wikipedia, while still being to the detriment of Wikipedia and against community spirit. The same thing can happen in real life, if a neighbor has a grudge against another neighbor, and then calls the city to cite a benign code violation just to cost the neighbor thousands of dollars and many headaches, out of spite. It may be 100% legal by the letter of the law, but it's un-neighborly. By the way, i did ask the other editor to please voluntarily revert, and to also please explain how they found their way to that page. They were not forthcoming on either account, and stood by their edits. I agree that the article in question had cruft, but is deleting sections of it wholesale the way to fix that, or could it be done more communally if that was the real intention? SageRad (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I review your behavior as an uninvolved editor in this matter, I see an aggressive response that may be construed as bullying. So, I encourage you to take my observations to heart. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do and i will. There is a lot to think about. I hope you have a good thanksgiving if that is something you celebrate. SageRad (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Telegram
Hello, SageRad. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hope you don't let the goings-on at ArbCom get you down. A couple of arbs appear to have taken the time to properly investigate the diffs and have voted accordingly. Sometimes WP can appear to be an overly hostile place, especially to those who are freely giving of their time and energy. I've learned a few things from our GMO case despite my being named as an involved editor when I shouldn't have been, and for that I am thankful. One thing I never understood and probably never will is why some editors are allowed to get away with being damagingly hostile toward new editors and those who have a different POV supported by RS. If the latter doesn't speak volumes to the editors we elected to oversee peace in the village, I don't know what will. I just hope it turns out as it should for you so we can all get back to being productive editors. Atsme📞📧 13:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Wonder why they don't celebrate Thanksgiving in the UK? Atsme📞📧
Thank you, Atsme. Same to you. I'll be enjoying this day with loved ones, despite colonial overtones of the holiday. Thanks for the kind message. SageRad (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do celebrate Thanksgiving. We are very grateful that you can arm bears over there, but not here ! -Roxy the dog™woof 10:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apology
I have been re-reading my comments to you. I understand that you saw in them an attempt to exert a chilling effect. I also see that there were comments from others which should have caused me to realise that this was a reasonable interpretation of my remarks.
Please accept my unreserved apology for this, which was, I stress, never intended to exert undue influence, but instead to encourage you to reshape your involvement with the project in a way that would allow you to contribute without falling foul of our various and insanely complex rules and mores - I would be happiest if you were able, in time, to write for the opponent, since this is, in my view, a content area in which there is no black and white, only endless shades of grey. Sadly Wikipedia processes deal poorly with nuance, and I understand that my input made this less, not more, likely.
I see, and should have seen long ago, that I approached this in an extremely clumsy and counterproductive way. Again I apologise without reservation.
In case anyone else is watching, I know there is an IBAN in place, but I hope this can reasonably be excepted. I don't propose to discuss this further either here or elsewhere.
While i appreciate the gesture in the present moment, it does not cancel the vast negative effects of JzG/Guy's actions in the past year, including the various kinds of railroading that have led to the current outcome of the ArbCom case including a topic ban against me. The long-term and wide-reaching effects of actions of a bad nature cannot be minimized by a brief and too-late apology. One could use their actions going forward to atone for past actions and harms. SageRad (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I regard this "apology" as one of the most terrifying, duplicitious and Machiavellian statements I have ever read. The fact that three members of ArbCom refused to even consider JzG/Guy as a party to this case when he blocked you and subsequently harassed you to the point where he had to be banned from interacting with you, shows how stacked the deck was. Apology, faugh. It's an excercise in plausible denial, a phrase that the CIA came up with. Deeply disgusting and dark, in the most evil way possible. Bad faith by a highly active admin was proven, and nothing was done. That's not justice. Jusdafax 05:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SageRad, I've been trying to do some work to improve Efficient energy use, and I noticed you're a member of WP:Environment. Do you have a minute to look over some of my proposed edits?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FacultiesIntact. I see your proposed edits in your sandbox, and they appear to be sound. I see that you do paid editing, and that one of your clients is Honeywell. I see that you have added material that references Honeywell collaboration with the LEED group. I think that's fine. We all have different perspectives, and we all have different motives for editing. You've added other content that is not related to Honeywell, so i think your perspective is transparent and in good faith. One should be careful to respect that one's own perspective is not the only one, and i think you have. I would watch out for WP:UNDUE in relation to including too much information that centers Honeywell products over the general lay of the land. SageRad (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate you evaluating my edits for their own worth, regardless of my affiliations. Would you be willing to implement those changes to the article itself? I prefer to avoid directly editing my COI articles whenever possible.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blunt: this sucks. You have done nothing worthy of being told you can't edit articles on Wikipedia. This ArbCom ruling is a travesty and an injustice, to put you in the same boat as the creepy corporate tool Jytdog, witting or unwitting. Anyone doubting this need merely review your Talk page above. I submit that in the future, this decision will be regarded by a solid majority of Wikipedians as deeply shameful. My advice: take a deep breath, edit elsewhere, wait out your year, and appeal. A lot can change in a year. In the meantime, please know I regard you as one of the greatest editors on Wikipedia. I can't hold a candle to you. As for your above tormentors, some not even named in this case, shame on them. Karma exists. Bless you, good Sir! Jusdafax 05:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jusdafax. I think it's a complete lack of integrity and it affects the whole world. It's not a small matter when a primary source of reference for the whole world is gamed in a way that completely lacks integrity. It's worthy of overthrowing the system that does these kinds of things. SageRad (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Contact me if you'd like to help as a... how do you say... ah, yes: whistleblower. My email is still open, see my user page (Petrarchan47). 174.71.67.48 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I hope that you will continue contributing to Wikipedia and if you appeal in six months or more I am likely to support an appeal, as long as you wear your heart on your sleeve rather less (perhaps agreeing to a voluntary period of making only edit proposals, not direct edits). I take responsibility for my part in this outcome and regret it. Feel free to delete this message if it's unwelcome. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ban is indef with no appeal for 12 months. Do you regret your responsibility for this even more now?DrChrissy(talk) 16:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it is worth, I believe JzG's apology to be sincere. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Guy shares your admirable trait of AGF...see here[29]DrChrissy(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is a sad state of affairs, SR. We're seeing good writers, content creators, and real NPOV editors being slammed. It's just wrong. Sad part is that I don't know if it's even fixable. The GMO case was totally mishandled, perhaps because a number of arbs were serving their last days on the committee. I've seen similar behaviors regarding the final case for an outgoing Grand Jury. They glance over the evidence with sleepy eyes and tired brains, except for a few who are still awake but unable to exert enough influence to get others to pay attention. I agree with the recommendations by Jusdafax. Atsme📞📧 15:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, I obviously come at this from a different perspective than some other editors, but I really want to say, once again, that I see you as someone who can have a very happy future at Wikipedia, and that I saw the discussions of site-banning you as very, very wrong. I believe that you are well qualified to have the topic ban lifted when the time comes. I want you to feel that you are welcome to come to me any time that you want, for advice about any of these issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, I cannot but help feel that although you, Wuerzele and I did not deserve our topic bans, thanks to the help of Tryptofish, mine is relatively less punishing than yours. I am so sorry that you have been treated in this way, especially for someone so new to Wikepedia. I am still deciding whether to appeal my ban on procedural irregularities (having multiple, prejudically titled sections). I have also only just found out that Genetically modified animals does not exist but is a redirect to Genetically modified organism which of course contains information on the subject I am banned from. So, I am going to need clarification on this. I have a feeling that in the years to come, this case will be pointed to as an/THE example of mistakes made by ArbCom. That is probably of little comfort to you at the moment, but please remember, there are good people out there.DrChrissy(talk) 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sure hope that I was helpful, but I feel that SageRad and DrChrissy deserve some consideration, but not so much that third editor you named. As for Genetically modified animals, my guess is that you could change it from a redirect to a page and that would then be OK, or someone else could make that change for you, but you should make a request for clarification to ArbCom before acting on that, in case I am wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I had been thinking exactly along those lines myself. Seems like a natural progression as the technology develops.DrChrissy(talk) 17:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Season's greetings
Wishing you a peaceful holiday and a Happy New Year!
Burninthruthesky, thank you, and i wish you the same... may the longest night and darkest time of year lead into more light for you as the world turns and tilts. SageRad (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My offer
I said this in the ANI discussion, but I want to say it here, too. I want to make you a very sincere offer, because I remember what it was like for me when I was a new editor, and I see you as someone who can become a very good editor. Any time that you feel like someone else is bullying or otherwise mistreating you, I want you to feel free to not reply to them directly, but instead, please come to my user talk page and tell me about it. And I will act on it. I promise. And you will come to find over time that it gets easier and easier for you to handle it without me. But I'm offering it very seriously for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something said by the editor who closed the ANI discussion made me think of what I think is a very good idea, so please let me suggest it to you. You could make User:SageRad/Civility and bullying, or something similar, go from red to blue, and develop it as an essay. In contrast to policy, it will not face any pushback from anyone else, and you can really convey what you want to convey. If you then get a few other editors to go over it with you, you could then move it into mainspace, as something like WP:Civility and bullying. You could then easily point to it when the issue comes up in discussions, and it could be very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that is a good idea and i also appreciate your offer above, Tryptofish. SageRad (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a superb idea! I got really pissed off with people arguing about primary and secondary sources so I eventually sat down and wrote an essay about it.Wikipedia:Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles This gave me time and head-space to think about exactly what I wanted to say. It was cathartic to write it and really helped me deal with the frustration. It has not set the WP world on fire in terms of primary/secondary sources, but it is there if I wish to refer others to it. It shows others that you have thought really hard about subject. Great idea Trypto - hope you follow up on it SageRad and happy to help if you do.DrChrissy(talk) 21:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, Tryptofish and DrChrissy, what we really need is not another essay, but for the very good existing guidelines and policies to be applied without well and without bias. Instead, we get this -- an editor comes to ANI with a real and indisputable violation of policies, and gets a ton of apologism for the violators, and then a closing without any teeth or sanction or even anyone saying "knock it off!" to the violators. Essentially, it has endorsed the bullying behavior that violates policy. It's the good old boyz network. I'm sick of it. We don't need more essays. We need integrity and people to stand up for what's right. SageRad (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really do know how you feel. There's no hurry, so just "sleep on it". Take your time, think about it, and try not to feel too bothered over it. (I remember early in my editing history, I made the cardinal offense of saying that I didn't think we needed to delete an image from a Japanese comic book, and someone started posting to my talk page, telling me I should commit suicide because of that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I feel like you didn't listen to any of the advice given to you in that ANI thread and you ignore the editors who do offer support. In my time on Wikipedia, I've found that editors who focus on editors they have a conflict with, the injuries and offenses they believe have been inflicted upon them, usually do not last very long as editors and that would be a shame. They either start acting aggressively themselves and get blocked or they easily get fed up and leave.
I am NOT condoning any insults that might have come your way. But this is the internet, it is anonymous editing and people can be brusque, crude, rude and sarcastic. And that behavior is even more likely to occur in some hot topic areas like Arab-Israeli conflict and American politics. Yes, every editor should be civil but the reality is that everyone is not, 100% of the time. While you can continue to work on policy changes, I think you also must adjust your expectations because I don't know a single editor here who hasn't been criticized, often unfairly or harshly. Most of us have battle scars that we learn to live with or move past. With thousands of editors, it is impossible for one editor to change an environment which has existed for almost 15 years. LizRead!Talk! 22:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about what we have been discussing here, and it occurs to me to point another thing out. I get it, how it can be frustrating to try to change policies here, and how, consequently, it can feel inadequate to create essays instead. But let's suppose that someone who sees an issue 180 degrees opposite to how you see it goes to a policy page, gets two or three other editors to agree with them, and changes the policy to something that you would regard as odious. Then it stays that way a few months, not noticed. Suddenly, someone points it out to you and tells you that this is "stable policy". Obviously, that would be a bad situation. And that's a big part of why editors make it difficult to change policy pages. It's a very imperfect system, but it does make sense to set some barriers against policy changes without wide consent. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW SageRad, just expanding on Tryptofish's offer - if they are ever unavailable you're more than welcome to drop me a line :) -- samtarwhisper 16:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack
This is a violation of WP:NPA. Kindly refrain from such blatant violations of AGF and NPA. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you're right. I cannot know the motivation of another editor and i should not make insinuations like that in the future. I'm sorry and thanks for flagging this. I will learn from this. SageRad (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SageRad. Good luck with that article, by the way--it's an important topic. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Downtown Newburgh from Beacon I agree completely with Drmies, the topic is an important one, and I hope to be able to return to it in future...once my anger subsides. I am hopeful that you, SageRad, will remember what you've said in your comment above; "I cannot know the motivation of another editor". Because you can't know. All you can do is assume good faith and learn via discussion. For example, if you had known the following facts about me,
that I attended college in Westchester at a time when the Hudson was at its worst;
that I lived two in Newburgh for most of the '00s;
that my former kitchen window can be seen in the Wikipedia image "Downtown Newburgh from Beacon" (worth every extra penny);
or that I have donated my time and money to the Clearwater and related groups.
Would your assessment of my motivation for making the edit, for which you accused me of "whitewash[ing] Wikipedia for political convenience", have been different? Your answer doesn't matter because what you know or don't know about an editor has no bearing on how you should treat their contributions. In this case my motivation was clearly stated in the edit summary: Fails WP:RS. If you had asked for an explanation, sans personal attacks, I would have been more than happy to discuss it. If you would like my explanation now, just ask. I am willing to discuss it here. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArtifexMayhem, I'm not making any assumptions about who people are. It's all about the sourcing. Yes, i'd like to know your explanation as to why it fails WP:RS. You could do that here or on the talk page for the article where i asked you originally. Would you like to tell me more about yourself and what's driving your edits in the field of chemicals? I'd appreciate it and i would be happy to do the same. I recognized my error in even insinuating anything like whitewashing, and i'm learning from it. SageRad (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been banned from "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed". The arbcom noticeboard talk page discussion clearly falls into that category. Any further contributions there will result in a request that this account be blocked from editing. On a broader level, let me advise you that at this point you need to step away from this topic area completely until your topic ban expires. That's what a topic ban means. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that those of us who have received topic bans are not allowed to discuss those topics when we have been invited to this page to discuss our topic bans????DrChrissy(talk) 13:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that you can discuss the topic ban, but not the topic. SageRad was discussing the topic. I personally don't care what people discuss on their own talk pages and won't ever request action for such discussions, but continuing the crusade on the arbcom talk page is exactly the sort of thing the topic ban is supposed to prevent. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not continuing a "crusade" and it's not a crusade to begin with. It's a denouement, an autopsy of sorts, a sorting out in the aftermath, going through the wreckage after a tornado, and in my case, noting that the same tornado is still happening in the articles of the topic area without my presence, in just the same way, which shows by experimental and control groups, that i was not particularly the origin of the problem, and it wasn't a "few bad apples" or any such thing. I was not bringing the battleground, as i have said time and again. The battleground is there and everyone needs to recognize it, and tone behavior accordingly, at the same time. I was not a bad person in the topic area. In fact i have to give myself credit for often slowing things down and exhorting people to discuss rather than to edit war, and to get to the roots of the conflict and not dance around with proxy arrows, etc.... SageRad (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looie496, that is a perverse interpretation of the topic ban. I don't agree and never will. Leave me alone. I don't need you wasting my time. SageRad (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are banning me from your talk page, please say so explicitly and I won't post here again. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not banning you. I don't ban people from speaking, but i also don't hold back in my reactions. SageRad (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, please keep a cool head and delete or strike your words starting with "Leave me..". I have supported you but I'm not going to continue with it when you have an outburst like that. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not an outburst but genuine counterwill reaction to an attempt at control in an unreasonable way. How about looking at the original violation here? Get to the root of the problem, not the secondary effect. You think it's ok for someone to tell me to not speak? I don't need anyone wasting my time and that's what this does. It's plain rude. It's disrespectful. How about addressing that? SageRad (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that much of the problem concerns editors who want to shut other editors up. This thread is a profound example of that, coming from the person who filed the ArbCom case. This particular tactic is nothing short of breathtaking. Jusdafax 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you very much, Jusdafax and thank you for your words which echo my thoughts -- it's the silencing mode of action that is very much integral with the ideological push. It's aversion to sunlight and openness and transparency and good dialogue, which is the sign of something to hide. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and cockroaches scurry when you shine a light. SageRad (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the wording of our topic ban policy: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
Your recent edits at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard are in violation of the topic ban. Further violations may result in an enforcement block. You need to leave the topic alone all together if you want to remain welcome here. We have a lot of topics here and you are welcome to one unrelated to your topic ban.
I understand you feel you are being silenced, nonetheless topic banned means you cannot discuss the topic here. While I can see from your above postings that you think the topic ban does not apply to the areas you are posting in I am here to tell you it applies to all pages. HighInBC 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can indeed discuss the topic area as i have been doing in the page that you cite. You are simply wrong here. Sorry, HighInBC but you're wrong here and i reject the attempt to silence me there. That is the reason for that forum space. Discussion of the conflict in the topic area post-case. And i can take part and i want to take part. It is useful. The topic ban applies to the "locus of the case" which is articles about GMOs and agrochemicals. I have been invited to discuss the case at that forum mentioned. SageRad (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That place is not to discuss the topic, it is to discuss sanctions and other arbcom activity. You are allowed to appeal the ban and you are allowed to ask for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban. You may not however engage in discussion of the topic itself.
Your ban does not just apply to the "locus of the case", the policy makes it clear that it applies to "all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic". SageRad you don't have to believe it, you will still be blocked if you carry on. You are being shown leniency now because the ban is new, but now things have been explained to you clearly. HighInBC 15:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. SageRad (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you continue to violate the topic ban then you can try to convince another admin it was wrong in your unblock request. HighInBC 15:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have struck the part about the unblock request, arbcom blocks are not handled by unblock requests since they must be appealed at WP:AE. HighInBC 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous amounts of time-wasting obstructionism dedicated to silencing. That location is a forum for discussing the past case. It's absurd to say that the case cannot be discussed there. SageRad (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The case can be discussed there. Just not by you. HighInBC 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My Lord, i can indeed discuss the case there. I can indeed. If only the same amount of energy that were spent trying to silence people would be spent on actually working on the underlying conflict, we'd be alright now. SageRad (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may ask for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban. Beyond that you may not discuss the topic there or anywhere else. I have no horse in this race, I am disinterested in the topic. I am not trying to give you a hard time. I am telling you how a topic ban works and what to expect if you violate it. I am not going to argue the finer points of policy with you as you don't seem to be taking in what I am telling you. I didn't write the policy but I will enforce it and no amount of not listening will change that. HighInBC 15:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, please hear me on this. Please listen to HighInBC. HighInBC and Looie are telling you the correct information. You have every right to feel unhappy about what is happening, but you need to comply with this for your own good. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that topic bans were not applied to editor's comments on ArbCom pages to allow free discussion - a bit like an editor discussing the topic ban with a closing admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 16:02, December 16, 2015
Topic bans apply everywhere except when you are appealing it. (You would be unable to appeal a ban without at least touching on the subject) Likewise a good faith 'Is this covered under my topic ban?' question on a noticeboard will generally be fine, as would questions on the scope of the ban to a closing admin. Actually discussing the topic or attempting to re-argue previous discussion is not allowed regardless of location. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DrChrissy, you can ask there about clarification or appeal of your own ban, but you cannot discuss anyone else's restrictions, nor anything about the content disputes, nor anything about the decision that does not relate directly to you. This is serious stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serious stuff indeed! DrChrissy tried to talk to Slim with this edit:
<edit removed as violation of topic ban>
Another editor deleted his edit saying that he is not allowed to talk about the ban. This place seems to have turned into a legal jungle where one needs the advise of a private attorney to make one's way through the legalities of being a wikipedia editor. Can Sage respond to this edit? Can DrChrissy? Will I receive some sort of admonishment for reprinting an edit that is not legal per Wikipedia rules? Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially yes, if someone is topic-banned and you repost a comment of theirs that would be in violation of the ban and has previously been removed (or has been told its a violation), you could be blocked for proxying for a (topic)banned editor. Likewise they could be sanctioned for meatpuppetry/trying to get around their ban. Even if you didnt ask their permission first. You risk being sanctioned and also them being sanctioned for breaching their ban. It really does not require any deep thinking - if you are topic banned, you stay away from the topic. You dont discuss the topic, other peoples bans in relation to the topic, etc etc. Apart from the exceptions at WP:BANEX as mentioned above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also frankly I am getting tired of explaining this. So given everyone involved is aware of their restrictions, has had the scope of the restrictions (excepting the agent orange as per Guy) clarified, the next time I am just going to report straight to AE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A word of advice
Here's something that I would have done well to heed myself, more often and a lot earlier. It really saves a lot of trouble.
Very unwelcome advice, coming from you. Stop your harassing behavior, Skyring, as i know you know that's what this is. I will stand up for the right to have a voice. I will not stop having a voice in any circumstance. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are going, you are not going to have a voice on Wikipedia much longer.When senior editors - including admins and ArbCom members - line up to tell you the same thing, you should slow down a little and think about the warning signs.
Or put your foot on the right pedal and hit the gas, master of your own destiny. In the end, you are captain of your fate. Best of luck! --Pete (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :)
Hi SageRad - I can see things are going a bit sour for you at the moment, is there anything I can do to help? I'll be available and responding (both here and to emails) for the next five hours should you wish to discuss/vent. If I may give you some probably unwelcome advice, it would be to take five from Wikipedia and make sure you as calm as possible before continuing. Best of luck and seasons greetings -- samtarwhisper 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samtar, i really appreciate the message. Yes, things were very difficult for a bit but i took a Wikibreak and happy to know that some people care about the well being of others in the work of the encyclopedia, as with in the greater world at large. I appreciate you caring. 75.133.104.136 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to even log in before checking my talk page. Thanks, Samtar. SageRad (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to remove your IP from the logs for privacy? HighInBC 23:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me if you want this. Goodnight. HighInBC 04:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, you should take him up on that. Otherwise, it just helps other people harass you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, i suppose so, HighInBC, although i don't understand why it's good or bad to have your IP address showing. Does it allow people to know more about me than i might like, like my location or something? Anyway, thanks for the offer, and for Tryptofish for advising it's a good idea. I didn't understand the import but if T says it's a good idea, guess it probably is. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit late to remove it now sorry. You see it is in every revision since then. HighInBC 00:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, HighInBC -- what would be the advantage anyway? SageRad (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you OK?
I saw your self-reverted comment at the Arb noticeboard talkpage, and I want to make sure that you are OK. You were just referring to that metaphorically, as in the theme song to "MASH", right? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see you back, and I think that your comment about how you are complying was an excellent one. Good for you, and welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am and i thank you for your concern before. I decided i had to take a real Wikibreak. Thanks for caring. SageRad (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested
Your questrion re Agent Orange is, I think, entirely reasonable, and I have requested clarification [30] here. Please hold off commenting there (or at least mentioning The Subject That Must Not Be Named) until the arbs have chipped in. I hope they do the right thing. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the work you do; you have brought joy into my work here.
I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, i do appreciate the well wishing... same to you. I hope Santa gives up on using coal even for the bad kids. It's not sustainable, you know? I appreciate your work here, too, and your standing up when the hour calls for it. SageRad (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some stroopwafels for you!
hi, i would suggest disengaging from dysfunctional process such as ANI or VPP. you have smoked out some bullies tho. wp:Teahouse is friendly, and please submit a proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab. best to build allies for a critical mass. cheers. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I've refactored the section heading which I originally created as "You may want to just avoid all FRINGE topics, especially WP:ARBPS" --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
Given [31], I don't think you understand NPOV nor FRINGE. Your personal opinions on the value of skeptical viewpoints contradict multiple policies and the decisions from multiple ArbCom cases. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Ronz buddy, you might want to avoid trying to cause a chilling effect on people in this way and you also might want to avoid systematic attempts to go nuke and pave articles and such things in a POV mode. i think i actually do understand NPOV policy very well and the Skeptic™ attacks on various topics violate that flagrantly. I think what we have here is you seeing things from a different point of view as me, and thinking i'm to blame when it's equally if not more likely that you're siding with a specific point of view that is systematically being pushed upon Wikipedia to its detriment and to the detriment of the common reader. So please take your own advice and learn more about NPOV, won't you, and please think reflexively about what you're doing here won't you? Seriously, how would you take it if i went to your talk page and posted "You might want to stop editing on Wikipedia because you don't seem to understand NPOV..."? Would you think it's good advice? Well-intentioned? Or might you have a slightly irked response? SageRad (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For observers of this dialogue, this is after various onerous exchanges at Talk:Paleolithic diet#Fad diet label? and after noticing the sort of thing that is going on with this noticeboard in which organized groups of people go around and attack articles with a particular agenda. Saying it like it is... is this ok that we have a group of people who wish to insert a particular subcultural ideology all across Wikipedia? If it were Scientologists everyone would be up in arms at going to war to prevent this, but it's Skeptics and few people notice the undercover agenda that is promoted by this group. It's not scientific and it's not skepticism. It's pseudoskepticism and scientism, which are very different things. I wrote the following on this, to provide some external sources beyond my own observations and thinking:
On the cultural place of Skeptic magazine as a source and skepticism of this subcultural sort in general (questioned in comments above regarding the reliability or POV nature of the Hall piece in Skeptic), there are indeed many sources that speak of this phenomenon as a subcultural happening. I just found a lot of these writings by googling about it. Daniel Drasin writes on it, this paper speaks about CSICOP and Skeptical Inquirer and "the Skeptics" as a group with a particular POV and agenda and other various sociological observations. And here is a list of various writings about what they call pseudoskepticism. I had come to these same conclusions and even began to use the term "pseudoskepticism" on my own in the last months while observing this social movement or social phenomenon in various media campaigns designed to discredit certain people or concepts, generally in line with an industrial modernity point of view, and to the detriment and insult of people and ideas to which they are hostile.
I'm happy to reword my statement to make it easier to take in. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think i misinterpreted your statement. I think i have a problem with its actual content. SageRad (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also find your bullishness in that response to be astounding. SageRad (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just quietly, but WP:NPOV doesn't mean what you think it does. We don't exclude POV sources, but we aim for balance, and we weight our coverage. Fringe views don't get equal space with mainstream voices. Perhaps you could read the policies again? This may help you have less trouble in future. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, I've been wavering over whether I should interject myself here, because I really dislike it when someone tells another editor "you may want to just avoid all" pages about a topic, when you are not obligated by any rules to do so. Telling an editor that they should not edit somewhere they would like to edit does indeed come across as bullying and borderline WP:OWN. So I can appreciate that you would not like being told those things. At the same time, I looked at the discussion in question, and I want to give you what I hope you will understand as friendly advice, that I do think that your position there was pretty fringe-y, and it's the sort of thing that could get you into further hassles. On the merits of the content, I would tend to come down on the side of the editors who disagreed with you, and it's a dispute that you would do best to avoid. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TIME FOR A WITNESS
Tryptofish, it is definitely bullying and the way in which this was done by Ronz was gaslighting, which is a very toxic and harmful behavior, and yours is also in the same vein. Chilling and gaslighting is happening here. Most clearly. It is harmful to people emotionally and it's harmful to the encyclopedia. That is what it is here, and i would like to add that Skyring is piling on here, and i would like to call a handful of witnesses: Jusdafax, Prokaryotes, Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, samtar, SlimVirgin to see this conversation here. This encyclopedia is infected with a harmful thing and this kind of behavior cannot continue. Gaslighting mobbing bullying behaviors are harmful to people, and they also can be used to bully positions into articles done in the name of a false "skepticism" that is anything but. The use of "fringe" as a label to discredit without actually discussing the thing itself. There is a bad thing happening here on Wikipedia, a hostile takeover that employs bullying tactics to achieve goals. It's harmful to editors, to the encyclopedia, and to the world at large. It must end now. SageRad (talk)
Responses
Not a term I'd heard before, but on looking it up, it is hardly relevant here. Except perhaps in a way you didn't intend. Wikipedia is a place of transparency and community wisdom, and it is easy to see what is going on. I say again, SageRad, you need to work with the community, not against it. If you identify yourself as the lone voice of reason crying out against the treachery and injustice you perceive here, then whether you are right or wrong you will not prosper on Wikipedia. Good to see you calling out to SlimVirgin: a respected leader here. Listen to what she has to say; she knows how the system works. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gaslighting means attempting to make a person question their own sense of reality or their own judgment on a topic as a way to remove resistance. Spinning reality for that purpose, discrediting a person's worth in terms of independent thinking, denying that abuse has happened, and attempting to distract and disorient the target. I think it fits. As to the rest of your comment, Pete, it's not how you portray it and i think you know it. It's not me versus the world. It's a very specific kind of thing going on. SageRad (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should look to your own behaviour and see how it fits, brother. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fully agree with Sagered, there are the usual editors who bully and try to ban everybody who aims for neutrality on articles they seem to have a very special interest in. That this can go on for so long is a sign that Wikipedia has flaws. Challenge their claims and ask for evidence, i.e. their most common frame of fringe, also see that fringe noticeboard where many of these editors are also very active. The best would be to topic ban everybody involved. prokaryotes (talk) 11:47, 27 December· 2015 (UTC)
I hope something good comes of all this. I'm a firm believer that editors need to watch their steps in Wikipedia: WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:GS all make requirements on editors that are a far cry from the implications of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My very, very strong advice to everyone is to dial down the antagonism here. What I'm seeing is that, after my previous comment to Sage, everyone is agreeing with the 1/2 of what I said then, that reflects well on them and badly on the other "side". But there should not be sides here. Sage, you commented on how the conduct could have the effect of dismaying you, could have the intention of making you feel bad. I'm genuinely sad to think that any editor would be made to feel badly about editing Wikipedia, and I want you to know that, in the long run, you will be supported if you in turn make a good faith effort. I've been on the receiving end of bullying in my own editing history, and unfortunately it's something that happens online, but fortunately, one can come through it stronger for the experience. And Ronz and Pete, I tend to think that you are correct on the merits of the content issues, so thank you for looking out for the content. BUT...
As I said, everyone here needs to stop listening to only 1/2 of what I said, and start listening to the other half. Instead of telling other editors to look to their own behavior, everyone needs to look in the mirror too. Sage, you talked about how gaslighting can deliberately create a feeling of cognitive dissonance, how it can make the victim question their own beliefs. I'm not seeing that happening here. I'm seeing you express some beliefs, in this case about the paleo diet, that go against the preponderance of reliable sources. It's a good thing for you to question and reevaluate those beliefs. I'm not going to coddle you in those beliefs, and neither will Wikipedia. It's a continuation of the problems that arose with GMOs. And Ronz and Pete, you need to lighten up. It's not OK simply because you are (in my opinion) right about the content. Coming to someone's talk page and telling them they should consider no longer editing in a topic area, and framing it as good advice, really does come across as bullying, and Wikipedia isn't going to go along with that either. I think that you both need to stop giving SageRad anything resembling "advice". Express your opinions about content at the article talk pages, and leave it at that. Sage does not need your guidance. Please leave him alone. If you reach an impasse with him, then seek support from uninvolved editors through normal dispute resolution.
Everyone, please stop blaming the other editor, and please dial it down. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no problems with SR editing in any particular topic area. I think it is an excellent thing if people with knowledge and understanding of a subject apply those resources here. NPOV, RS, and so on help us find a good outcome regardless of the personal opinions of the editors. The system is not broken. Jjudging by the results, it works very well.
SR has to change his outlook, otherwise he will have continuing problems with the wider body of editors. I do not say this lightly. I was once taken to Arbcom and indeed booted off the site by Jimbo hisownself. With good reason. It was a painful process, but an excellent opportunity for self-examination and I found the advice from other editors useful. Often in hindsight. It's sad to see SR travelling a similar road, but if you feel your own good advice is better than those of others, who am I to disagree? --Pete (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable about your last sentence, but maybe I misunderstood. It sounds like you are saying, to me, that you think that I think my advice is better than someone else's advice. Hopefully, I misunderstand, but I would never want to take that position on Wikipedia. Of course, anyone can disagree with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we all like to think that our advice to others is better than what others offer to ourselves. It is a common failing, not least with myself. Your own wise efforts here have been along more diplomatic lines than mine, so I will leave that field to you, I think. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored the section heading. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, your comments about the teamwork that from my observation employs, among other things, bullying and the misuse of MEDRS and "fringe", and ignores NPOV, are spot on. I'm not happy you've endured this constant onslaught, but it's very good overall in helping to expose this very destructive silliness. I tested this group to see if the claims of dedication to evidence/science outweighed what does appear to be a pro industry/government POV, and I can say that the results weren't good. I presented evidence that David Gorski is not credible because he does not represent science/truth all of the time, in fact he can seem very uncomfortable when questioned, and in this lecture, outright fabricated a response regarding GMOs.[32][33] This was ignored. I still find him cited in the Ledes of articles here as the sole critic if no others can be found. Almost a prince-like status has been awarded Gorski within the skeptic movement, a movement that indeed owns any relevant content in this encyclopedia, for all intents and purposes. It has been suggested that the personal views of the cofounder, being in complete alignment with this group, may play some role in the acceptance of this "house POV". All of this runs counter to building/hosting an encyclopedia. It's more of an op-ed in many ways. 174.71.67.48 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Warning regarding Talk page harassment
I have not followed the pages referred to, but what I see here appears to be insidious, continual low-level harassment of a Wikipedia editor. I have complained about it before, here and elsewhere, and there have been consequences. Rightly or wrongly, the harassment SageRad is concerned with gives every appearance of being orchestrated. I see several editors here who I now warn: you are building a strong case for sanctions against you. You appear to be attempting to push SageRad by offering WP:BAIT. The long history of battleground behavior you have with SageRad negates the specious plausibility of your "advice." I see the usual slimy devices employed. Enough is enough. Get the fuck out, I can't make it more clear than that. Jusdafax 02:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SageRad, Prokaryotes, and Jusdafax that the above "advice" looks more like taunting and harassment. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these the same editors who showed up at ArbCom and successfully argued for SageRad's topic ban? If so, it looks a lot like grave-dancing to me. Aren't there some sayings about UNWANTED ADVICE, like say, these? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it looks like a continuation of taunting and borderline harassment. Leave SageRad alone. I also implore SageRad to disengage from further discourse with these editors. They are not here to help you, and you have had many opportunities to learn that by now. Please do not continue to engage with them. Minor4th 06:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th, thanks for the support. If i edit an article and they come at me, then how do i not engage with them? In this case i was looking at Paleolithic diet -- nothing to do with anything where i've encountered them before. SageRad (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore them. Especially here in your talk page. In fact, banish them. Minor4th 13:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could WP:AGF, and with that in mind, re-read the advice you've had. Just a suggestion. -Roxy the dog™woof 14:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can assume good faith as long as possible but when the indications and clear reads on human behavior tell otherwise very strongly then you can no longer assume good faith. "Assume" means a default position with no other reliable information to the contrary, Roxy. There is a harmful bunch of bullies here in Wikipedia imposing their agendas on the place and your comment is part of that systemic infection. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th, the thing is that the people who have this kind of behavior are doing systematic work across Wikipedia, which affects the human species, and their bad behavior is symptomatic and strategic in regard to the agenda. Ignoring is not an option for me, as i am also a sensitive human being who wishes to get along well and cooperatively with others and to have good dialogue. In article talk pages when dialogue is not good, it clearly obstructs editing. When someone declares a consensus that is not there and brings you to court and bullies you and abuses you and gaslights you all the time, it can affect one and even bait one into a false step that then will be used to banish one.... i've been around the block now and i'm not passively accepting abuse. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AGF nutshell summary says ...
Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
The problem from where I sit, here on my own, lonely, without friends or membership of any sceptic organisation, in the cold wet north of the UK and still waiting for my Pharma cheque, is that anybody who disagrees with you is now categorised as a bully. It is a great shame. And very unfair on us. -Roxy the dog™woof 14:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy. Get the hell off his page. You and others abuse AGF, over and over, again and again. Bait, bait, bait. Grave dance at your peril, Roxy. At your peril. Jusdafax 15:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put off responding here after my ping as I don't wish to get dragged into anything or antagonize anyone further - after reading all this I'm only going to say the following: what I can see is a collection of good editors spending more time bickering than editing. Yes, I understand there are serious issues here - but does any of this really take precedence over why we all created accounts in the first place? Can we please leave each other alone and get back to contributing - SageRad is a good editor as is Roxy the dog and everyone else who is at each others throats. I know a lot of things were said which maybe shouldn't have been, by both parties - I'm afraid we're all sitting in glass houses on this one so there's no point pointing fingers. None of us wants to be upsetting another human being, so can we draw a line in the sand and get back to building Wikipedia? -- samtarwhisper 15:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not bickering. This is not symmetrical. Bullying is bullying. This affects newcomers to Wikipedia as well, and it affects many articles and the quality of those articles. It affects editor experience and emotional outcomes. This is ongoing and intolerable. I cannot just let it go. SageRad (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, I agree with you totally. Please look at comments being left about me at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 199#Appeal of ArbCom decision at GMO (2). Sage, I am not trying to hijack your thread here, I am simply offering evidence that these bullies will stop at nothing, even trying to discredit people whilst they are making perfectly valid appeals using the accepted processes. Sage, you are entirely correct, it is intolerable and something needs to be done.DrChrissy(talk) 17:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow up, it appears bullying and attacks on articles or sections are currently being coordinated on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Frightening (chilling?) behaviour.DrChrissy(talk) 18:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly right, I'm astounded no one has mentioned this. There is an interesting conversation at Fringe:talk that took lace over the summer. Tsavage ran into the same roadblock to adding good sources to GM articles - the fringe label was attached to anything certain editors didn't like, namely anything hinting at a question about GMO safety or the FDA's innocence. The talk page inquiries from Tsavage about this "fringe" label ended as you might expect. The usual suspects spent day and night talking in circles until he was exhausted and walked away.[34]174.71.67.48 (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fringe" as a McCarthyism
Thank you for the above link, IP user. I like the OP's writing there:
Since some recent discussions at WP:FT/N have called into question exactly what it means to be fringe, I'm starting to wonder to what extent WP:FRINGE actually operates as an independent guideline. If FRINGE did not exist, I think everything it promulgates would still be in force by way of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE. While its useful to have a single page as a clearinghouse that unifies how disparate policies impact fringe views, I think it has come to be used by editors in ways that are less productive. Particularly, its often treated as a sort of special double-plus WP:UNDUE. Instead it should be treated as an informational page, which points to WP:UNDUE, and content disputes should pitch their arguments directly in the language of WP:NPOV. Likewise, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:FRIND should be regarded as pointers to WP:QS, WP:ITA to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:NFRINGE to WP:NOTE, and so on, and the issues involved should be discussed directly in terms of the higher-level policies. Appealing to doppelgänger policies is a form of instruction creep. ... Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I do indeed see the "fringe" label being used liberally as a rhetorical means to block otherwise valid content. When you bring everything back to the original policies, good sourcing and due weight and neutral point of view are the best goalposts. The "fringe" label is used to oppose points of view that actually have sound basis in science and are significant points of view on topics. The "fringe" label has gone far beyond being applied to flat earthers.
Another comment in the same section is apt:
WP:FRINGE should be narrowed significantly. It should not be construed to include minority views, but should be viewed as Anythingyouwant has stated. Currently Fringe is used to promote WP:GROUPTHINK. GregJackP Boomer! 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, the label "pseudoscience" has been used too liberally to demonize people and concepts who are contrary to modern industrial mainstream values. There is real pseudoscience, but then there is science that calls into question the assumption of safety of some chemicals, and those are as valid as other science and ought to be evaluated in the same way. There's a slope, a wind, a strong push against non-mainstream viewpoints that i think is being used in a way that quashes valid criticism of establishment viewpoints. I support solid sourcing and attribution on every contested claim, and i support due weight being given to valid points of view. SageRad (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, yet again I agree with you totally. What I feel is happening now on WP is that the label "FRINGE" is being slapped on edit summaries, threads, talk pages, etc. with absolutely no consideration for what this really means. It should mean that there is a mainstream scientific point of view and that "fringe" is totally contrary to this. We need to challenge those who cry "FRINGE" to provide evidence that there is in fact a mainstream point of view. There can be two (or more) scientific points of view that are simultaneously mainstream - the issue has simply not yet been settled by the experts. Editors should not be challenged or bullied from presenting these alternative mainstream points of view.DrChrissy(talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, i agree. Science does not have a single or sole view on every question. Good science knows when it does not know something definitively. A true skeptic knows that there are many things that we do not know for sure, and will give some weight to two or more valid possibilities. I think it's not just the term "fringe" or "pseudoscience" but a pervasive attitude that is problematic. Please have a look here and see what is happening in the interpretation of a review article into the Paleolithic diet article. To me, it seems emblematic of a particular strong bias in interpretation of the article in order to impose a strong bias in the article that is in line with the Skeptic™ position on the article's subject, and against Wikipedia policies and good practice, by my reckoning. I don't see how any good editing can get done in this environment. I seek to make the article as NPOV as possible, and to do so, i questioned the way that this review was represented. I read the review article first, thinking it would be good to include it in the article, and then i saw it was already used in the article but was misrepresented in a subtle but important way. I brought this up on the talk page and got this amazing level of blowback, in my reckoning. I'd be curious to know your reckoning on this point, as an example of the theme talked about here, and to double-check my own strange sense that i'm actually seeing what i'm seeing there. Prokaryotes and Jusdafax, as people whose judgment i trust, i'm also interested to know your reckonings if you have the time and inclination to look at it. It's always good to double-check one's perceptions. I know we're editors of a similar disposition, and i don't like echo chambers, but right now i need some eyes whose judgment i trust. SageRad (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a topic I know next to nothing about. A cursory look at the article shows a strong unencyclopedic tone which is startling. I think you are right to question the tone and prominent use of the term "fad diet" which is hardly encyclopedic NPOV, as I see it. The cast of characters of the Talk page appear openly hostile, and in short it's quite a mess. Given said cast of characters, I'm reluctant to get involved at any level, and I think a large percentage of Wikipedia editors would feel the same way. As pointed out above, the toxicity appears to radiate from a particular WikiProject. Your reasoning in questioning the wording and slant seems sound to me. I'd like to see a wider selection of editors take a look at this, but given the gaming and gang editing that appears to be going on, I'm not sure the time required, for say an RfC, would be worth it. Distasteful situation, to say the least. Jusdafax 07:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jusdafax, thank you very much for taking a look. In a case like this, when there is a group of unified sort that is present there, and i am the lone dissenter, it is so very valuable to have a second pair of eyes attached to a mind that i trust. I know that i'm not crazy for questioning that article's neutrality, and yet those editors would have me believe that i am crazy, which is the essence of gaslighting (truly its definition). I knew next to nothing about the Paleolithic diet prior to taking an interest in the topic and the article. My genuine learning on the topic with as open and unbiased a mind as possible led me to see that the article was indeed heavily POV. I have no strong feeling on the Paleo diet -- i was not a supporter or adherent and knew little about it. Now i think it seems like a good concept to be aware of, a reasonably fruitful approach to some aspects of nutrition, but the article is so openly hostile to it. I'm really not able to swallow much more of the emotional stress that editing there has brought, so i'm probably giving it up. That is a case in point that shows the toxicity exuded by this ideological group of editors driving away dissenting editors. The unfriendliness and the gaslighting tactics are so hostile and toxic. I've heard numerous people say they stopped editing in the GMO and agrochemical areas because of toxicity causing emotional stress, and goodness knows it drove me to drink a few beers and is very bad for my health. But we need it to be recognized widely that this toxicity is a form of bullying, and it's a way of strong-arming a POV into article -- it's POV pushing through bullying. I thank you for your presence very much. Editors like you and several others give me heart and comfort in this harsh environment. It's sad but this is affecting the world at large, as Wikipedia articles are highly-used sources on many topics. Anyone who google "Paleo diet" would see "... is a fad diet" in the top of their screen... because of the bullying of a few editors, this is the way this concept is introduced to the world. That's not ok. Bullying ought not to determine knowledge of the world. That group of editors knows that this is the prize, and they are using very toxic tactics to achieve their ideological goals. And they paint you and i as the ones who are POV pushing... ironically and predictably. SageRad (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the point appears to be to establish the slant in the first sentence or two in the article lede, so as to make the Google search result stick out on the first look for a casual searcher, who may not even click the article itself. We are losing the encyclopedic tone of the Wikipedia "voice" to what could be termed ideological thugs, in my view. It should read at the very least that it is the view of some that it is a "fad diet" and not that it is a 100% established fact, which is what the article currently states. I think the tactics of slanting, and the methods used to shout down and stamp out any dissent whatsoever, as you continue to point out, are indeed toxic, and I continue to salute you for attempting to delineate this process. As you are one of the few editors willing to take the time to discuss the overall effect of such tactics, I believe the attempt to "get" you in one way or another approaches the level of a project or "test case." And conversely, I see few if any admins willing to step up to the plate to address this. With an exponential rate of editor loss due to this escalating situation, I have advocated that the WMF step in to effectuate top-down reform. It remains to be seen if that remedy is likely, but I am hopeful, especially as the cumulative effect of POV editing on articles on controversial subjects becomes obvious to even the most jaded or disinterested observers. Jusdafax 08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another issue with WP:FRINGE: it categorizes all conspiracy theories as fringe, whereas the actual definition of a conspiracy theory as given at the linked article's lede is:
A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused and/or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful. The term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies.
Now, the problem here is that conspiracies do actually happen in the world, and explanations based on conspiracy are often true. Not always, but sometimes, they are true -- just like scientific hypotheses. So for a guideline to define all conspiracy theories as "fringe" and therefore not allowable in Wikipedia is a fundamental logical flaw in the guideline. One example of an actual historical conspiracy is that of Monsanto Chemical Company in the 1960s and 1970s to continue to sell PCBs while they knew of serious and dire dangers from the chemicals and they knew that the chemicals were finding their way into the environment and that people were being exposed. They conspired to cover it up, to keep it quiet, in order to continue to sell the product for as long as possible. This is evidenced extremely clearly in their own internal documents as made public in later legal proceedings as documented at the Chemical Industry Archives website with dozens of linked PDFs of actual Monsanto documents stating the conspiracy. This is a real conspiracy that happened as far as anyone who looks at the evidence would conclude. However, the WP:FRINGE guideline might be used to rule out inclusion of this actual conspiracy in articles related to PCBs contamination. This would be harmful to the article, a denial of some reality to the reader, and not good for the world. It would also be illogical. It is illogical to assume that just because some conspiracy-based explanations are wing-nut, that all are fringe. SageRad (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, I think it would be best that I do not offer any comment on Paleolithic diet. There are many eyes on me at the moment due to JZG's ArbCom request for clarification about me and this is the type of article which people try to argue is covered by my topic ban.DrChrissy(talk) 16:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, i don't mind, DrChrissy, though this seems emblematic of the level of fear and intimidation under which some editors labor if they hold another point of view from those who have gained effective mob-like control of this place. SageRad (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is very emblematic. Can you believe that the other day I was having a real-life, face-to-face chat with a friend and I actually found myself checking my memory-banks to see if I was allowed talk to them about a subject! This is how the fear and intimidation changes people - in the real world.DrChrissy(talk) 16:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic™ mission statement
I just came across this blog site that has this mission statement:
The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. Why? Because evidence is cool. We train – We mentor – Join us.
Very interesting.
Susan Gerbic is now a Scientific and Technical Consultant for Center Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
The idea of a conspiracy of people who edit with an agenda (pro-skeptic or otherwise) is just unwarranted.
Some other good and useful and also interesting things there, like this:
Wikipedia is the sixth-most viewed website in the world. It is the closest thing we have to a repository of all knowledge. In my opinion, it is extremely important to make sure that content concerning scientific skepticism is accurate and well-cited. When people are looking for reliable answers to their questions about paranormal topics or are trying to determine the competency of a specific person, it is most likely they will turn to Wikipedia. It is our responsibility to make sure the answers they are getting are the closest we can get to being accurate. This is the goal of the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project.
Interesting. SageRad (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone freaks out, i want to say the following:
Skepticism is great! I am a skeptic! I support skepticism, and i support evidence and good sourcing! I support the best secondary articles to support claims.
I'm not saying there is a real deep conspiracy here, but there is an organized movement for an agenda.
The agenda is probably mostly good, but the problems come when the group gets overly self-righteous and then get bullying and unfriendly and toxic in their approach to editing, as if the means justify the ends, and especially when they turn their "Skeptic" eye to topics where actual skepticism would lead to other conclusions, and yet they still are just as self-righteous and think they are "rooting out the woo" but they're actually enforcing a compliant industry-aligned position for instance, and slamming someone just for their actual skepticism on things like the food industry. SageRad (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sage, and if I may, Happy New Year. Susan has made some terrific contributions to the project over the years, but the last substantive edit I saw her make, I had to revert straight away. I believe she also does Outreach work encouraging people to become editors, and helping them understand this editing environment. Is there any evidence at all of her 'group' not following PAG. Her 'agenda' seems to be very mainstream to me. -Roxy the dog™woof 10:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SageRad, I came here to check in and see if you still wanted to help out with Efficient energy use, but I can see what a mess you've just been through. I just wanted to offer my condolences and appreciation that you're sticking around despite the struggle. I know what a hostile place Wikipedia can be, but for whatever it's worth, I think that users like you are the ones that can make it the positive place we believe it can be. It might just be a drop in the bucket, but if there's ever anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FacultiesIntact. Thank you very much for noticing what's going on. It's an interesting situation here. Thank you for your kind words. It's so important that Wikipedia retain a neutral point of view and not become the tool for anyone's agenda. What was the sort of help you were seeking on the article? All the best. SageRad (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're having a good new year! I've proposed edits on the talk page to the Building design, Vehicles, and Alternative fuels sections, mostly expansions, and some minor rearrangements. I've got the actual edits on my sandbox here. Any help in reviewing them and adding them is greatly appreciated.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that Pete/Skyring has been hounding me
A self-admission is always very useful in a case where an editor is hounding another editor. Pete's been following me around and being onerous, and i'm going to start collecting diffs on things of this nature on my talk page, as i've found in the past that these things may become important. SageRad (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is in fact an admission of hounding, in my view. It doesn't get much clearer. Jusdafax 07:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will be interested in this. Jusdafax 16:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote: Alexa Brown
I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much!
The Helper Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to you for supporting my cause with the article Clyde cancer cluster, and for doing all sorts of research on your own, the same as me, and for understanding and helping others understand why the article needs to be there! Philmonte101 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And seriously, thanks a trillion! I have been looking for someone who can seriously understand everything and learn about it through research along with me, and who would be so helpful. I am almost ready to rewrite the article at User:Philmonte101/Clyde cancer cluster (which is now a redirect to the mainspace article). You might take a lot of interest in seeing User:Philmonte101/Clyde cancer cluster/References. It's a fully organized list of all the possible references we can possibly use (not yet completed, but almost), organized by date, and the ones that are undated are listed in alphabetical order on the top. To learn more information, especially in chronological order, that may be of interest to you. I'll let you know when I'm rewriting the article in case you're interested in helping with that. (: Regards, Philmonte101 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An outline was created
Hello. I am starting to see that I'm coming close to finally finishing my ref collecting at User:Philmonte101/CCC/R. I've reformatted all the references to fit Wikipedia's reference formatting standards using the template Template:Cite web, and I've also expanded a lot even from there. I literally have found up to 140 references now! It took me six hours of my time, which I don't usually have honestly, to reformat all the refs, but at least it's all done.
Anyway, enough about that. Since I'm getting close to finishing, I might as well let you know now before I go to sleep that I've created an outline of all the sections the article could possibly have at User:Philmonte101/CCC (yes, it's a redirect to the page to shorten my typing time). I'm not really sure if everything in the article's outline is really necessary. Each section contains a short, basic description of what will be in that section, and what more research has to be done for that section. I think the main problem with the article is the "cases" section which is supposed to tell medical information about the cluster. We should use all the medical or even semimedical references we can get obviously, but it's not going to be much. Anyway, feel free to look over it and leave comments about things I should add/take away/move. Happy New Year when I wake up! Philmonte101 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Superfunds? It seems like something you would be interested in and able to contribute a lot to if you haven't heard of it. Happy 2016! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Only in death, that's some reaching there. I was not editing outside of my topic ban, which is on "GMOs and agriucultural chemicals" -- i have been strictly observing it, and the lengths that you are going to is rather astounding. I posted links to another user's talk page to this story and this story regarding systemic bias in Wikipedia because of paid and otherwise biased editing, as a meta-level analysis on awareness of bias in Wikipedia's editing community. How about some attention on your own editing, such as your recent anti-consensus edit that reverts to content that misreports what a source says? The talk page is pretty clear, and it's hard to refute the actual words of the paper itself in regard to what it says. I have a lot of work to do. I don't need to waste my time on accusations like these, and also to dicker back and forth endlessly when you're the one pushing a POV into an article like Paleolithic diet. SageRad (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sage, I'm pretty sure that nothing will come of the AE, and I'm sorry that you got subjected to that. (I don't know what's going on at that diet page, and I don't want to know, but it's always a good idea to take things slow if there's a disagreement.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For your comment, "but [skepticism is] more like a subculture like those people who dress up for Civil War reenactments, not a field of study like sociology or anthropology or physics." We call it the Mousetrap Award when the target wanders into a box with free cheese (such as "I am a Skeptic") and the awardee quickly closes the trap. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello SageRad. I applaud your efforts to combat bullying on Wikipedia. Far too often, the victims are punished and the bullies get away scot-free. This is disheartening for the victims and must be harming the credibility of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is far too common, and indeed it is hurting the content of Wikipedia, as well as many good editors, Biscuittin -- in fact just right now i've been abusively spoken to at Talk:Paleolithic diet#It's not "academically unsupported". See an example of ganging-up behavior and abusive accusations there... i got to the end of my rope for a moment then returned to content. SageRad (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which an editor with a strong POV about the fossil fuel industry makes accusations toward me
"The basis of my reasoning is that i see a pattern of POV pushing bias here, and that is good reason for a tag."
the tag's purpose is not to facilitate the casting of aspersions on other climate eds' behavior. You should know this since you have already been slapped with a Tban on another topic. Instead, if your beef is a perception that others are POV pushing please address it on individual's talk pages or at ANI/AE.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i know the purpose of the tag, which is to indicate a problem regarding POV bias in the article that might need addressing, and that's why i support the tag being present for the time being, NewsAndEventsGuy.... on the other topic you present, i did not "cast aspersions" by observing a pattern of behaviors at that page ... it may seem like it to you, but i was making an observation about behaviors that i saw pretty clearly on that page there, and the force and ferocity of which was also quickly directed at me with bullying and rudeness as well, when i made it obvious that i didn't share the same point of view as the people who seem to have assumed ownership over that page... so altogether, my "beef" is with behaviors that are unbecoming on Wikipedia and against policies and guidelines and result in inferior articles with bias in them... and so you can take your accusation and take a hike with them to the ExxonMobil HQ if you like, but please leave me be to be an editor on Wikipedia... a perception of a systemic pattern on a talk page is fair game for a talk page, you know, and it's how an article can get sorted out, so it's really very relevant to the content of the article, because if there's a methodology of bullying being used to force or push a POV into an article then it's necessary to speak to that before the content can be discussed fairly in a collegiate and civil way, which is really the hope and goal of Wikipedia editing in its ideal form. ... and i didn't see that happening there, so i said that.. and your having a problem with me saying that is another layer to the onion... anyway, good day to you. SageRad (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's not neutral, please state your logical reasoning with citations to relevant policy/RSs at article talk. A naked statement of your opinion doesn't count and saying so is not an insult. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did so to a limited extent already on the talk page. I can speak without policy citations, you know. I am an editor and i can state my reckoning on the article. If you don't include alphabet soup of WP: links, it's still valid to state one's reckoning. I don't need to Wikilawyer to be an editor, unlike some people. In short, the removal and changing of the structure to remove a section heading that referred to ExxonMobil's funding of climate science denial is a flagrant aspect of what i saw as a pushing of bias into the article, and i believe i said so, or to that effect, on the talk page there. A naked statement of my opinion does count. I come, i read, i assess, i give reasoned response, and that is what editors do when they're being editors. When people are civil and collegiate, they don't need to Wikilawyer all day long, and actually discuss the content with some respect and some objectivity. Then the process works. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported statements of your opinion are hardly "reasoned responses". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is. You're going to call my input "unsupported statements of your opinion" if you're gonna -- and haters gonna hate... it's how the world works. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To: NewsAndEventsGuy. What "POV about the fossil fuel industry" do you claim that SageRad is pushing? I have not noticed it. Biscuittin (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started this thread with the heading "Casting aspersions in the climate pages". SageRad changed it so that it ascribes a POV about the fossil fuel industry to me. So you would do better ti ask him how he characterizes NAEG's POV (i.e., mine) about that industry. Or then again, to NOT ask. Because all that matters is logical reasoning based on policy and RSs, as relates to article improvements. In other words, this is all noise and we should be focussing on content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand this dispute. It's not clear to me what POV is being pushed by whom. Biscuittin (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following WP:FOC leads us to peel away the layers to ask about the original dispute, which is whether the article deserves an NPOV tag? There is a section discussing this at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
NewsAndEventsGuy, did you post this onto the talk pages of editors who made edits with reasons like "get a clue before posting" and other extremely rude things? Or did you post it only to my page because i apparently do not comport with your point of view so nicely as those others? Serious question. Please give an answer. Right back atcha -- i left you a DS alert on your talk page too. I hope you lik the gesture. It feels great. SageRad (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmm..... It's obvious from your comment that you are not fully up to speed on how the new DS alert system works. I'll let you do due diligence reading about it, and if you cite text from the rules that you think I broke then we can talk about it at that time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy, i didn't say that you broke any rules, though i think you're acting in a really unfriendly and uncollegiate way. I could probably cite some WP: behavioral guidelines and wikilawyer a reasoned case against you but i have other things to do and i'm a human here to work as an editor on a human level, and i don't care much for wikilawyering. So what makes you think i don't know how the DS alert system works? You left me a notice and i left you a notice, so that we're both aware that DS applies to that topic area, right? Is there something i missed about that? SageRad (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before you dig your heels in too much you might want to read the article on William Connolley, and also the arbitration cases linked in the DS notice. I think you may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion at some point. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If you re-alert an editor that has already been alerted to DS, that is very much frowned upon - the system puts up a big warning message to that effect. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it's a different set of sanctions. That is, the alert still appears (it's an edit filter, it appears on every occasion you try to leave the ds-notice), but there's no reason to assume that somebody notified of DS in one field would necessarily be aware of it in another. And frankly, nobody cares. Arguing about it is silly. It's a tick in the box if sanctions are requested, and of no relevance at all if you are confident your edits are within policy. Being alerted to a DS is not in any way shameful or stigmatising. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a clerical note, I did check Sage's DS alert history, and saw the DS for the other topic area. But since there was no DS alert for climate change I went ahead and issued one to him. I think the other participants at the article talk already were on notice about ARBCC, but if anyone was overlooked they should get one too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our rules require civility. They do not require friendship. I'm interested in concise policy and RS-based logic that results in great articles, and that's it. If you focus on content with logic based on policy and RSs I'll be glad to give anything you say about Exxon's funding of climate denial due consideration, and I'll watch for that at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy, this is silly. We should just drop this tat for tat thing and be friendly and civil. I didn't say we have to be friends. I said "friendly" as in "civil"... i've found your manner here on my talk page rather uncivil, and so i played with it a bit and didn't lie down to take whatever beating you seem to want to give me. But enough of this, i don't have infinite time, and there's actual content to work on. I simply dropped in from a notice on the NPOV noticeboard, where someone was asking for fresh eyes, and i provided my 2 cents over at the article, where i saw some pretty clear pushy behavior and content edits that were all going in one direction in terms of representation of a controversial corporation. So i said what i saw. Editors are often thanked for taking their time and energy to do this kind of reviewing. Anyway, good day. SageRad (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paleolithic diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.[35][36][37][38][39]
I agree that "academically unsupported" needs discussion and change, hence my adding a tag specifically to it. There's no rush. Please work on finding consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is no serious rush, of course, but there has been a lack of good behavior in regard to discussion in the efforts to seek consensus through evidence and reason at that talk page, Ronz, but thanks for the courtesy notice. I never wish to edit war. I'm done with that sort of uncivilized thing. However in several of those edits, there were clear reasons expressed in the edit reasons that would make them not actually constitute edit warring, but genuinely good faith response to previous edit reasons. It ought to be a question of simply discussing the content like adults and striving for WP:NPOV. I do wish that dialogue would be easier and more cooperative, of course. SageRad (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sage I don't want you to be under any illusions so I am going to clear this up. Edit warring is still edit warring if you are communicating, if you are acting in good faith, if you are right. They did consistent edit warring and you have 7 reverts over 3 days. Please don't be under the mistaken belief that it is not edit warring, I was seriously considering a block before this warning was made. Given that you have just been freshly warned I am not going to block but please don't think you were not edit warring. HighInBC 16:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC, ok then, if that's the definition -- if any revert that someone disputes is defined as edit warring, then are the other editors involved here also receiving warnings regarding edit warring? Otherwise, what's the difference with their edit warring versus mine? Does it come down to the number of reverts? or is the policy applied based on simply personal judgment? Or could i drop in an edit warring warning to them? How's this work? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our edit warring policy goes into great detail about what is and is not edit warring. Yes the number of reverts is a factor. A complete list of actual exceptions to the rule is here: WP:3RRNO. HighInBC 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. ok, thanks. I am only just now realizing that a "three revert rule" applies to any reverts on the same page, and not necessarily about the same material. That is news to me. So, apparently i did revert more than that number of times on that page. Ok... so now i know. I hate having to care about technicalities like this, and wish that people would bring it to dialogue with genuine good faith and seriously abide by reason and evidence. Anyway, now i know the actual meaning of 3RR, which i thought was only about reverting the same material. SageRad (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the technicalities can be frustrating. Without this rule though articles would tend to be written by whoever is most stubborn, this rule requires that a disagreement progresses into talk page discussion. The problem with debating in edit summaries is that the conversation is not easily seen or participated in by others and it fills our databases with revisions. HighInBC 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict> The best way to make it work is to keep your own house in order, no matter the chaos that swirls at your feet. You can do this best by strictly following WP:BRD, making effective use of WP:Dispute resolution when you can't get civil consensus on the talk page, and never-ever drop a warning on anyone when your intention is even remotely battle oriented. Instead, make sure you're only goal with warnings is to prevent disruption of the article and article talk. Read more at Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_warnings. ALSO.... note that you don't have to break 3RR to be considered EWing. The instant anyone restores a revert just one time w/o discussion, that's the first salvo in an EW. 3RR is just a rule about what evidence is indisputable. It is not a minimum threshold or anything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerned about your response to editor leaving an article
Is this the impression you want others to have of you? Can we assume that you aren't actually trying to drive off editors? Can we assume that you aren't summarily dismissing editors contributions to a discussion because they have been driven off? [40][41]
No I'm not, and I speak with integrity. Quit your harassment. Go away from door. You're deeply harassing and bullying. On that article there is obstructionism. It is so fucking obvious and nasty. I call it like I see it. People dropped out because they are pushing a bankrupt agenda and they see that finally and give it up with a flourish. Eyes of the world. SageRad (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided diffs. I don't believe I've misrepresented anything. I don't want to upset you, so I'll leave it there. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs ain't proof of an interpretive issue. Other editors there are verging on driving ME away. Only reason i'm all there at all is because I care about the encyclopedia and human knowledge. I invite ANYONE to read the talk page at Paleolithic diet and see what's happened there. The page is occupied with pushers of an extreme of view who are systematically making the article into an attack piece on its subject. Every simple edit toward neutrality takes ten thousand words and then there are ten more agenda driven edits done to the page. The page is owned by a group with a point of view. It's pretty obvious. And then one of them tries to make it seem as if I am the problem. That's classic Wikibullying. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're interested in discussing, I've struck out my questions and changed the section heading.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't think it appropriate to thank someone for leaving an article when they're clearly exasperated with your own comments, nor point out that same person's leaving as you did when discussing consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly exasperated there. I don't know what you're specifically talking about and I don't care at this point. That article is currently a cluster fuck of agenda pushing, and i'm pretty much driven away from it. I came to it in curiosity and because I saw blatant bias there, and yet the response has been a group pushing it further in the direction of the bias and lacking integrity in a way that would be laughable if it weren't actually significant in the world, in the dialogue in the talk page. Again, I invite ANYONE to read that talk page and form their own conclusion. I'd note that Roxy who commented above is with the same crowd typically pushing in the direction of the bias so that's not exactly an uninvolved voice. Anyway, such is Wikipedia these days... packs of editors with missions. SageRad (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has known me here, knows that I care very much about fairness and about treating people kindly. Also assuming good faith when it's possible, when there's not a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I believe in good dialogue. I believe in good sources and intellectual honesty. The charges here don't hold water. The context of any mage is key. You can't understand the full meaning without context. Even in regard to this editor Ronz, he has a history in regard to me, not a very good one. That's one more reason why I'm not taking this alligator tears very seriously and rather see this as harassment. Anyway this is Wikipedia today. The sum of human knowledge written by bullying and trickery. SageRad (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for pushing ideologies into articles by any means necessary. It's the place for sources to be reflected into articles that are neutral. -Roxy the dog™woof 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that different people have different ideas about what is neutral. It's the same problem we have with politics in the UK. People can't agree on where the centre lies. Biscuittin (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you see? this is exactly what im talking about, i post a clearly justifiable piece of information, about wikipedia critiscism, edits, and page creation, and your actions to essentially just delete, everything i said, are somehow justified, by what? you say that was out of place? how so, I created a new subline section, that didnt exist before. If it was out of place there, then please suggest where it would fit, because I really dont see where else it would fit. your actions, of deleting my post, are telling that exactly what im saying was true. THIS IS SUCH BS!!!!! This is why i posted about a complete lack of help. Then you sight some random rule, that nobody cares, or knows about, or literally has the time to follow through with. No I need to read some 5,000 word article, in order to say what I want to say? Why instead do you not just help me, properly place what I want to say, instead of removing the content? this happens everytime, people try to add viable information.
The above strange message is what i get for trying to help out a user. It has something to do with this but i really don't have time to deal with whatever this is so, sorry editor, but you'll have to learn how to work on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could explain for you Sage, if you want. I'm not sure you would welcome it though? -Roxy the dog™woof 10:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, Roxy the dog, if the explanation is simple enough. This is not something i need to waste time on though. SageRad (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
long story short. He thinks you are bullying him. -Roxy the dog™woof 08:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if there were a decent community, and they were to stand back and see what's happened, there would be not a blink of an eye of anyone thinking i'm bullying him where i actually stepped in to give him a message explaining why his page was deleted by some other user, if i recall it. Why don't you make the story a little longer, and tell me what's up, if it's actually concerning you and if there is actually anything i ought to be concerned about? Why the innuendo? Why not explain it as well as you can? Can't you see over at that user's page that i responded trying to be helpful to them, seeing as they seemed lost on Wikipedia? So why don't you try to help out, instead of whatever your involvement is here? What is your involvement anyway, Roxy? For other readers if there ever are any, you ought to know that Roxy has had a contentious relationship with me as well, and posting cryptic things on my talk page about bullying could be construed as ... weird ... i don't know what. So either be careful and explain well, or just please go and don't waste my time. SageRad (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are a bully. You just don't see it. You accuse others of the very things you do, and are blind to your own aggressive behavior. Scr★pIronIV 13:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never post a word on my talk page again, ScrapIronIV. You are an abusive bully. Get the fuck away from me. SageRad (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that if you ping me, then I do have the right of reply? I would suggest you not use that option, otherwise I will respond. Same thing goes with swearing at me, and calling me names on your talk page. No, with that in mind, look at what you actually wrote, and you will realize the truth of what you I said. Scr★pIronIV 14:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stay the fuck off my talk page Scrap Iron.... SageRad (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Just wanted to thank you for trying to keep things civil on the ExxonMobil page. I know you had a rough welcome and even though we aren't agreeing on all the material I can tell you are working hard to be both persuasive and civil in disagreement. Just wanted to say thanks for making that effort. Springee (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Veganism
I think we are trying to avoid arguing about the tag so we can focus on addressing and solving problems. Could you take a moment to comment about Zippy and Hogbin's concerns? Additional input is encouraged, because I can't make any sense of Hogbin, but Zippy is beginning to articulate his view. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas so how about allow the tag which makes sense, and then let people talk about it? Simple solution, eh? SageRad (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This [52] doesn't look good either. You need to calm down, and actually discuss the page, not other editors William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'd ask you to do the same, Connolley. Several of your edits at the ExxonMobil page were seriously gaslighting attempts to make me feel stupid for commenting. [53] for instance. "Get a clue before commenting" -- real fucking nice man. SageRad (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re [54]: if you don't undo that collapse, I'm off to ANI with you; removing people's responses to an RFC is completely unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
William M. Connolley yeah, it doesn't feel real good when someone hats your words, does it now? You've done that to me a few times already. I've got things to do, kids to spend time with, and life to live. That was NOT an RFC response. That was saying "Waste of time" which is not an RfC response. It's a poisoning of the well. You do it to yourself. You're hatting my words left and right -- maybe you'll understand how fucking annoying that is, as well as how unethical. By the way, maybe you'll consider that your so-called "response" to an RfC calling it a "waste of time" is actually not a valid response to an RfC. Eh? Don't hate me bro... take a look in the mirror. SageRad (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Connolley, i really do appreciate you clarifying your RfC response in this edit to change it to an "oppose" -- it really did not seem clear to me before as a response to the RfC other than seeming to denigrate the RfC itself as well as my motivations in calling it... speaking of which, you've just lectured me about not referring to motivations of other editors in talk page comments, and i would ask you to think about that same advice. Anyway, truce for now? Let's be good Wikipedia editors and go forward according to the policies and guidelines as strictly as we can muster, putting aside personal feelings and such. SageRad (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Topic banned?
As Oiddde has pointed out; you're subject to a topic ban: SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.... Oiddde further suggests that Dow Chemical Company would be covered by that ban. I'm inclined to agree. I think you should clarify whether you agree, and that you recent edits there were a mistake; or not William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all dude, you're hounding me so fuck off. Period. Secondly, I'm topic banned from GMOs and agricultural chemicals. The case was a farce but i abide by the letter of the ruling anyway. PFOA isn't a GMO or an agricultural chemical. Simple as that. Now leave me the fuck alone. SageRad (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Note on the above: "Oiddde" stands for "Only in death does duty end" which is the username of an editor who's been following me around sometimes and raising ruckus against me in an onerous way. But that refers to a conversation on the talk page at Talk:Dow Chemical Company#Recent edits are unwarranted where it appears to me fairly strongly that "Only in death" has followed me and decided to take issue with a recent edit of mine there that had support and no objections on the talk page for some days beforehand. Note the onerous dialogue by Only in death at Talk:Paleolithic diet earlier, which was part of a gang of opposition that caused me to stop even editing that article at all, essentially fed up and outnumbered by people who care more for a POV than policies. And also Only in death has brought more drama to me with User talk:SageRad#Arbitration enforcement which is archived here.... all in all... who's got time for this? Not me. I just wanted to make the trail plain and clear, that there is this editor who seems to have a vendetta against me, follows me around and causes issues for the hell of it.
My topic ban is on GMOs and agricultural chemicals, and i've been respecting it. Still i've edited about Styrofoam and Polystyrene and PFOA and other chemicals, as that is an interest of mine -- and it's not prohibited by the topic ban. I guess in a long-shot sort of way, my mention of the Bhopal disaster to use as a metaphor in regard to structuring an article might be construed as a topic ban violation because that was -- as i have now learned -- a disaster that arose from a pesticide factory, so it did involve an "agricultural chemical" in that sense, so from now on i guess i won't be able to mention the Bhopal disaster, right? It's so strange... it's a gag order on a human being. It makes no sense. If a person is persistently problematic, then let's kick them off of Wikipedia, if they cannot seem to learn. But piecemeal topic bans are so alien to the nature of knowledge and human beings. If an editor is just ruining the process on a particular article, and they can't see it and won't quit, then their behavior is a problem. Give them a 3-day block. If they persist, a one-week block. If they can't stop then a few months... something like that. But don't tell a person that they cannot refer to a whole section of human knowledge even tangentially... that's a sick aspect of modernity, thinking we can partition knowledge. Sure, i won't be editing on GMOs or agricultural chemicals -- and i haven't -- though the arbitration with ArbCom was a travesty and a farce. I still know the realpolitik, even if i don't respect that decision in spirit. I'll obey it to the letter. But people need to stop being assholes if i edit about PFOA and they try to say that i'm violating my topic ban because Dow also makes agricultural chemicals. This is not about agricultural chemicals. It is about PFOA, and i can edit on that topic. Water is used in farming, and water is needed for speed skating. Can i not edit about speed skating if it wanted to? Hey... it uses a chemical used in agriculture... i better be careful because they used the phrase "broadly construed".... In effect if you construe broadly enough, then i just can't edit a fucking thing anymore because everything is related to everything else when you construe broadly enough. Anyway, i'll edit on Styrofoam if i want to. And i have... flagrantly. And not in a bad way, just correcting a few little facts, like editors do...
Hey, i just contributed on the talk page at Talk:Veganism, but that topic is partly about food and it has some intersection with GMOs at some level, as well as agricultural chemicals at some level ... should i be banned from editing there?
I wish we could be intellectually honest here, and have our word respected. I wish we could respect each other, not attack each other. I wish we'd refrain from hounding others just because we have a clash at some article or another. People have different points of view, and we'll have conflicts now and then. It doesn't need to get nasty, and we certainly don't need to go WP:HOUNDing people across multiple pages, and bring up ANI cases and all that. Who's got time for that? Who's got motivation to do that? Maybe those who are motivated to hound people need to have their hounding WP:BOOMERANG back.
The topic ban says the you are banned from pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. Even if your specific edit is not about the topic, if the page involves the topic then it is covered by your ban. HighInBC 17:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, SageRad. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Polychlorinated biphenyl here and at WT:MEDRS here.
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at WP: Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
User:SageRad, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SageRad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SageRad during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
samtar {t} 11:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧
Scr★pIronIV 14:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)