Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 13 February 2016

Template:NoBracketBot

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

RfC (procedural) question

Hi there Sarah,

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

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

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

RfC question

Do the sources support the content?

Content:

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

Final statement by closer:

I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah, thank you so very much for your help. Really priceless. petrarchan47คุก 07:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sammy, the reason this phrase "GMO paranoia" exists is due to PR (tobacco science) with no small amount of help from WP. Not only does this site falsely indicate that there is no science showing any concerns, but it excludes even the most mundane facts that would present a balanced view. For instance I was reverted for trying to add mention of the amount of support for labeling GMOS in the U.S. That's right, not even that is allowed in our articles. As you saw, Domingo calls the results "serious cause for concern". There is additionally Krimsky 2015, which reviews 22 studies in the literature that have found harm. But as long as WP bends over to this "skeptic" POV, and to the group that rules content by bullying the living daylights out of GF editors, this idea that the science on GMO safety is settled will persist, and articles will remain biased. Imagine an "encyclopedia" being responsible for making facts and the truth harder to come by, rather than the opposite. It's downright Orwellian. petrarchan47คุก 07:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Thank you for checking out the sources and seeing that the editor lied about them. I wish more non-involved editors would do that. For the record, I do not assert that the literature review by Domingo said the studies found actual harm, but Domingo clearly says that about half the studies have found potential harm and "serious concerns" and hence further study is necessary to assure safety. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about (please don't name the editor), but it could have been a mistake or matter of interpretation. SarahSV 07:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It could not have been. I agree this is not the place to discuss it, though. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I wouldn't have mentioned it here had I not already said it directly to him. petrarchan47คุก 07:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy is correct. There is no possibility that it was anything other than lying and mockery of the wiki-judicial system. I am more than happy to show you where the discussion took place. It made me ill. I have considered appealing the decision it is that bad. However, the recent appeal I pinged you in is an even greater miscarriage of justice and double-standards. If a decision like that is not overturned and editors who try to explain why it is a problem are told to shut up and threatened with Boomerang for participating, there is little hope for any justice for anyone on Misplaced Pages. Guilty until proven innocent, where certain accusers can do and say whatever they want and their testimony taken at face value, even when proven false, and the accusers' contributory violations of PAG that lead to the problem are completely disregarded and only the behavior of the accused is considered, and the slightest shred of evidence turns the editor into a monster that must be destroyed, so the accusers can continue their POV editing unopposed by those who do not share their strong POV. I'm sorry but that is really, really not a healthy editing environment.  :( --David Tornheim (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, I haven't followed the GMO debates on WP, so I don't know what the key points of dispute are or what to suggest. Speaking in general, if you think someone has deliberately misrepresented a source, you can take it to one of the noticeboards, but you would need a strong argument to support that it had been done on purpose. As for the current AN/I, I would tend to trust MastCell's judgment if he says someone has become disruptive enough for a topic ban. But again, I don't know the editor or the issues. I'm sorry I can't help. SarahSV 01:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the lying took place AT one of the noticeboards, and none of the admins checked it. That is what I meant above about making false statements that are trusted at face value and proof that they are untrue is ignored. At least the two editors above recognize the problem in that instance. Thank you for your reply. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: When you said, "if you think someone has deliberately misrepresented a source, you can take it to one of the noticeboards", which is/are the proper NB for that? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: it's impossible to say without knowing the details. You know the details and you're familiar with dispute resolution, so you're in a better position to judge. SarahSV 21:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition

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

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

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

You've got mail!

Elvey 08:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing vs. FRS bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endgame

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

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

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

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

Page Protection

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate you looking at this Sarah. Is it possible that slakr might also have time to review it, before it gets closed / moved? I still feel like the page should have been restored to a version before the edit-war / sock occured, which seems more appropriate. I don't want to see editors have to continue to deal with this again, and again, on the same pages. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. I see the User has tracked me to your talk page, which is a reason editors often don't want to create usernames here. The content that the IP removed was also 'well sourced, and relevant' and also met the guidelines of Consensus, seemed more to the point, and more WP:NPOV. I guess the User felt it wasn't biased or negative enough? It's unfortunate that I felt a report was more accurate, since my accidental research seemed to uncover more edit-warring, than simple content dispute.

I just re-read (again) the "discussion" (mistaken for consensus) over this on the Clemson article talk page, which was merely "carryover comments" from an AfD over a deleted article.. "Over a dozen editors" as GarnetAndBlack misunderstood, did not actually "work" on this, meaning any writing or editing to the actual article or section, and "merge" or "redirect" to football article "in some fashion." It didn't say how. They simply "discussed" the deletion of an article deemed inappropriate and unnecessary to[REDACTED] created by User:ViperNerd, who was later banned from[REDACTED] for constant edit-warring.. Thör did a poor job of handling this from the start back in 2008, although nothing is set in stone. JustAGal2 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The more I read about this Sarah, however, the weirder it gets: User:ViperNerd, User:129.252.69.40, and User:GarnetAndBlack are all suspected to be the same user, which seems even more evident since all of the reverts are almost exactly the same: starting here, and , , , and identical to the ones made 3 days ago. I just don't think this ViperNerd / GarnetAndBlack understands that "consensus" and "WP:COMPROMISE" are both active, necessary, and continuous parts of the editing process, and continuously change from editor to editor, allowing the encyclopedia to be "gradually added to and improved upon over time." JustAGal2 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea, JAG2. Why don't you try to con another yet another user (you've only hit up four so far today) to help you circumvent the consensus that was established in Clemson Tigers football through the work and agreement of over a dozen editors back in 2008 , simply because you don't happen to like the facts that were added by a merge that appears from the discussion archived on the Talk page to have been unanimous. If you are successful in sanitizing this article of well-sourced material that doesn't suit your POV, what's next on your agenda? Are you going to have the two probations mentioned with nearly the same level of detail in South Carolina Gamecocks football reduced down to a couple of sentences? Are you going to lobby to have the Reggie Bush scandal minimized in the Southern California Trojans football article? Are you going to file an AfD nom on SMU football scandal? I'm genuinely curious if your distaste for relevant material that reflects in a negative fashion on college football programs is universal in nature, or only when it concerns Clemson University. Oh, and when you make future edits to remove well-sourced information from articles, will you write misleading edit summaries as you did in the Clemson football article in an attempt to make it appear as though you are making innocuous additions rather than deleting material added by consensus? Inquiring minds would like to know. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2, Boomer Vial and GarnetAndBlack, the next step is to reach a consensus regarding the content. I see some discussion has started, so that's the thing to focus on. I've put the page on my watchlist, and I'll look out for anything untoward. SarahSV 04:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite continued denial by JAG2, consensus was reached over 7 years ago regarding content in the section of the article in question. That's why the final comment in the Merge discussion is "so we have consensus then?" and not only was there no apparent objection raised to closing with consensus, there was no subsequent debate about the material added to the article by Thör as a merge from the separate article dealing with Clemson's two probations. JAG2 does not have the right to start an account on Misplaced Pages and four days later make the unilateral determination that Thor "did a poor job" and use that opinion to override the consensus arrived at through the discussion and agreement of a dozen or so editors (more than that if you go back and review the messy AfD of the article that was merged), no matter how little esteem JAG2 obviously holds for the "work" of these individuals. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a static project, and improvements can and must be made to all articles, but the deletion of well-sourced and relevant content from articles simply because it hurts the feelings of one editor is most certainly not an improvement. As I've pointed out on the article Talk page, if JAG2 has additional sourced material to add to the "Danny Ford era" section of the article (or any other section), then those edits are welcomed (with honest edit summaries, hopefully), but JAG2 has provided no reason that would be supported by policy for ignoring existing consensus by significantly altering the material that was added as a result of what was in fact WP:COMPROMISE. Also, these continued excuses for why an obviously experienced Wiki editor is operating using a brand-new account are getting tiresome, especially for someone that is crying wolf about my supposed sock puppeting. Or perhaps JAG2 is unfamiliar with WP:SCRUTINY? Also, some reading of WP:NPOV would appear to be in order for this editor, as NPOV guidelines most certainly do not state "no negative facts allowed". In fact, an article that contains nothing but the positive aspects of a given subject (or mentions negative aspects in only the most cursory fashion) is decidedly POV. Misplaced Pages is not the place for this WP:NOT#FANSITE WP:NOTADVOCATE. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I see a lot of quoting of policy to other users in comments and talk, but not very much following in the history logs on articles in terms of edits, writing, and dealing with other editors. I would like to respond to User:GarnetAndBlack perhaps, who I noticed must not have access to that other IP today, if he can manage not to edit-war or bully me over my own error correction I made on talk. It might be helpful to remind GarnetAndBlack not to simply revert other people's work which removes additions without fixing it by doing an older revert as he often does on article pages, which in turn disrupts other's work. It's time consuming to have to add those edits back in. Thanks Sarah for your help so far. I am going to try my best to deal with a situation that no one seems to want to deal with, and work on the content. JustAGal2 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely hysterical that you would comment on my edit history on Misplaced Pages in terms of content creation. Have you looked at your own in your "first four days" on the project? I put that in quotes, because we all know this isn't your first rodeo on Wiki, don't we Thomas? I'll put my record up against yours any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. I've created entire articles here, and helped to maintain those dealing with USC athletics for over six years. The only periods of that time that have been tedious or unenjoyable are when tendentious editors like you pop up to disrupt once stable articles through vandalism or deletion of relevant, well-sourced content in an attempt to push POV. I'd suggest that you carefully read over some of the policy pages I've attempted to point you toward, unless your continued pattern of editing here is going to be to ignore guidelines and established policy. As I've stated over and over, if you want to add relevant, verifiable content to any articles on Wiki, you won't get any resistance from me, as long as your additions are well-sourced and NPOV. I guess we'll see how well you can respect the rules here when the protection on Clemson football is lifted. I'd like to assume good faith, but based upon the behavior I've witnessed to this point, I'm not holding my breath. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I was considering a page break, but really I meant to place that "new section" in with my original post about content in this newer talk section, which I explained in my comments. Can I not do that, as a re-edit to my own post, or copy paste back in? I was coming up with ideas last night, and meant to preview that before I posted, but misposted along with my original unedited, unsigned version instead, which keeps getting reverted on the page now. Sighs. I also wanted it that way, so other users could actually see it, and discuss the points. There is so much defensive cruft on the page now. I guess I could consider starting a new section, since this is supposed to be more about consensus, compromise, and new ideas. Thanks for the BLP break. It was something that occurred to me, but really more about future revisions if anyone ever wanted to contribute or add any. JustAGal2 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

JustAGal2, once someone has replied to your post, you can't change it significantly. Otherwise it looks as though they replied to something they hadn't even seen. SarahSV 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin does it matter when one uses "u" or "yo"? ;) I understand, but since it was only one post, and re-edit of my own post, no exception? But you see why I put it there? He seems almost threatened by changes that might be for the better. I am beginning to think that incident report being viewed as a content dispute might be a mistake. I'll look at the BLP tonight if I can JustAGal2 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: notifications, whether it's "u or "yo" makes no difference except punctuation. Re: BLP, thanks, but don't feel you need to spend a lot of time on it; I meant only that you should list any clear BLP violations, if there are any. I'll close this now so you can continue it on article talk. Best of luck with the article. SarahSV 01:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Brian. I'm sorry to see that it didn't succeed, but best of luck for next time. SarahSV 22:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Tushar patil

Social working 2usharpatil (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK for a user to keep deleting stuff from his/her talk page?

Thanks for your help with dealing with this user: IP 70.124.133.228 (see e.g. schistosomiasis article or more recently helminthiasis! Much appreciated! The edits of this person are not always bad (which makes it confusing to know what is really going on here) but what is super strange is that he/she keeps deleting all our comments/advice from his/her talk page and only very rarely engages on the talk pages of the articles. Is there any policy or rule about deleting information from one's talk page? I find it really bad style and would have thought that it's only allowed if the content is abusive or spam? EvMsmile (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

EvMsmile, it isn't good form that he keeps doing that, but it's allowed. If he removes it, you at least know that he has seen it. SarahSV 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly making an effort...

... blatantly ignoring the topic ban at this point. Bearing in mind they are banned from GMO's and agricultural chemicals broadly construed, how is making edits to a pesticide article, about a chemical described in our own article as a 'biological pesticide' abiding by their topic ban? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad

I see you recently closed the Arbitration Request for Enforcement on SageRad based on them understanding and agreeing not to edit articles related to their topic ban - "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." EdJohnson clearly explained to SageRad that "Pesticides are agricultural chemicals" and thus part of SageRad's topic ban. SageRad's next edit after agreeing not to edit articles covered by their topic ban was to edit the article Larvicide , even though the article topic is clearly identified in the opening sentence as an insecticide. Clearly either I or SageRad are not understanding their topic ban. Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding...

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.

...your note on JilllyJo's talk page here. First, thank you for addressing this growing problem. Secondly, I don't know if you've seen this individual's response here, but I need to let you know that they are seriously downplaying their "involvement" with me and seeking me out. Their editing interests in the short time they've been editing with the JilllyJo account appear to be all over the place. Nothing so strange in that. But ever since they first appeared here at the Billy the Kid article, which I am in the process of trying to bring to GA since I nominated it, they have been following me to numerous other articles and commenting about me to an editor who has a history of harassing me that goes back over a year. That most recent harassment includes a very obvious effort complete with pleas to the GA reviewers to fail the BtK article for GA (if interested in the specifics, look at the GA review page and article talk page) as well as an attempt to have me blocked through an AN/I report that went nowhere (the same report JilllyJo refers to in the comments at MF's talk page). JilllyJo has been there at each instance. The visits to my talk page today are the latest escalation. Their comments about comments I left at AN3 (with an insinuation that I've broken my 1RR restriction by reverting what they've left at my own talk page. This is behavior Ritchie333 addressed when he said he wouldn't put up with editors trying to get me "in trouble" when he lifted my recent block and put me on a 3 month 1RR restriction. I'm not sure who this individual really is, or why I'm on their radar. But if you look at their earliest of edits, the types of edits being made, and the Wiki-terminology they have used very comfortably from the start, it's obvious they aren't new to Misplaced Pages. A sock, a sleeper account? I don't know. It doesn't really matter at this point. I just would love for them to take your advice and stop seeking me out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I'll keep an eye on it. It's better for everyone just to get on with their own work. SarahSV 00:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow all this analysis over me writing on your talkpage winklevi about working together on the btk article. I guess if I were paranoid I could say much the same thing about you at articles and pages where I also have edited. It is not true that I reverted anything at your talkpage. So put up the diff if I I did. Accusing someone of sock puppettung with no evidence is not proper. All of these comments by you here follow the error that someone thinks I reverted you on your talkpage when you blanked a warning I left. I did not. In your snarky edit you summary you accused me of borderline harassment. All of these actions you are taking regarding me are harrassment, because I never reverted anything at your talkpage. Your behaviour here is disruptive and harrassing to me and tbe[REDACTED] project. I cannot help it if you do not like working with your term you use derogatorily "red-linked" editors. Leave me alone. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)