User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Jury duty

You mentioned your interest in a jury duty concept a couple times at Jimbo's talk page. Unfortunately it's in the middle of some back and forth about some other issues, but I'm broadly supportive of a related concept, which I hope you will review. Think of it as a voluntary jury duty concept. Tour of Duty--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thanks for your message! It could be voluntary. There are many ways to go about it. The advantage of making it mandatory--and that would have to be for editors who have a min. # of edits, not brand new editors--that it would be more NPOV. If it's too much of a volunteer, it just ends up being like everything else, right? We don't want self-selected juries, but non-COI, non-involved juries, and yes, who do it as a duty, not for POV reasons.

Have you been discussing it somewhere else? I don't know where best to push for it. Village Pump? I imagine this has come up before and I would like to read up on what was tried or considered and why it went nowhere and see if there is a way to move the idea forward.

Slimvirgin suggested I take this to, I think, the foundation that was looking for ideas. I need to follow up on her suggestion as well.

If you want to take the lead on this, I would support that if we tend to agree, that might make it easier and we can collaborate on how to make it viable... Wikid77 also seems interested. I'd rather work with a team of interested people to start with rather than first try to sell the concept to those who are already skeptical of it.

I posted on this a few months back with a number of ideas.

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see you have User:Sphilbrick/Tour_of_Duty. I'll take a look at that. Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to walk the tightrope between mandatory and purely voluntary.

This is a volunteer project, and while it may be mandatory to follow certain rules, it isn't mandatory to work in any particular area. If something is made mandatory, many people, myself included, will push back.

So if it is voluntary, why is it different than now? The difference is that we create the prestige of having earned a Tour of Duty award. The community has decided what the "dirty jobs" are , and you have stepped up and completed one of them. It could become a contest. In the same way the Guild of Copy Editors runs regular contests, with awards for winners, editors might compete to see who could do the most Tours of Duty, or the most challenging Tours of Duty. My hope is not to make it mandatory for a wannabe admin, but something that would look good on a prospective admin's resume - more so than completing a few DYKs. In many cases, they would demonstrate proficiency in important areas - if you help depopulate a CCI, others can look to see if you have a grasp of copyright policy. If you volunteer to handle a number of disputes in a dispute resolution forum, we will be able to see how you handled a stressful area. It wouldn't have to be mandatory - it enough editors running for admin decided to complete one, the editor choosing to run without one is still eligible, but may have to explain why they didn't step up.

The other thing I like about it is that the community could help identify the most pressing problem. It is great that the Guild of Copy Editors runs their contests, and gets editors to help out, but is that our most pressing need? I think the Request Edit backlog is important. I think the CCI backlog is important. You might identify an area that is importnat and maybe I don;t know much about it or why it is imporntat. If we as a community identify some areas and rank them, we can find out which are the important tasks which are not being covered. Obviously, content creation is important, but thankfully, many editors are stepping up to the plate. I'm talking about identifying the areas where people are not stepping up to the plate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your idea is fine for gaining volunteer experience for one's Wiki-resume. And jury duty could be one element of that.

When it comes to all the work that needs to be done, I agree that assigning editors to do just any dirty job will turn people away. The existing system to allow people to choose "dirty" jobs they like seems to work, but yes, I am sure there are backlogs.

Jury duty is a bit different, because the idea is a jury of ones peers -- avoiding COI is crucial, far more so than the other tasks you talk of. In the U.S. its guaranteed in the Constitution. At Wikipedia, you are supposed to be judged by your peers, but your peers are whoever shows up. Allowing a lynch mob to "volunteer" to judge the accused is not a "fair trial". Neither is having everyone's friends and relatives make up the entirety of the jury.

In the U.S., my understanding is that if you want the right to vote, you agree to be available for jury duty. If you don't want to vote, I think you get out of it. We could have a requirement that if you want certain abilities, once you go past X hundred or thousand edits, you have to step up and and be available for jury duty for a certain period of time. (In California (or just SF), if you are summoned but don't get picked for your jury, you are off the hook for an entire year.)

Rather than make it mandatory, another option is that if you want the right to have trial by jury (or perhaps other privileges), you have to serve on a jury first within the last __ period of time. Then it is not mandatory and puts no new burdens on anyone.

I'm just brainstorming. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI There is already a "jury service" approach on WP. The WP:DYK article says For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)—​​this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Perfect! Thanks for the info. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Wehrmachtbericht at the NPOV noticeboard. As a follow-up, I posted a link to the Talk pages where it had come up, and it may have helped to sway an editor's opinion, which originally was for inclusion: Wehrmachtbericht transcript. It was great to get input from uninvolved editors, so thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: You're welcome. Glad it helped. Too often the noticeboards are filled with involved editors, especially when disagreements are strong/polarized. I hope you can being a similar non-involved comments to disputes you see. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

AE

There is a case where you are a named party at WP:AE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

GMO stuff

Hi David. I watch Groupuscule's Talk page, and I have seen what you are writing there. What they haven't told you, is that after she challenged the language about the scientific consensus on GMOs, we held what is called a "request for comment" (RfC) to get the community to weigh in, on whether the language was appropriate or not. The community did weigh in, and the clear consensus was that the language and sourcing is good.

Before you go much further, I recommend that you read about RfCs here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment so that you understand what they are, and how they are used.

Please also see the RfC on this question, which you can read here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_6#Request_for_comment_on_.22broad_scientific_consensus.22.

The thing you are questioning has been discussed many, many, many times on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC. The scientific consensus remains the same. (please note that scientific consensus is not the same as unanimity. And please also note that the statement of the scientific consensus in the article is if written carefully and precisely. Some people don't read it carefully, and think it is saying more than it is.

Happy to discuss further, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (note - corrections made per markup Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC))(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi Jytdog: Thanks for your response. I have looked at the RfC and will continue to look at other Wikipedia articles, cited articles, research and sources. I disagree with the claim "No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC." Firstly, there was and is no scientific consensus as is claimed. There may have been a majority of respondents to the RfC that believed that was the case, especially given the widespread dissemination by pro-GMO advocates starting with quotes by Pamela Ronald and promulgated by groups with ties to industry like the Genetic Literacy Project, which have carefully cherry-picked quotes to make it look like there is a consensus when there is not. (I don't deny cherry-picking by those with concerns about GMO's, and I have seen widespread distribution of at least one study on rats getting cancer, which was not good science.) I have 2-3 articles, published a year AFTER the RfC was closed that carefully examine the quotes of leading science organizations and regulatory agencies provided by the GMO proponents. Those articles show how misleading and unrepresentative many of these quotes are and all of the qualifications that come with them. I looked for the quotes myself in the source documents provided by the GMO proponents and found the exact same misrepresentations and cherry-picking described. Secondly, because the GMO products are heavily studied and published, how can you be sure nothing published lately could possibly be relevant to any claims of a consensus? Are you an expert in the field and paid to keep up on all the journals? The three articles I am referring to that dispute the "scientific consensus" claim are here:

• Short Summary article
• Full Article mentioned above in PDF
• Another short article

That is all for now. I am considering moving this discussion to the talk page and/or pointing to it from there. David Tornheim (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking with me. I'll respond in points:

• Your first two sources are the same; the first is just an excerpt of the second. That you refer to the set as "three" articles is a bad sign. If you intend to go forward with this, and you continue to say things that are as blatantly untrue as that, your efforts are going to go no where. (I am not accusing you of lying or anything - my guess is that you don't understand how Wikipedia works nor how we handle evidence here).
• Moving to the two sources themselves - the first is an advocacy piece, published in an advocacy journal; the second is by the very well known anti-GMO advocate Claire Robinson, again published on an advocacy website. Neither of those are the kind of independent, reliable sources that we look for, especially in controversial articles. (You will find tons and tons of writings by Robinson and her colleague Jeremy Lantham on anti-GMO websites. The two of them work out of a small nonprofit in Ithaca NY and they have launched many small organizations and publications to put their views out there - they are very clear dissenters from the scientific consensus)
• You ask me how I know that no science has been published since then that overturns the scientific consensus. Answers:
  • If new studies had been done that actually overturn the scientific consensus, this would be HUGE news - there would be reports about them on the front page of the New York Times and every major media outlet.
  • I watch the GM articles in WP, and nobody has brought any sources describing new science that even pretends to overturn the consensus
  • i read some of the scientific literature (including general ones like Science and Nature, which report on major findings in all fields), and have seen nothing myself.
• Moving to higher level stuff. You write: "there was and is no scientific consensus as is claimed." I understand that you believe that to be true. However, the description of the scientific consensus in our articles is supported by an enormous pile of sources that are very, very solid. The sources and statement went through an RfC and withstood it. You will see that Groupuscule presented their list of objections during that RfC and others did not find groupuscule's arguments to be persuasive. If you are going to challenge the content and sourcing, you are going to have bring new and very strong sources. As I said, such sources don't exist as far as i know, and you have not brought any in this discussion.
• Lastly, and this may be the most important thing. You start out writing "I disagree with the claim "No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC." and you appear to begin making arguments to support that claim (the next sentence starts. "Firstly....") Please review what you wrote above. In all that text, you did not present a single - not one - piece of evidence that new science has been published since the RfC that overturns the scientific consensus. If you disagree with a statement of fact, you need to actually bring evidence. Again, if you decide to actually start trying to change the content of WP articles you are going to need actual evidence presented in very very good sources.
• Let me say finally, that the scientific consensus on this issue may one day change. Science is continually moving forward, and new things are figured out that change how we view things. It happens. Someone, or some agency, may do the kind of very good experimentation that shows
  • a) some previously unknown mechanism by which currently marketed GM food could harm some people (right now, the biggest hole in the arguments of people opposed to, or concerned about, GM food, is that there is no known mechanism by which currently marketed GM food could be harming people due to the genetic modification);
  • b) that exposure to currently marketed GM food is actually harmful over the long term. For example, there is a group in Europe that is basically doing the long-term Seralini experiments again, but trying to do them right this time so that valid conclusions can be drawn from them. The group is called "Grace" and here is their website: http://www.grace-fp7.eu/ I'm interested to see what they produce.
  • and in both cases, (a or b), the work is described in reliable, relevant, secondary sources as being valid science that changes the consensus.

Looking forward to your response. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

oh, by the way, the actual source for your first reference is here. The brief text there makes reference to "portraying GMO critics as akin to climate change deniers, out of step with science." I don't know if you have read the Keith Kloor article that is being referred to there, but I encourage you to read it. It is here. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog: You start out by saying, "Your first two sources are the same; the first is just an excerpt of the second. That you refer to the set as 'three' articles is a bad sign." I am well aware they are the same. If you look more closely at what I wrote, I said "2-3" articles! And in my list I clearly show that one was just a summary of the other--I provide both to give the reader the option of reading something short or something longer. Honestly, I am not that stupid and am not playing any games as you accuse me of here. Your accusation is a bad sign. LOL.

I looked at the Keith Kloor article you mentioned. I'm not sure why you wanted me to read it. It has many of the oft-repeated arguments the pro-GMO people typically make, including a claim that is untrue: "people should know that GMOs are tightly regulated." That of course, is not the case in the U.S., where unlike many counties (such as the EU and I believe China, Japan and Australia), no additional testing of GMO's was ever required, because of the policy of "substantial equivalence" (I believe Canada uses a similar standard), despite objections by scientists within the FDA that GMO products should require additional study and testing. Kloor ridicules the rat study for good reason--it was a bad study. That's one study. That doesn't invalidate every study that was every done that has demonstrated unique problems and concerns with *particular* GMO products. The Monarch Butterfly study published in Nature talking about the negative impact of GMO Bt-corn was good science, despite claims I have read that it was not. Further study was made of the negative effects of Bt-corn on caterpillars and toxicity issues were duplicated in the further study as you can read on the USDA Q&A about this. The USDA Q&A starts out by saying it is not a *current* problem, but from reading other answers that it *was* a problem that was unique to this GMO product discovered *after* release and hence that variety of Bt-corn has been phased out...I will continue comment on the article later...David Tornheim (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I really mean what I wrote about "three sources" thing. If you come to the actual Talk page talking about "three" (and you say "three" at times) you will be treated as either ignorant or someone who lies. I wrote that, trying to help you. You can do with that, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true. What is true, is that the EU has been much more cautious with regard to environmental consequences of GM crops. See here for one explanation of that. The butterfly matter you write about is also about the environment. The scientific consensus statement you have an issue with, is limited to health.

There are a lot of strong emotions about GMOs; one of the things we run into frequently is that people don't read carefully. If you decide to come to the Talk page to challenge the scientific consensus statement, I would appreciate it if you be very clear about what exactly you are seeking to change, and to be very clear about the grounds on which you are seeking to change it. Doing so, would save a lot of drama. So far it looks like you are misreading our article, as you are talking about this environmental stuff which has nothing to do with the scientific consensus statement. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

2, not 3: Ok, thanks for the warning that I should be careful not to say "3" even if I list the other summary link (perhaps putting it on the same line would be the better way to go).

Kloor article: Yes, I am well aware the RfC statement does not talk about affects on animals or the environment, and I never intended the Monarch Butterfly studies to be a challenge to that. I was responding to the Kloor article you asked me to read. I mentioned the Monarch Butterfly study for two reasons: (1) I saw it wrongly dismissed by a GMO proponent as "bad science" here, when it should not have been dismissed, even though I agree with Parrott here and Kloor the rat study was "bad science" and "bad statistics". (2) Although it is true, the RfC statement does not talk about animals or the environment, GMO proponents, including the author of the article you asked me to read, often quote Pamela Ronald to justify a consensus statement, using this quote that is in the article: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops." Obviously untrue. Since her position and quote *does* make the claim to extend to the environment, I'm showing you the flaws in this article and similar incorrect claims made by GMO proponents distorting the science and the facts. I had the impression you asked me to read it because you thought it was a sound article. Do we can agree it is biased and inaccurate for numerous reasons? I have two more things to say about it later. Incidentally, it sounds like the reputation of Ms. Ronald has been challenged and I believe 1 or 2 of her published works have been retracted: See this article that came up when I Googled her.

On US vs. EU regulation: "You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true." Huh? The article you provided me to prove your point says exactly the opposite of what you said, that the two are indeed quite different. It begins by saying the US has cozzied up with industry and loosened its regulations and the EU has done the opposite! Please give me a quote from the article confirming your claims.David Tornheim (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad we are on the same page with regard to "three". There is no need to bring both - people who work on the GM articles are scientifically literate.

With regard to the rest... I am starting to think that you don't understand how WP works. We read the relevant literature and summarize it. That is how we generate content here. The overwhelming consensus expressed in the literature is that currently marketed foods from GM sources are as safe as food from conventional sources. We don't cite the Kloor article as a source for the consensus statement - I pointed you to it only because that article was specifically cited as a motivation by the people who produced one of the sources you brought, so you would have that context in case you didn't.

I am 'disgusted that you bring upI object to your bringing up Ronald's retraction as though that says something about her scientific reputation. She discovered that her lab had used bad reagents; she disclosed that, and she retracted her paper. That is how science is supposed to work when things go wrong. See here and here and here. I am done talking with you. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking "disgusting" comment. Not helpful. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC))

If you strike the statements about Ronald I will be happy to continue to talk to you further. (and by the way, "Independent Science News" is a product of Claire Robinson and Jeremy Lantham, whom I mentioned above. It is not "independent", it is a vehicle for their anti-GMO views and they hit below the belt, all the time.) You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be - it doesn't have to be ugly at all. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

To be fair, he may not have known that retractions in science are not admissions or implications of foul play, and (given how many papers are never retracted despite being known to be wrong) are often interpreted as a sign of integrity.

David: FWIW, I also think the final sentence of the above comment here could be interpreted poorly. The idea, I think, is that repeating the same path that was followed before will probably lead to either a large amount of stressful argumentation that goes nowhere, or editors considering your comments unproductive and ceasing to respond as a result. Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sunrise. Yes, I am well aware that retractions of science papers are rare. And I agree that it is more honorable to admit and take responsibility for one's mistake and to retract a paper that has serious problems than to leave it up to others to fight a difficult battle to force it. It's very similar to people who resign under pressure from political office (or have big press conferences for damage control when they have been caught doing something the public would not approve of) and agreements in lawsuits both civil and criminal where an admission of a mistake, wrongdoing or apology is part of the agreement and demanded by the other side to avoid further litigation. Even if it is the honorable thing to do and shows integrity, it does look to me like an admission that one has produced and/or engaged in shoddy work that should have been caught before publication. As was the case with the rat study, except that author did not retract the article--the journal did. I see no reason I should take the reference down to a well written article. Jytdog gives the unsupported allegation (just as much of an "ad hominem" I would say) that the authors of the article have an agenda, as if Ronald does not. I agree Jydog's last statement has the sound of a veiled threat and intimidation. My interpretation in this context was that the evil monsters who wrote that article blemishing pro-GMO "hero" Ronald will be viciously attacked, showed to be the evil charlatans that they must be, and rid from the face of the earth for questioning Ronald's integrity. How dare they! LOL. Obviously, I couldn't possibly know what I am talking about if I share their dastardly work and I too should see a similar fate of infinite obscurity for taking anything they say seriously or worse letting others know about it. Anyway, if Jytdog wants to impugn the integrity of the authors of that article, that's fine by me. I'm all ears to valid criticism. I'm not affiliated to them and won't feel any "ugly" sting from finding out how absolutely horrible these seemingly innocent and "nice" people really are. LOL. To be honest, I noticed Jytdog's ire concurrently to my response:

On US vs. EU regulation: "You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true." Huh? The article you provided me to prove your point says exactly the opposite of what you said, that the two are indeed quite different. It begins by saying the US has cozzied up with industry and loosened its regulations and the EU has done the opposite! Please give me a quote from the article confirming your claims.

I am thinking Jytdog saw that I called the bluff, that the article did not support the claim that the US and EU have similar GMO standards. Rather than admitting error (as noble GMO-"hero" Ronald did), Jtydog created a distraction, and used that as an excuse to dodge it, to use ad hominems on me "you don't know what you are talking about" (obviously I do, or Jytdog would not be so upset!), and throw in a little intimidation of things getting "ugly" to try and scare me off. Unfortunately, I don't fall for those tactics. Took too much Philosophy not to notice them immediately. Sorry  :-) Now let's carry on with civil discussion of the facts! Okay?David Tornheim (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

we assume good faith here. Your post drips with sarcasm, and that is not what we do here. I came here originally to try to help you - to save you time. I have zero interest in "jousting" with you or anybody. I don't "bluff". I'll see you on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Sarcasm, really? Unbelievable! Sorry y'all lack humor. Humor is good for the soul. LOL. Yes, I assumed good faith until your statements started to go down hill as Sunrise also noticed. Hopefully, you will be more civil and avoid these tactics on the talk page.David Tornheim (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd rather not go through the rhetoric/social positioning process right now. :-) I'll just comment in response to the issue at hand that it's not at all similar to people who resign under pressure from political office - that is in fact the point I was making. Sunrise (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

quick note. Sunrise, thanks for pointing out that my comment about things getting uglier than they need to be, being misconstrued. Your interpretation is along the lines of what I meant. It can be difficult to work on controversial content and we need high quality discussion based on good sources; ad hominem arguments based on poor sources are not productive, per the of-cited Graham's hierarchy. I also note that WP:BLP applies everywhere, including Talk pages. Its better on many levels just to not go there. David I did not mean that as any kind of threat and I am sorry if you took it that way. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

"We have successfully scrubbed the lede of GMO controversy article of all mention of scientists or academics who have concerns with GMOs. [1] [2], following Monsanto's PR campaign to "enlist academics in the G.M.O. lobbying war"."

Where in the Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns report did you find a source for a claim that scientists tend to be more concerned about environmental impact than human health implications?Zebulin (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Driftwoodzebulin: The report is not the best source for that claim, I agree with the editors on the talk page about that. My understanding is the biggest concern by scientists about this GMO fish raised for food is that it will find its way into open waters and because of its size will out-compete all the non-GMO salmon. This would be identified as an "environmental concern" rather than a food safety concern, and likely handled by the USDA or EPA rather than FDA for that reason. The problem with the source is I believe it is only about the GMO fish, not about all GMO food. The ecological concerns like this articulated by scientists in the RS come up all the time, and are found in our articles, so it should be in the lede. I hope you can see why I made the post that I did. This post would be better made at the controversy article, but I agreed not to edit there for 1 week, so I'm answering here where you asked me. Please don't quote what I said here at any GMO articles this before the week is over, but feel free to share any ideas and RS there if you do agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

David Tornheim is topic banned from the topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons enumerated at the arbitration enforcement request: [3].

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Appeal of Above Decision

I filed two actions appealing the above decision here: action 1, action 2. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Your ARCA

Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Second ARCA archived

Your second clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Tornheim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

References

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, David Tornheim. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I hope that this is not related to your interaction ban with another editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rental agreement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lessor. 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) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey

from here: They can try to ban me if they wish. I have openly called for it in Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. What I am doing is bringing back original policy and attempting to enforce current policy. Please see my user page as well. Please stop using the term "rules" as it is inaccurate. I will not stand for their attempts to censure and burn down portions of Wikipedia. What they are doing is why we lose so many editors each year. This all started with User talk:Mx. Granger which as you can see from their talk page has just today caused one user to quit. Endercase (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't want you banned. I looked at your user history when I first encountered you and saw that you had created an account long ago but really didn't start editing until two or three months ago. That's why I identify you as new user, even though you have had an account much longer that a good portion of the editors, I imagine. I agree there is a problem with retention and there are new problems that did not exist when I first started. When people disagree, they can get really nasty. I would like to discuss that further with you, but I need to take a Wiki-Break. Good luck. I recommend walking away from the keyboard if you get too angry and come back when you cool off. Saying anything nasty in anger is the easiest way to get into trouble. Editors collect diffs and can dump them all at once at AN/I to make an editor who has been provoked look out of control. Seen it many times. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess. Thanks for the warning. We can talk anytime anywhere. If I don't respond try to tag me in other mediums if you want. My stuff isn't hard to find with James P.S. Case and endercase. I'll chill. Endercase (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have upset a number of users with my actions. I stand accused of being WP:NOTHERE on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm really sure what to do about it. If I actually am in violation I think the process should play out. However, the only users who seem to think I'm in violation so far are also the ones that have been the most offended by audacity and arguments. As you are a user whom I have interacted with, your input on either side of the issue would be helpful. Thank you for your time. Endercase (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Done. I defended you. That said, I hope you re-read some of the things I said back at WP:RS/N. You might want to get a mentor. I can explain. --David Tornheim (talk)

@David Tornheim You didn't have to defend me, I did ping users I knew would state their case against me to maintain neutrality. I do thank you for it though. I agree I need a mentor. I appear to have upset a very active Cabal of users.

I did attempt to chill. I just shouldn't have responded on Jimbo's page when that one peer asked for context?

Peers here seem to really not like being disagreed with. I personally love it the another person has a grounded and cited argument as I can learn from it and change my POV. They appear to me to mistake debate for soapboxing and aggression here. Additionally, some of them seem to fight dirty.

Maybe I should also ping the two users whom I ended a disagreement with? As they are the only additional users [who aren't involved (edit)] I really interacted with, other than the ones in Stealth Banning. Everyone else was closer to two trains passing in the night.

I still don't understand how the source bans are reconciled with the issues I have brought up, but I guess I don't need to understand why I can't use X source before I finish helping make that stub into a real article (if I don't get banned from it). I also don't understand why we use the terminology "delete" and "rules" as both are not technically correct. "Hide" and "policy" are more correct in my view. I apparently do not understand the difference between soapboxing and discussing here although I have read all available material on the issues I have encountered. And I don't understand why people call canvassing, forum shopping as I was very careful to follow the guidelines. I don't understand quite a few things I guess.

Thank you again, you are always welcome to comment on any of my actions of course, and if agreeable I will likely show up here for advice on Wikipedia more often than you would like and you may tell me to "fuck off" at any point. If you would like, you make use the masculine gender pronouns in reference to me, as it is often simpler. Other pronouns definitely do not bother me in the slightest. I feel like neutral ones are more appropriate generally as I don't want my current apparent gender to affect others judgments. Endercase (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Thanks for your reply. Since you are open to mentoring I suggest you go to the AN/I and say that. Also, just say you are sorry you were not trying to cause trouble and that you want to learn the rules, and tell them you are open to advice--and def. listen. You might even talk about which rules you read and which ones were confusing, but keep it *short*. I wouldn't try to defend your behavior--you made mistakes and if you can acknowledge that and learn from the mistakes, that will likely to be taken well. I think they were right to question some of what you were doing, but I think that AN/I filing went overboard and was avoidable, which is why I responded as I did. However, as I said at Project Editor Retention, I knew it was coming, which is why I tried to warn you about it when I first met you. So hopefully you learn from it.

I do think posting at WP:NPOV after going to WP:RS/N was probably not a good idea and that's why they claim you were forum shopping. I agree with them that your question about reliability of sources is an WP:RS issue and not an WP:NPOV, but I do see why you might think that excluding particular sources with a particular bias/slant might create a POV bias, but that's just not really what NPOV is about. I would read NPOV again--it's one of the most important policies IMHO, as is WP:RS. I made some mistakes like this when I had fewer edits under my belt. One thing to keep in mind is that many of the same editors watch and comment at all the forums, so that posting at NPOV was not really going to get any more eyes than posting at RS/N: Rookie mistake.

Another thing to do is make your comment and then not argue with people. It's often a waste of time, and if they don't agree, there is little chance you can convince them they are wrong. Asking them questions about why they take the position they do might be helpful, but accusing them is generally not recommended. If you lash back at them for arguing with you, they can use it against you at AN/I, as I knew would happen with some of the your edits when I first met you. You didn't know, but I know from experience that's what happens to new editors who get mad when they feel they are being unfairly argued with. For example this diff. You probably didn't know that would be used against you, but I knew one of those would. That's why I had advised you spend some time looking at what happens to editors at WP:AN/I.

Editors often go to Jimbo's page to address a big audience. I honestly don't see a problem with that since it is a general place for discussion, but as a less experienced editor, they might give you a hard time, sort of like a pecking order. In fact, your question about whether certain sources should be entirely be avoided is a big topic for discussion--including on Jimbo's page--because recently there was an WP:RfC that determined that a certain U.K. source (I think it was Daily Mail) was pretty much always unreliable, and a number of long term editors strongly disagreed that it should be banned. There was even mainstream news cover from other mainstream media sources about that banning of the news source, and questions about whether enough people were involved in the WP:RfC: See for example [4]. That's another reason I really didn't see that much harm with your question about banning a particular source in general. It's a good question--especially for a new editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am also tagging @Nocturnalnow: . I can see now how my specific issue is more a reliability discussion than a NPOV one. However, the discussion of banning in general is one that should take place there so that POV balancing measures such as a public list with active discussion may be put into place. I'm used to trying to convince others of the validity of my arguments, particularly online, and thought it to be normal. But, then again, I'm also used to a karma system that tells you when you have lost the audience, a more clear reply and notification system, and comment weighting that hides unpopular views. In those cases (where you don't defend your POV) how is consensus reached? I read WP:DEMOCRACY and I thought voting was pretty clearly discouraged when debate or discussion can be had, yet voting appears to be the normal method when more than 3-4 users are involved.

I'd like to see more controversial RfC in the wild. I also think I should likely close my various posts, as I may have been out of order by opening them. The same concept would have been better addressed by more experienced users.

I guess the use of the term rules is not meant to convey a top-down nature of organization but to convey the severity and seriousness of their use.

I feel like I got typecast for my apparent defense of right-wing news sources. I tried to explain to users that were the most upset at this, that I agreed that these sources were less reputable that others and that I was not a right wing ideologue. I suggest you read my edits to Talk:Arian controversy where I attempted to use historical jesus in place of jesus and ended up with God the Son, which was an improvement. I'm fairly certain that can not be described as a normal right wing behavior even if, as I now realize, some may label it disruptive (I got lucky that the users there assumed good faith).

I believe that taking on stealth banning as my first real article improvement campaign was a bit ambitious as it is an under-documented phenomena (see my list of questionable sources on the talk page). Although, if nothing else an stub article that had zero active users now has 3-4 and some IPs due to my controversy.

I'm not really sure what to say at the AN/I, I'm trying to avoid saying something else there that may be considered disruptive.

Also, an explanation for why we use the term delete as opposed to hide would be extremely helpful.

Maybe we should move this all to my talk page under the heading "mentorship" as I don't want to take up valuable space on yours. Additionally, is there a 'legal' way to collapse discussions on my page (using the same method I used to collapse sources on the stealth banning page?)? Endercase (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a policy on "stickening" ones old posts? It seems dishonest to me. Endercase (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I'm going to move this discussion over to your talk page. Is that okay with you? I think it makes more sense there, since the advice is for you, and it will help others see the discussion who might be watching you and might want to add more. It will also be easier for you to find the advice in the future. So I will respond there. I will also try to add subsections on specific topics for ease of searching. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Also Hey Did you see this? [5] 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, your actions were adversarial and my IN/A was not an appropriate location for such claims. However, they should have addressed your concerns instead of hunting you down. I guess IP bans don't require discussion and consensus? Endercase (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentoring

@Anne Delong: There's new user who got into trouble at WP:AN/I and I suggested he seek mentoring. (The lengthy AN/I is here.) I looked at WP:Co-op and the page there says it is no longer active. Is there still a mentoring program? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, David. There have been several efforts over the years to get experienced editors together with new ones. They tend to last as long as someone is interested in keeping the backroom process functioning. I think Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is still going. However, it seems as though it's mainly to help new editors find a mentor, and there are already two people ready to help in this case. There's a page, Wikipedia:Mentorship which may be helpful.

In any case, if the new user is open to receiving advice, he or she can just start a new section on his or her talk page and ping you or another user to ask questions. The nice thing about the Co-op was that it kept all of the discussion in one place; the user can always start a special talk page just for mentoring, for example "User talk:Endercase/Mentoring", which could be on your watchlist. Another advantage to this is that if he/she gets in trouble again, it's easy to point to willingness to be guided.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase:, @Hijiri88:: Please see above. FYI. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a proposition

I'll withdraw my support for the formal TBAN if you do the following:

1. examine (in however much or little detail as you feel appropriate) my past interactions with Darkknight2149 here;
2. report back on the ANI thread whether you think said interactions have any bearing on my ability to co-mentor Endercase;
3. report the same on Darkknight2149's talk page.

I have had just about enough of that user's hounding, and I just got threatened with a block simply for pointing out that he was hounding (by an admin who clearly hadn't looked at the case). I don't need this grief, especially when everyone is in agreement with how to deal with the main problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Just drop the stick already. You were warned for assuming bad faith and making unsubstantiated accusations against me. You also said you were moving on ([6]). Stop mentioning me, I'm done interacting with you. DarkKnight2149 22:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• David, please ignore the above and comply with the first two points of my request. I'm perfectly happy to drop whatever stick I'm being accused of holding this time. I am also perfectly happy to move ahead with the mentoring proposal and have the whole ANI thread closed at this point. It's clear that we are both in agreement that Endercase should not reply to RSN threads until he has contributed more to the encyclopedia, and should refrain from citing Breitbart and InfoWars, so if he listens to our advice it would have the same effect (in terms of preventing disruption) as a formal ban anyway. I'm getting kind of sick of random IPs and the like showing up specifically to harass me without any interest in positive solutions to the problem at hand, when everyone who's not afraid to log into their account is already in agreement as to what needs to be done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Great job! Nick.aus96 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)