This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tryptofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I promised myself I would work on content and stay away from drama, and I failed miserably.
There's little tricks you can do to help motivate you and keep you disciplined. For example, you could put your computer power supply on a timer set for 60 minutes. Knowing you wouldn't have much time for drama, that could inspire you to work on more constructive projects. If you are on a mobile device, you can set a timer instead. Or just use a kitchen timer as a reminder. This really works. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL, thanks! Actually, my computer is getting so elderly that it tends to poop out periodically even without a timer. And when I edit content seriously, I actually need a lot of time. Of course, I'm not creating those dramas, and I'm mainly concerned with showing the door to those who do – in the probably vain hope that the dramas will go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tryptofish. About this bit that you added to Arb evidence: [1]. I wish you would think about removing the reference to a 5-year-old Arb case that is in no way related to Genetically modified organisms. If you have evidence of any bad behavior of mine related to the GMO topic or even directed at Jytdog outside the topic area, I encourage you to mention that in your evidence - but it's kind of like poisoning the well to bring up a very old, unrelated Arb case, especially since I have successfully (I believe) modified my editing behavior for the better since 2010, including taking about a 3 year wiki-break.
Also, I really do not wish to be lumped in with GregJackP as if we are the same editor. His editing style is much different than mine, and it's somewhat prejudicial to me to be lumped in with him as part of your evidence.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful request. As it happens, I had thought about it overnight, and realized that combining the two of you into a single section was a bad idea, resulting from it being, well, a first draft. So yes, I am definitely going to separate the two sections. As for the evidence itself, my inclination at this time is to continue to present it, but I also intend to revise my evidence as the case goes along and I see evidence and information from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for your information, you're slightly above the usual allowance for diffs for the GMO case, but you're not over by too much, so don't worry as much (but might want to worry about it if you're going to present more information).
Something else I noticed (as case clerk): since you have a section with pretty much just diffs, you may want to give additional comments for each of the diff/link (for example, this is the first diff you provided under the Contrary to caricature, Jytdog is usually helpful and friendly to editors who are misguided about COI, NPOV, etc., even when they in turn are hostile to him heading. This would help the Arbitrators out a lot (as you gave about 40 diffs just for that heading). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps04:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Penwhale: Thank you very much for the guidance. I expect to revise it as I see what other editors present, and now I'll also revise it according to your advice. I do have one question for you: one or two of the diffs are repeated (but it's the same diff) in successive sections, and some of the links that look like diffs in the first section are actually links to sources – does any of that have any bearing on the diff maximum? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly why you should label the links, because otherwise it would be easy to assume that they are distinct links to diffs ^^; The maximum is slightly flexible but if you need a lot more allowance, you will need to clear it with ArbCom. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads-up: What you did here broke the links you were providing - by putting [[American Association for the Advancement of Science|AAAS]] within the link brackets, you actually made it so that only the PDF/link icons would link to your sources (the text themselves are linking to WP articles). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
Hi Trypto. It appears that Jytdog has not made any contributions since September 30th - most unusual behaviour. Do you know if he is ok? Genuine concern - we are all humans behinds these screens of ours.DrChrissy(talk)00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have just read this seconds after posting my evidence against Jytdog...I truly hope I have not contributed to anything untoward. I have been sitting on my evidence for some while debating whether or not to post, but in the end, I felt it was only fair to give him time to see my evidence before the deadline.DrChrissy(talk)16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Change of evidence at arbcom
Hi. I have redrafted my evidence at ArbCom and during this, decided my suggestion that Jytdog was WP:NOTTHERE was probably not accurate. This means that your comment at the Workshop might appear "nonsensical". I thought I would let you know so that you can make appropriate edits.DrChrissy(talk)16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for both of your messages, and I'll respond to them both here. I'm glad that you revised your evidence, which would be the right thing to do in any case: it wasn't "probably not accurate", but definitely not accurate. Any time you overstate things at ArbCom, it will come back to bite you, because the Arbs will interpret it as battleground conduct, and they can be very harsh about that. I'll revise my analysis to reflect your update, so no problem there.
As for the absence, I don't know what to say. I just don't know. Maybe it's something trivial, like a broken computer. Or it could be something that came up in real life that suddenly required his attention, but isn't related to Wikipedia. But, given the timing, I'm worried to the point of feeling really bad about it. If hypothetically it turns out to be something particularly bad, I suspect that editors seen as his opponents will be treated particularly harshly by ArbCom – but let's hope that's just my imagination being overactive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned as well. I somewhat doubt it's just a broken computer as I've seen Jytdog editing throughout the day (likely has small bits of down-time with his university position like I do), so I'm sure he has access in multiple places. I'm really hoping he just decided to take a break to disengage for a short while. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I attempted to e-mail him yesterday, using the Wikipedia e-mail-this-user feature, and I have gotten no reply so far. That's all I know, although I wish I knew more. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please, can we start thinking positive thoughts? He's probably just spending a little more time with family and friends, taking a little Wiki-break. He deserves one. The man has been working practically nonstop on WP issues. I truly believe there is a simple solution to this whole issue - something as simple as a private declaration to ArbCom instead of to just one admin as he did in the past. I think it will arrest all the suspicion and disruption that has resulted and then everybody can get back to work. Wouldn't that be wonderful? I think so. Atsme📞📧23:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hope that all is well. (I also think that there is absolutely no need to second-guess what Someguy1221 concluded from Jytdog's self-initiated COIN case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Where angels and sensible fish fear to tread . . .
I usually run as far away from Arbcom and related politics as I can, but because of your involvement and that of several other names I recognized, I reviewed your contributions and related replies this evening. You're doing the lord's work over there, my friend, and I hope someone other than me recognizes it and appreciates it. There are way too many entrenched attitudes and conspiracy theories, too much bad science and ill will, and too many editors who are willing to engage in bad behavior regardless of whether they are right or wrong on the substance and applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I wish you luck with your efforts, 'Fish. I really do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll second what Dirtlawyer1 has said. You are a level head among hot heads over there :) I appreciate your contribution.Minor4th20:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Minor4th: I'm making an educated guess that this is about the now-redacted comment on the Workshop page. I apologize to you for my error of judgment, and I sincerely regret any unhappiness it may have caused you. That said, I am very careful about my privacy on-Wiki (and yes, the irony is not lost on me). Therefore, I am not going to e-mail you. If there is anything we can discuss on-Wiki, I'll be happy to do that, but if not, we will just have to let it be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
question for recently-added recently-active wikiproject neuroscience folks
Hello Tryptofish, I found your name over here, WP:WikiProject_Neuroscience/Contributors, in the last dozen added, and you have edited wikipedia in the past month. If you have some time to help out, I am trying to assist a neuroscience researcher in finding a merge-target for their 2014 theoretical biology concept. Draft_talk:Practopoiesis#continuation_of_merge-discussion is the discussion, which was moved to draftspace after an inconclusive AfD#2 ... we could not figure out where the interdisciplinary WP:NOTEWORTHY material best fit into the 'pedia within the time-constraints of the AfD procedures. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The challenge here is basically the lack of integration of the "practopoiesis" concept with other literature. The draft article cites exactly one source, the Nikolić paper itself. That paper has hardly been cited by anybody except Nikolić. My perception is that the underlying motivation is to promote the practopoiesis theory, and any attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion is going to meet with resistance. If the theory manages to gain significant attention in ways that don't depend on Wikipedia (as documented by citations), it will be much easier to justify covering it in Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
75.108, thank you very much for asking me. I took a look, and I agree with what Looie496 said. I think that we would want to have what Wikipedia calls secondary sources. In this case, that would mean review articles that are not written by the scholars who are associated with the practopoiesis idea, that say that the idea is having a significant influence upon neuroscience research. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(e/c... WP:NORUSH on replying to this.) My thanks right back for the reply, and that goes for the talkstalker as well. :-) I also agree that it is WP:NotJustYet for the topic to be a dedicated article. But the sources below are wiki-reliable, so per WP:PRESERVE, they should be merged in as a couple sentences, or perhaps even a couple paragraphs, of an appropriate leaf-article. (Plus of course, there is the task of teaching User:Dankonikolic about WP:COI and the associated templates/procedures/pitfalls, making them a wikipedian-in-good-standing, which I'm also doing as we work.) Here are the refs I'm aware of, I've been told more publications are forthcoming but have not seen them:
0 cites == 2015, On the Design of a User-in-the-Loop Channel. With Application to Emergency Egress. by Constantin Dumitrescu (Romania). arXiv:1508.03204 (preprint -- not picked up by a non-arXiv publisher yet). Specifically, mentions a subconcept[3] of practopoiesis. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.03204.pdf
biology-oriented trade-newsletter == 2015, Researchers from University of Zagreb Detail Findings in Theoretical Biology (Practopoiesis: Or How Life Fosters a Mind). by staff-byline, publisher Life Science Weekly (parent corp NewsRx) (USA), http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-416068653.html
It took a couple weeks to come up to speed on what the practopoiesis theory even was, for myself anyways, but as you can see from the refs mentioned, there are a handful of them -- just not yet integrated to the draft. Mainly because, most were found via the AfD process, and it seemed there were not enough to achieve WP:42, thus most discussion was about merge-targets before the close-as-userfy. Is draftify in the wiki-jargon yet? Several refs are independent of the originator of the concept, WP:GEOSCOPE is international, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP the peer-reviewed stuff is also legit fodder for WP:RS even though Nikolić is author/co-author, so methinks practopoiesis easily satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY for inclusion in an extant article. The main question is, what leaf-article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me for being blunt, but what we are seeing here is the typical problem with promotional editing. Instead of asking what is best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia you are asking how you can manipulate the system to please the person you are working with. Let me also note that if you are being paid for this activity, the Terms of Use require you to disclose who is paying you and what for. Looie496 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Blunt is fine, you phrased it perfectly politely, with the exception of your accusation about gaming. And yes, the person in question was editing promotionally (note past tense), but they are also a neuroscience WP:EXPERT, and I don't believe English is their first language since Germany/Croatia is their home base. They've stated just a couple weeks ago they became aware ("I have read and understood those policies only recently.") of some of the most applicable wiki-pags... like WP:N.[4] ;-) Wikipedia will be improved by their becoming a wikipedian-in-good-standing methinks. They have responded favorably to my training about the COI-encumbrance, though as you can see from the usertalk discussions, my training of them is far from complete. As for myself, I personally have no COI whatsoever with respect to this person, their university(ies), the topic of practopoesis, and so on. I'm not being paid for what I do here, I've never heard of Nikolic before, my first exposure to practopoiesis was at the COIN and AfD threads. In other words, to be blunt in return, you are 100% on the wrong track.
The goal here is to WP:PRESERVE the content, which is backed up by the wiki-reliable sources (about a paragraph of appropriately-placed mainspace prose methinks), and to train the professor how to comply with the WP:TOS properly. If you still see what I'm doing as "trying to make the professor happy" and would prefer to drive them away from wikipedia permanently, then you and I are gonna disagree. :-) What I'm doing is exactly what I said: trying to improve the 'pedia, by retaining wiki-reliably-sourced content, and also trying to improve the 'pedia, by retaining a beginning COI-encumbered contributor, who happens to be a neuroscience prof. Since tryptofish is away on travel, and my other two wikiproject members gave no response, I'll ping three additional neuroscience people, and see whether I can find some other wiki-eyeballs to look over the practopoeisis sources and such. Looie496, you are surely welcome to come along and help, if you are so inclined (and of course Tryptofish too when they have time). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I regret to say that I find your statements impossible to believe. If you continue to act deceptively you are creating, at the very least, a risk of embarrassment for Professor Nikolic. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is professor Nikolic speaking: I must state that I don't know 75.108.94.227 personally, I never had an exchange with him (her?) outside of Wikipedia, and I am certainly not paying him. Just think, where did you hear that scientists pay for placing contents into Wikipedia? They could not afford it even if they wanted to do it! Also, placement in Wikpedia has virtually no significance for scientist's evaluation, career advancements, etc. A scientist is not a business. If someone puts scientific contents in Wikipedia, the motivation is most likely to educate the public. This is our job--our service to the community: create knowledge and dissipate it. I know that there are out here many people who want to find out about practopoiesis and are delighted to learn about it. I feel obligated to help them. Practopiesis has a broad set of implications for multiple disciplines. Hence, dissipation of that knowledge through standard means of scientific literature cannot reach efficiently the interested parties. Consequently, I am very thankful to 75.108... that he/she is taking the time to explain Wikipedia to me and is trying to fine a place for the content. People like this are hard to find. (Danko (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
Hello and thank you. I am paying close attention to what everyone is saying here, and I will provide a detailed response soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I've now looked carefully at each of the sources that are listed above, at the draft page for the article, and at the most recent AfD discussion, that led to the material being moved into draft space. Here is the way that I would analyze it. Wikipedia limits what we include, so as not to include material that is still too preliminary to belong in an online encyclopedia (as well as, of course, not to include various other kinds of material). We base those decisions on whether or not the subject satisfies a very particular meaning of the word "notability". I suggest looking at WP:GNG in order to see how that concept applies here. I do not think that the draft page should return to being a regular article, because it really does not satisfy GNG in anything that could resemble its present state. On a somewhat different neuroscience subtopic, I have argued against having individual pages for each theory of neural coding, because we really do not yet know how such coding takes place. Until the scientific literature about it becomes a lot more advanced than it is now, the theory of practopoiesis is in the same position. Thus, if I had participated in the AfD discussion, I would have supported the way that discussion ended up.
But I see that the question now is about a proper target for merging. First, please let me point you to WP:Summary style, because it is important for you to understand that any possible merging does not mean that something the length of the draft page would simply be placed inside an existing article. That is not going to happen. Instead, the most that I can envision is to put about one sentence about practopoiesis into an existing article (and have a redirect from practopoiesis to that existing article). It could be about one sentence, saying that theres is such a theory and very briefly characterizing it, with citations to those sources at the end of the sentence. Now, the question is: which existing article?
I'm afraid that it seems to me that all the good candidates have already been discussed at the AfD, and apparently been rejected. First of all, I would strongly oppose using any page that deals with a very broad topic, such as evolution, because something this specific would not fit there. Here are the pages named at the AfD that seem potentially reasonable to me:
Yes, that conclusion is also what I too would say. Though actually, I've encouraged an all-of-the-above policy: we should find a place to merge the sentence-or-two. Simultaneously, we can keep the draftspace version around, and as more material is published, User:Dankonikolic can add it to the draftspace version. Eventually, WP:NotJustYet will have become WP:GNG, and in the meantime there is WP:NORUSH.
As for the merge-target, I personally think that reinforcement-learning is too broad, and not quite on-point. Embodied embedded cognition is *not* too broad, and *is* on-point, but it is more of a philosophy-leaf-article rather than a biology-leaf-article, and the sources at present are bio-type-sources. Adding a sentence to autopoeisis seems fine to me, but I'm not sure about User:Dankonikolic. The question of merging into downward causation was broached at AfD, and was said to be sub-optimal by User:Dankonikolic, for ontological reasons I didn't truly understand. :-) p.s. I suggest we change venues to Draft_talk:Practopoiesis unless you'd rather stay here, Tryptofish. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Dankonikolic already commented over at Draft_talk:Practopoiesis, and suggested Allostasis as a possible biology-leaf-article for the sentence-merge. I've moved their comment below mine, so it sticks out more; I missed it since it was inline. Anyways, I think your assessment of the options before us is correct. Can we ping you, once we've worked out the finalized sentence-or-two, for you to give it a once-over? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good, although I'm not really sold that allostasis is a better target than EEC – but then again, I don't really care that much. Leaving me a message here, and having me check the edit would be fine, and I'll be happy to do it (the main thing being not to oversell it). If I've been helpful with what I said here, then I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on the GMO arbcom discussion on the workshop talk page, I can only surmise that there was an accidental outing. I have lodged a plea in Tryptofish's favor.[5]. However, he will have to respond to arbcom directly to get unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Having interacted for some time with Tryptofish (especially after he helped get me blocked for three months), I have come to believe that things are not as simple or black and white as they seem. While you may genuinely believe he deliberately outed someone (I don't know who since I never saw the edits) he might have thought he was well within policy. I don't know what happened, but surely you realize that there are alternate explanations that don't involve malicious intent. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Given the context of what Tryptofish actually wrote, I think you are relatively on point Viriditas. They were writing very general to avoid outing at least to a degree, so intent did seem established. It would have been better to email ArbCom directly, but it also could have been made much more specific where one could definitely make claims of purposeful outing. It's not entirely clear why the block happened so long after the redaction with Tryptofish saying a few times it was an oversight on their part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree as well. Tryptofish in his material at the workshop seemed to be going as far as he could to ensure that his submission met the rather legalistic standards of that page. It is more than a little difficult to believe that someone working so hard to conform to the legalistic levels of that page would intentionally act in such low regard elsewhere in the same process, if that was where the behavior, which I have to think was almost certainly an error, probably took place. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a large block of such edits between 01:56 and 07:58 on the 13th, although, admittedly, there have been a lot of edits since then which drop them down a bit in the history. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Liz and John Carter: I notice that the material wasn't redacted until 15 hours after the fact, causing 9 other editors' extensive comments to be redacted as well. Have those 9 editors been informed that all of their edits during that period have been removed and that they need to re-submit them if they are to be used in evidence? Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Also asking this of Guerillero, who seems to have done the revdel/oversighting. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears as though the edits were redacted, but they were all replaced except for the one paragraph containing the very intentional outing in question. petrarchan47คุก23:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: That's not how revdel/oversight works. Revdel and oversight only remove visibility of the diffs from view; they don't actually remove anything from the page itself. It was Guerillero's revert (i.e. this edit) that actually removed things from the page, not his subsequent revdel/oversight. Writ Keeper⚇♔00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks both for explaining that; I hadn't checked the before and after diffs of the whole lot, which would have confirmed what you both said. (I have seen a revdel on ANI which removed thousands of bytes from the page, and it was explained to me as removing all intervening posts between a vandal's two or more widely spaced posts, and yes, everything in-between got removed there.) Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner, AGK, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, and Euryalus:@GorillaWarfare, LFaraone, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, and Yunshui: Tryptofish, an intelligent and thoughtful editor of seven years, with no prior block history, has been indefinitely blocked by a member of ArbCom, apparently with the full authority and approval of ArbCom. Tryptofish has a long and commendable history of working with some of the most difficult long-time editors, and has an outstanding history of working in ad hoc dispute resolution. To put it bluntly, Tryptofish has no prior history of assholery. Many members of the community (including myself) are more than a little shocked by Tryptofish's indefinite ArbCom block, and quite understandably would like to comprehend what has happened and why. It would be in everyone's best interests if ArbCom would clarify why Tryptofish was blocked, as well as clarifying the current status of that block. There are many, many long-time, active editors in good standing who will attest to Tryptofish's long-term productivity, usual level-headedness and general good character, and would very much like to do so, if only to ask for leniency and mercy for one of our best. By keeping this matter completely non-public, you deny members of the community that opportunity, regardless of the internal procedures and guidelines upon which you are no doubt relying. You are an elected body, and at some level, you need to be responsive to your electorate. Right now, your electorate would like to be informed, and that seems like a very small and reasonable step under the circumstances. In the absence of an explanation of Tryptofish's indefinite block (and any appeals), some explanation for the lack of openness to date would seem to be appropriate at a minimium. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of being obnoxious, I don't think it's a mystery. It was an ArbCom block, as stated in the block summary. Liz, the ArbCom clerk, has stated the specific cause, above. Tryptofish has called the now oversighted post "my error of judgment", in the thread above titled "Please contact me". Tryptofish is an intelligent person and capable of appealing his block. I think protesting the length of the block is certainly helpful to his case. However I don't think implying that we have no clue about why the block occurred and that we demand a full-on statement is helpful. I recall the same heated vituperations regarding an ArbCom block in recent memory: It wasn't hard to connect the dots, and railing at the admin(s) and ArbCom didn't really produce any further explanation that I recall (although the protests of the block itself produced amnesty for the blockee). Yes, please dispute the length of the block and/or the block itself, and ask for its overturn, but I think breath is wasted demanding an explanation when the sequence of events is pretty clear (except for the privileged information). Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll just note that this block is indefinite, not infinite, and we are not blind to Tryptofish's history, and the context of this. Ideally there will be progress shortly. NativeForeignerTalk06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner: A blocking administrator should never simply block an editor in good standing and assume that the community understands why. There is no need to repeat the offending passage, now redacted, but it would have been in keeping with proper disclosure to cite the guidelines and/or policies that were violated. As far as I am aware, there is no special exemption from WP:ADMINACCT for administrators who are also members of ArbCom, nor is it inappropriate or obnoxious for an editor in good standing to ask for an explanation in keeping with ADMINACCT. In that regard, members of ArbCom should set the example for all administrators, and not rely on members of the community to read between the lines, and a brief explanation at this late date would still seem to be required. Especially so, given that this block was apparently implemented with the official assent of ArbCom members (all of whom are also subject to ADMINACCT as administrators).
That said, I am grateful that you "are not blind to Tryptofish's history," because it is an exemplary 7-year history of substantive contributions to the encyclopedia as well as commendable efforts to improve the atmospherics of the community. If Tryptofish committed an "error of judgment," then it should be viewed as an exception in the context of that 7-year history and WP:NOTPUNITIVE. If Tryptofish has acknowledged and understands his error and committed to not repeating it, it is difficult to understand how keeping him indefinitely blocked is preventative in keeping with WP:Blocking policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
DL, I know you're angry, but NF and GW have both said "Ideally there will be progress shortly" and "this will hopefully be settled soon". (No one has said they are "keeping him indefinitely blocked".) I think remaining calm and focusing on Tryptofish's positive commitment to the project is what is needed here. Otherwise, I fear being antagonistic may be contrary to all of our goals to see Tryptofish back as soon as possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: No, I am not angry, but you are confusing the issue at hand. A simple, direct and entirely appropriate request has been made per ADMINACCT and it requires a response from the blocking administrator and/or the panel that authorized the block. I would politely request that you permit either NativeForeigner or another authorized ArbCom representative to respond. I have already made my plea for a quick unblock given the exemplary history of Tryptofish. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender:, while I do clerking duties for the arbitration committee, I was not speaking for the committee in my comment above. This block was not a subject of discussion on the clerks email list which is preoccupied with case request housekeeping, archive matters and posting notices, not editors' behavior. The arbitrators have their own email list to discuss such matters.
I made an observation by simply looking at the page histories of Tryptofish and the GMO Workshop. When an edit is oversighted, there are often consequences for the editor who posted it so I assumed that was the cause of the block. And since only oversighters (which includes ArbCom members) can see the oversighted edit, they know what the content was and it won't be disclosed to the rest of us in any circumstances. That's the standard practice, it's not unique to this situation and I don't have any insider knowledge, I'm sorry if I left that impression. LizRead!Talk!15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The block is indeed due to the now-suppressed edits. Given that they were suppressed, I assume it's easy to understand why we are not discussing the contents of the edits more publicly. We are in communication with Tryptofish, and this will hopefully be settled soon. GorillaWarfare(talk)06:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Without repeating the words or substance of the redacted edits, I believe that it would be entirely appropriate for the blocking administrator and/or an ArbCom representative to state the guidelines and/or policies that were violated per WP:ADMINACCT. Don't you? No one is banging their anti-admin drum here, only asking for a reasonable explanation which is clearly due per policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize I'm sounding like an admin/ArbCom flunky here, but I don't think they are going to tell us anything further (even Liz implied that). And if you read the edit summary of the oversighted post, and all of the comments on this thread above (including comments by persons who actually saw the post), and the thread above this one titled "Please contact me", it's not hard to figure out what seems to have happened (or possibly borderline happened). At this point, it's up to ArbCom to assess matters and determine the next step(s), and it is not beholden on them to expound on the situation any further, especially when we know so much already, and especially when the information involved is confidential. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Please review WP:ADMINACCT: there are no exceptions. As I have noted above, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, no one has requested that the words or even the substance of the redactions be repeated, only that the applicable policies and/or guidelines be cited. It is the obligation of the blocking administrator (or arguably, the panel of administrators in this case) to respond with a substantive explanation. Please allow my ADMINACCT request to stand without further diversion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Once we sort out an issue of understanding related to the oversighted edits he will almost certainly be expeditiously unblocked. I hope this happens quickly, and based on our ongoing communications I believe it will. I think anything said here will neither worsen his situation nor quicken his unblock. And in practice there are some exceptions to it, specifically in the realm of arbcomblocks. In practice we rarely comment on the reason for the block on arbcomblocks or oversightblocks or checkuserblocks (past what the templates suggest). I think given how much has already been stated about the situation one can draw reaosnable conclusions about why we blocked him. Frankly I'd like to see this all resolved and him quickly unblocked and able to edit productively as soon as possible, as soon as a key point is resolved. NativeForeignerTalk08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking personally, I thought a strongly worded warning would have sufficed as a clear "don't do this again". So, please, don't do this again. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much Courcelles, and I make note of what you first said before you slightly altered what you said here. I will thank in detail the many kind editors who said such thoughtful things about me here, but I'll need you to please be patient while I get around to it. I am going to comment on some issues about this below. But I'm back, and I'm delighted to be back, and I intend to stay around for quite some time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Good to see you back, Tryptofish. And, to User:Dirtlawyer1, it is also true that there are other policies exist, and it is certainly possible that WP:ADMINACCT would specifically exclude any actions which might be reasonably considered a breach of other basic policies. I think it is rather obvious, under the circumstances, that the arbs thought some other fundamental policy or policies are involved. And, under certain circumstances, any further information could be seen by some as being more information than the existing policies and guidelines would permit admins to reveal. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't know you were blocked, on my watchlist I just saw you are unblocked. I don't know reason of your block but nice to see you unblocked. welcome back. Take care. --Human3015TALK18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In the long time that I've been an editor, I wondered what my reaction would be if I were ever blocked. I kind of thought that my reaction would be one of such indignation that I would pull a diva quit, and leave Wikipedia entirely. But that's not how it felt, at least not for me. I often tell other editors to remember that "it's just a website", so if I can say it to them, I can say it to myself. It was really no big deal, and even a little bit interesting (albeit as in "may you live in interesting times"). There are people all over the world who are experiencing truly awful stuff. I'm not one of them.
Dirtlawyer1 has been asking for a simple statement of what policy was involved, and I can answer that. It was WP:OUTING. I've just had a lot of e-mail correspondence with the Arbs about it, and I'm reasonably sure that they and I agree entirely about what happened. There are two things that I do care about. (Well, actually three, and that third one is that I am immensely worried about Jytdog. I fear something awful has happened. And that dwarfs anything concerning me.) But I do care about editors basing their opinions about what I did on facts, not on smears. And I care about process. When Wikipedia does something wrong, we need to face it, and try to fix it, not ignore it. So those two concerns are what drive this statement.
First, I want to be clear that ArbCom indeed never intended "indefinite" to be permanent or even long-term. And I also want to discourage anyone from finding fault with NativeForeigner. If you know what happened behind the scenes, NativeForeigner did not do anything that I think was wrong.
If you read the outing policy, you will have a mental picture of what outing is. You will have a mental picture of what an outing-violating edit looks like. My controversial comment (which, for the technically minded, was suppressed/oversighted, rather than rev-deled) did not look like what I think you would envision. Without going into anything that should not be public, let me set the record straight. Another editor at the ArbCom case presented evidence about something Jytdog had said, that on the face of it, sounds pretty awful. I pointed out that there was a not-obvious reason why it wasn't as bad as it sounded. That's what I was commenting on, not attacking the editor who presented the evidence. However, I did something that I subsequently realized was bad. It was bad, and I accept that it was bad, and I'm not going to make the same mistake again. I'll say in a general way that I put something in the comment that, while it did not out anybody, could have been picked up on as a cue by anyone wanting to out someone. At the time, it simply did not occur to me how someone could have picked up on that cue, but that was my mistake. As soon as I saw the suppression/oversight, I facepalmed myself and immediately realized that I had messed up in a way that I regretted right away. And that's it. Hear me on this: I understand from the e-mail conversations that there is a near-unanimous consensus among the Arbs that I did not intend at the time of the edit to out anyone. I'm going to say that again: the Arbs agree with me that it was not intentional. There have been some theatrics during my block about how I intentionally outed someone, and that's false. I'm a human being (as well as a fish), and I make human mistakes. This was one of them, and one that I will never repeat. Most of the e-mails were about the Arbs checking with me that I understand now that what I did could be harmful, and I do. And I do not find any fault with the Arbs for wanting to clarify this with me. I am quite sincere in saying that I feel badly that the other editor felt harmed. And paradoxically, I've been a long-time harsh critic of doxxing.
I have some serious process concerns that are properly public, and I am going to raise them here. I'm going to paste here something that I said in part of one e-mail that I sent to ArbCom. There's nothing in it about the private stuff, and this is what I wrote, so I am entitled to make it public:
As soon as I saw the redaction, I immediately realized that my earlier understanding was wrong, and I now understand that it was wrong. I said on the Workshop talk page that I realized that I was wrong, and regretted it, and said that I agreed that the redaction was correct. I also said on both the Workshop page and on my user talk page that I apologized for it. From the time that I made the redacted post to the time of the block, 38 hours passed, and I made all those apologies during that time. I made it very clear that I had no intention of continuing or repeating what I had done. So, given that blocks are supposed to be preventative, and given that chronology, I cannot understand what you thought you were preventing. I can appreciate that you would want me to make clear that I understand, but I cannot make sense of the supposed need to block. Why could you not have left a message on my talk page instructing me to e-mail you, and we could have had this same discussion? Why did you think it better to block me first? I have a long track record as a good editor and a friend of ArbCom, and you should have realized that you could have discussed it with me. I really think that you need to justify this, and I think that if you unblock me, the block log entry should clearly convey a message that does not permanently misrepresent me as having done something wrong intentionally. I want it very clear that it was unintentional.
I also see that some editors who are parties to the case are casting aspersions on me about the block, on my user talk page and on the Workshop talk page. I urge you to get that under control.
They haven't replied to that, other than the unblock itself. Yes, that's right, 38 hours from my edit until the block, during which time I said three times on-Wiki that I recognized the mistake and would not repeat it. I can piece together from the e-mails why it followed that chronology. GorillaWarfare is someone I like personally and have repeatedly supported in discussions, and she has been entirely gracious during the e-mails. But there is something that she needs to learn from what happened here, and it's kind of a big deal. She saw my edit and recommended to the other Arbs that I should be blocked for it. As you can surmise from where, just above, Courcelles said that he opposed the block and then reworded what he said, I understand that there was something like 30-some hours of dispute among the Arbs about what to do. By which time I had repeatedly stated that I would not do it again, but that seems to have been ignored. And it appears that part of what led to the block decision was that there has been a history of other people, not me, whom ArbCom has had to deal with over outing issues, sometimes really awful stuff, and there was some perception that I had to be blocked like previous users, or else it would look like I had been treated differently. And that, please forgive me, is garbage. This was a punitive block, not a preventative block, and that is a violation of community norms and the blocking policy. There needs to be some serious examination of that unfortunate fact. I've made very clear what I did wrong, and now it's ArbCom's turn.
And another thing. While I was blocked, all you kind friends posted all kinds of stuff here on my talk page, which was nice, but it also had a Streisand effect. If there had instead just been a message here telling me to e-mail ArbCom right away, it would have passed with little notice. The Arbs and I could have had the same discussion, and they quite properly could have ensured that I understood. And the edit could have been suppressed, with much less attention drawn.
So that's what I have to say. I'm not going to do a diva quit. I'm not going to become a hasten-the-day person. I'm going to stick around, and there are some POV-pushers at the ArbCom case who are going to hear from me. And I'm happy to be back!
Paradoxically, I had long planned before this to take a Wiki-break starting tomorrow, to go to the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago, so I'll be gone for about a week. And now, I think it's even better that I give myself a break. But I'm back for the long-run. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That's an excellent statement, but then I would expect that from you. My first thoughts were indeed that a warning might suffice. My second thoughts however were that we always block for outing, that suggesting that some editors should be blocked but others could just be given a warning is a bad thing, and that in any case the block would not be permanent I realise you see it differently and so do/will others, but in any case enjoy your break. Breaks are good. Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Doug. With respect, your second thoughts are an admission that blocks are punitive, unless the prevention is preventing criticism of ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller and GorillaWarfare and Guerillero, I am afraid you are very, very much mistaken that we "always block for outing". I'd say fewer than 50% of unintentional "outings" result in blocks. In the case where the user has already recognized the error and it has been corrected, blocks are almost never done. Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases. The overwhelming majority of "outings" are carried out by trolling accounts or accounts with a significant history of behavioural problems, they are intentional, and the editors are often unrepentant. It's not okay to pretend this is an okay block. Tryptofish, who already felt guilty about his actions, may find it was okay, but there are a lot of other observers who find it gravely concerning. I'm one of them. There is NO policy that says anyone who ever makes an edit that could be interpreted as outing shall be blocked indefinitely until arbcom gives royal assent to their unblock. There never has been. Please don't make things up out of whole cloth. Risker (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Talkstalker says, at the risk of putting words into User:Doug_Weller's mouth, keyword was "always" ... the preventative bit was about preventing-future-outing-incidents-by-users-who-believed-they-might-get-away-with-doing-it-and-not-getting-blocked. In other words, it was not supposed to be punitive to you Tryptofish... *nor* was it supposed to be preventative to you Tryptofish. You apologized, recognized your mistake, et cetera. I'm not saying I agree it was a good block -- mostly because I'm not sure whether it was a good block or not -- but I do see that it was at least quasi-preventative, in the sense that any deterrent is preventative (of future hypothetical behavior by other people). In other words, the arbs blocked you, not to prevent YOU from doing anything, but to prevent other people... watching the GMO case now or just hearing about it years from now... from getting the idea that sometimes outing, if plausibly un-intentional, might not *always* be considered a direct pathway to a block. Again, I don't necessarily agree with this preventative-of-others-in-the-future logic, aka blocks as general-deterrence-sense-three, but figured I would at least point out that there *is* some kind of quasi-preventative idea, tied up with long-term "legal precedent deterrence" and long-term "geopolitrollical considerations deterrence" (for want of a better term), that could (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to the contrary, of course!) be a factor here. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
75, I understand what you are saying, but I reject the premise. By way of an admittedly imperfect analogy, we don't (well, shouldn't) put innocent people in jail in order to frighten people who may be contemplating crime. Nobody volunteers to edit here in order to be used as an example for people who are less constructive than they are, at least not as that kind of example. It's a terrible formula for attrition. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, Tryptofish, in what you say, and even in most of what you imply (imperfect analogy though it is). Only people that are extremely tough-skinned, such as yourself, who understand that It's Just A WebsiteTM will be able to stick around, in the harsh wiki-culture we are currently living within, slash creating for ourselves. So, first thing, glad you are sticking around. Second thing, as to the premise... (elided 939 words ... lucky I habitually click preview before clicking save) ...find this whole situation, and the wider situation that led to it, depressing albeit not unpredictably so. That being the way things are, I'll refrain from further commenting about this sub-topic of auto-procedural deterrence-blocks; when you get a chance, and have time to return to content (WP:NORUSH as always), I'd still appreciate your advice on whether the practopoeisis sources pass muster as WP:NOTEWORTHY, and if so, on where a paragraph-or-so about it, can best be merged so as to improve the 'pedia. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the brevity of this response; I'm about to go take an exam so I don't have loads of time. You are quite correct that the block was intended to be "indefinite" in the true sense of the term—we wanted to block until the issue was resolved. I also personally agree that I don't think you intentionally violated the outing policy.
Regarding your concerns about why you were blocked and the length of time between the suppressions and the block: violations of the outing policy almost always result in a block. Blocks prevent a person who outs another user onwiki from repeating the comments until we are sure that they understand why their comments were in violation of policy. We did not block you to "punish" you for outing, but rather to ensure we were all on the same page before you resumed editing. The delay was because the block discussion went to the full committee, and required a majority of arbitrators to support. Because of time zones and busy schedules, this unfortunately can make our responses rather sluggish. This is also why there was a delay between your response to our emails and the unblock. GorillaWarfare(talk)19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I know better than virtually anyone else on the project how difficult the arbitrators' responsibilities can be, and how unfair it can sometimes be when they are second-guessed on the basis of limited public information. So all I will say is that this is only the second time this year that I've wished I were still an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: OK, I am really, really not getting what you are implying here. Maybe some clarification about why this case is one which makes you wish you were still an arb? John Carter (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I am merely saying that I wish I could have been part of discussing how to handle this incident, and privy to the information involved, because I was as surprised by the block as anyone else who watches this page. More importantly, I'm glad the situation seems to be resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Some combined replies: John Carter, I'm pretty sure Brad meant that he would have opposed the block, which is excellent of him, as I would expect. Guerillero, thanks for correcting me about that, and I also apologize that I think I misspelled your user name in one of my e-mails. GorillaWarfare, I hope you do well on your exam, but there's something you, and perhaps Doug and Guerillero, need to hear when you have time. I get it that Arbs are in different time zones and cannot all respond to the e-mail list at the same time. But I'm pretty sure that there is no time zone wherein it is impossible to look at the case pages, and see that I said, repeatedly, that I knew that I had made a mistake and I would not do it again. It's entirely appropriate to block someone who may potentially repeat or continue outing behavior. That's in the best interests of the project. And it's entirely reasonable to block when it is unclear whether the problem will continue, until you can communicate privately and make sure that things are clear. But blocking when you already know that it will not continue, or at least you should have taken the due diligence to know, regardless of your time zone, that's wrong. It's not about prevention. It's about preventing ArbCom from being complained to by the trolls who say that you are treating them unfairly. But you could very easily tell them that you block when there is a problem to prevent, and you don't block when it is not necessary to prevent anything. And I bet by now a lot of Streisand effects are taking place with respect to this talk page, so that's not helping either. I made it very clear that I understand what I did wrong. Instead of circling the wagons, ArbCom might want to try it too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a better word for this sort of action would be "procedural" (as in automatic), rather than "preventive". As in: someone does this; this automatically happens. Even then, it's an awful feeling (I imagine) being on the receiving end of that, especially when the action was not intentional or fully conscious, and a retraction, apology, and assurance of non-repetition from an exemplary user was immediately forthcoming. Perhaps ArbCom should indeed rethink the automatic nature of some of these things, even if that seems to be a slippery slope. It's one thing to enforce something automatically; it's another to live with a block log etc. even after a fairly unintentional slip-up. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hell, I've been blocked lots of times, for all kinds of trivial shit. The embarrassment wears off real fast. EEng (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be a better euphemism for it, but not a better word. If it ought to be automatic, let's fire ArbCom and install some software. I'm frankly rather stubborn, and I also have a good self-image, but we can lose a lot of good editors if we are not careful. I'm pretty sure that we have lost Jytdog, and frankly I hope that we merely have lost him from Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm probably just getting a little irritable, but I have to say, I'm 59 years old and not a nitwit, and the more I think about it, the more I resent the implication of some of the Arb comments, that I in effect needed to be educated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think the problem with blocks like this is the lack of consistency. I know of an editor, now banned, who outed other editors on four separate occasions. ArbCom was made aware of those outings, and did nothing until the editor finally outed yours truly, and then they finally took action. The present ArbCom has different members than the one that I'm referring to, so I'm not necessarily accusing the current Committee of being inconsistent. It's just that WP's administration, in general, is inconsistent. I guess that's one reason not to be too concerned about one's block log, because you might get popped for something that someone else got away with, and vice versa. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, @Cla68: it would be more accurate to say "was accused of outing other editors on four separate occasions". In one instance in that case, for example, they were accused of outing someone who openly linked (and still links) to all sorts of personal private information on their user page. While I take the point that outing has been handled inconsistently by the community and oversighters in the past, the emphasis over the last few years has been on much stricter enforcement. Outing on case pages has never been tolerated (though the remedy for it has sometimes been rolled in the PD). Roger Daviestalk07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see a way to take that even further, by concluding that consistency in considering what the specific editor's conduct is is a good thing, but a false consistency that says treat an experienced editor with a good track record (now who could that be?) the exact same way as a dimwitted vandal is going to tend to make a lot of experienced editors leave altogether. But I do agree about not sweating the block log. I'm interested to self-observe that, before this, I felt that it was a big deal, but after, I really don't care. On the other hand, look at how the community regards blocks at RfA. I'm not particularly interested in hat collecting, but if I were, I would feel that this block ruined any chance I previously had at passing an RfA (again, not that I really want to). An interesting side-observation: after posting this statement, I've gotten, privately, some very thoughtful e-mails from individual Arbs, reflecting some serious self-reflection, in a way that I really do not see in public here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, someone who disagrees with you can try to use your block log against you, fairly or not. You would think some established users would be above doing that. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
All that I can say is that I first voted for a warning. I was then told that we, ie the committee, always block for outing when we are aware of it. Procedurally (good word that in this case, I was searching for a word that doesn't mean punitive or preventive) I saw no choice if we weren't going to appear to be showing favouritism. I'm not just sorry but upset if this was wrong and there is precedent for not blocking for outing that we know about. If someone tries to use your block log against you I'm sure that we can make sure no harm comes. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, there is never a need to support an action or sanction against someone that seems unnecessary, or disproportionate, or counterproductive, or not to make sense, regardless of any alleged precedent that someone may claim applies. As an arbitrator I observed in decisions that double-standards are demoralizing, but it is equally true that one can err by treating unlike things alike just as much as by treating like things unlike. And an unintentional action is unlike an intentional one, and a regretted comment is unlike a defended one, and an isolated misstep is unlike a frequent one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, though there is a world of difference between different types of outing (which policy acknowledges). These range from accidentally letting confidential slip (ie "Try talking to User:XYZ, they can probably help you. They emailed me the other day to say that they've now been promoted to VP in charge of development at MegaCorp Inc") to invitations to undertake opposition research, which the community at large has always prohibited. The problem in my view is that inconsistent application of policy by ArbCom has, in the past, created more problems for the community than it has solved. Some of these problems have been extreme reluctance to sanction someone who is perceived as a white hat and I can think of many instances of unambiguously prohibited behaviour being glossed over as "doesn't rise to the level of an ArbCom finding", "no, just, no" etc because of fears that tackling it would send the wrong message to the black hats. This short-term approach has brought long-term (and serious) problems for ArbCom, in particular its accelerating politicisation. ArbCom is poorly equipped to handle political maelstroms on any basis other than the strict application of policy. Good content contributions, clean block logs, and so on, should be seen as mitigating factors for the duration of a sanction rather than the basis for dubious exoneration and that, in my view, is appropriate use of discretion. Roger Daviestalk07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge, as I did earlier in the thread, that those of us who aren't on the Committee may not have the benefit of all the information relevant to the block. But based on the information that is available, I perceive no basis for thinking that a "political maelstrom," or indeed any other significant consequence, would have occurred if this incident had been handled differently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
By political maelstrom, I was simply observing that both ArbCom cases and ArbCom's role have become incredible political. Though given the incident occurred on a case page, and given it was directed as parties for whom TF has proposed site-bans, and given the prominent warnings about conduct on the case pages (which incidentally TF has used to support his proposals), I'm not convinced that a second individual warning would suffice. For a start, it looks like playing favourites. On this basis, a short block (with an unparticularised rationale) which draws a line under the incident is probably a much better way forward for all concerned than say a FOF (which it merits) and a remedy. Roger Daviestalk09:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I just re-read that, and I realized some things that went right past me when I read it before traveling, but which are apparent to me especially after seeing what Roger Davies wrote to me on the Workshop page while I was away (and to which I have replied also on the Proposed Decision talk page). You seem to be saying that I proposed, in the Workshop, a site ban for Minor4th. I did not. You seem to think that it "was directed", in the sense of making an intentional attack on an editor. That is patently false. It was said in defense of a different editor, and it frustrates me that I cannot cite specifics to show how false that is. When you express doubt that I would have understood an individual warning, that is an insult to my intelligence, and it ignores, yet again, that I had already posted on three different pages (two of them case pages) that I regretted the edit and did not intend to repeat it. As I pointed out at the PD talk page, you said, mistakenly, on the Workshop page, that I proposed FOFs without providing diffs anywhere – when in fact I had said very clearly just above where you posted that comment, that all the diffs were in my section of the Evidence page, which strikes me as a reasonable place to provide evidence. Are you seriously threatening an FOF against me about that? I am becoming increasingly concerned that it may have been you, Roger, who argued the rest of the Committee into blocking me, and that you are doing so in the wake of repeatedly not attending to facts that were readily available to you. I'm a volunteer, and you seem to be sending a message that volunteering to be a filing party in a case, volunteering to spend a huge amount of time amassing diffs, and volunteering to spend a huge amount of time developing workshop proposals, is going to be met by the current members of ArbCom with carelessness about facts and assumption of bad faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, friends, I found to my pleasant surprise that I uncharacteristically got my travel preparations done early, so I have a bit of time to check back here, just briefly. @Risker: thank you very much for what you said above, because I think that it's by far the best comment that anyone has made in this discussion. At one point, you said that I said that this is OK. Actually, that's not the way I really feel about it. What I feel is that I'm grown-up enough not to demand heads on a stake or stuff like that, and I recognize that there is some blame on my part as well as that it is very difficult for the Arbs to do what they have to do – and also that I'm taking the position that I'm just not going to let myself get upset about it. But that does not mean that I think that the majority decision of the Arbs was OK. Risker is right: "Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases." That is the fact of the matter, and ArbCom needs to deal with it. As for playing favorites, that's nonsense (as much as I'm enjoying the implied compliment). The way not to play favorites is to present a clear rationale for each action or declined action. As for inviting some sort of maelstrom, y'all created quite a Streisand effect, which is bizarre for people concerned about privacy. Doug, thank you for saying that you are now upset. Having, myself, acknowledged responsibility for my own errors, I'm looking forward to all involved Arbs doing likewise, and I would have a low opinion of anyone incapable of doing so.
Something ironic occurred to me. Guerillero made a post on the Workshop page the other day, asking me to recommend to him and NativeForeigner how to put diffs into the findings of fact in the PD, and he posted it (irony alert!) while I was blocked. An adverse side-effect of the brief time window between my unblock and my impending travel is that I simply cannot do that. So I figure that will add a couple of hours to the amount of time that the two drafters will have to spend preparing the PD. I'll be enjoying myself at a conference, and you'll be working a few extra hours on something tedious. Perfect karma.
Another thing occurred to me, too. The case pages are chockablock with other editors, not me, posting stuff like editor so-and-so is the same person who also posts at such-and-such blog under this other name. No actions against that (please nobody wikilawyer with me about the relative proximities to real names, I am aware of it, but it does not interest me). Maybe that goes to what Cla said about inconsistency. But most certainly, I realized that it played into my own mind when I made my infamous edit. I was in the middle of so many other editors posting about stuff like that, that it got me thinking that way myself, and that was part of the reason why I failed to see initially the problem with what I had said. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
While there are a lot of good individuals on ArbCom, the current Committee (as a group) is one of the more dysfunctional that I can remember. I think your block was an unfortunate by-product of that dysfunction. In terms of its effect on your good name, if you ever want to run for adminship, let me know and I will happily nominate you (although having my name attached to your RfA might arguably hurt you more than help you...) I think you'd be excellent in that role, and frankly, I think this experience actually makes you more suited to adminship, because you've seen an overhasty, bad block from the receiving end. That's useful context. That said, I can't really imagine why anyone would want to run for adminship these days, so consider this a standing offer but not a push. Have a good meeting. MastCellTalk18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Doug, I really do understand that you did not say that you admitted anything, and overall, I was paying you a compliment because you expressed some sympathy to me, and you appear to be talking about some admirable introspection following the block. I'm not entirely sure which "if" you are referring to, but perhaps you mean where you said that you are "not just sorry but upset if this was wrong". I think that ArbCom – and not just you individually, but the Committee as a whole – needs to evaluate where the "if" in that passage really fits. There really isn't an "if" about it, that I can see. It was wrong. That's why, when you said that your "second thoughts however were that we always block for outing", there is a question about whether it was going to prevent anything. If it wasn't preventing something, then ArbCom needs to justify how that would not be punitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: Roger, after being away from Wikipedia, as I said here that I would be, I observe that you directed some comments to me on the Workshop page about the need for diffs in the fofs. I cannot respond there, because the Workshop is closed. But I want to make sure that you understand very clearly that I said on the Workshop page that every fof proposal I made was based on my section of the Evidence page, where you will find the diffs, without fail. I said that, and you should have seen it. As for when I was or was not able to provide those diffs on the Workshop page, I want to remind you of where I said, just above:
Guerillero made a post on the Workshop page the other day, asking me to recommend to him and NativeForeigner how to put diffs into the findings of fact in the PD, and he posted it (irony alert!) while I was blocked. An adverse side-effect of the brief time window between my unblock and my impending travel is that I simply cannot do that.
I hope that you, Roger, as well as Guerillero and NativeForeigner are aware of that. You all commented here on my user talk right around that time, so again, you should have seen it.
And, with that, MastCell's kind words to me, referring to what may be some dysfunction on ArbCom, fit with my own concerns about what ArbCom should have seen. I really get the feeling that ArbCom either did not see the three places where I said that I regretted the suppressed comment, or just did not care. Risker is right: "Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases." And, strictly speaking, what I did wasn't really outing so much as WP:BEANS with implications for outing. I've been away, so it's fine that this discussion has paused. But I'm back now, and I'm re-starting the discussion.
I can put it together that when Guerillero informed the rest of the Committee of his suppression of my post, there were differences of opinion among the Arbs who were active at that point in time. Some apparently did not favor a block, and instead wanted a warning, and I say good for them. Others appear to have been under the impression that there is some sort of unwritten rule that punitive blocks for outing are automatically required (and I'm not clear as to what effect, if any, there was from whatever complaint you might have gotten from the other editor). That's really bad, and frankly it's worse than anything that I did. Then there was some sort of discussion dynamic, in which some Arbs may have felt unable to disagree with those advocating for a block, and those opposing the block were unable to sway the decision. That is not as bad as being completely wrong coupled with believing that one is completely right, but it also is a dysfunction of sorts.
I said something just before I went out of town: "Having, myself, acknowledged responsibility for my own errors, I'm looking forward to all involved Arbs doing likewise, and I would have a low opinion of anyone incapable of doing so." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I have a sinking feeling that ArbCom is going to try to reply with silence, and I hope that I am incorrect. I still look forward to receiving replies here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I just sent the following e-mail message to the ArbCom list: "I've made some comments to you at User talk:Tryptofish#Statement, and I'm not confident that the notification system works, so I'm sending this e-mail to, hopefully, make all of you know that you may want to read what I said there, and that you are welcome to comment there. I would like for all members of the Committee to be aware of the discussion (and I think it's better not to draw excess attention to it by posting at the ArbCom talk page, so that's why I'm using e-mail instead). Thanks." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Arb com, and administrators, have two choices: they can act according to iron-clad fixed rules, or they can use discretion. If they act according to bright-line rules, they will inevitably do injustice on occasion; if they act with discretion, they will also inevitably also do injustice, being human and therefore fallible. The reason we use humans, not bots, as administrators and arbitrators, is that we consider the chances of doing substantial injustice lesser with humans. Of course, it does depend on the humans. This is the perennial conflict between law and equity, and different organized bodies have a wide variety of practices in dealing with it.
It is obvious that some of us,including some of us on arb com, are in favor of bright line rules in certain situations. I am never in favor of such rules when they have any punitive aspects. I consider the rules about reversing administrative actions as also very likely to do gross injustice; I am aware they are also necessary to prevent truly damaging actions affecting individuals. I regard cases of it that are not obvious trolling as needing consideration of both the specific details and the underlying background--and to some extent the individual--, and I am therefore never willing to apply them without considering the entire issue. I have thought so increasingly since I have joined arbcom, as I have needed to deal with such matters, and been able seen more closely the ambiguities that can exist in the definition, and consequently the widely different degrees of guilt. To the extent this needs to be dealt with by arb com, I will deal with it as a human. Were I not optimistic about what humans can do, I would not be here. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
DGG, thank you very much for that thoughtful and intelligent comment. I am very grateful for it. I urge other members of ArbCom to consider what DGG said very carefully. Please let me also make it clear that I understand how the sensitive nature of "reversing administrative actions" comes into play here. It does not escape my understanding that ArbCom needs to be careful about not starting a precedent in which blocked users can demand apologies for blocks, because that precedent would lead down a bottomless rabbit-hole. But it also seems to me that I was correct in describing the internal ArbCom discussion about me as being one where Arbs came to it via different views about "bright line rules... when they have any punitive aspects", and some other members of the Committee failed to understand their human limitations in the manner that the community expects of the Committee. I'm optimistic too, however. If I were not, I would have quit Wikipedia in a huff, or I would have figured that I was wasting my time in continuing this discussion if I stayed. I am continuing this discussion, for as long as I think that it takes. If some ArbCom members cannot come to terms with the fact that they need to "consider[] the entire issue", then they are failing to meet the community's expectations for them, and there is a danger that they will continue to do to other editors what they did to me. I'm optimistic that these Arbs will come to learn from what happened and do better in the future, or failing that, that they will not remain in positions of trust for much longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, there is certainly a lot of "wow" that can be applied to all of this. But nobody is getting rid of me, I can promise you that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This user is not a member of ArbCom, but after seeing such excellent works and persuasive arguments may be confused as one. (verify)
(edit conflict) Now, I think it's my turn to say "wow!" In any case, I do expect to play some sort of role in the election, if only via a voter's guide, which this year, perhaps, may carry a bit more weight than usual. It is, however, my observation that candidates who run in the context of protesting a recent action against them by the current Committee always lose pretty badly, and so I do not see much point in putting myself or the rest of the community through that. What I really want to do is to put all of these dramas behind me, and work on some content that I have had zero time to work on, as a result of all these dramas. I hope that, when the PD of the current case gets posted, my faith in the system will be somewhat restored, but at this point I really have no idea what to expect. Maybe it will be Kafkaesque instead. I feel like the message to me, at this point, is that it's a mistake to be a filing party and it's a mistake to spend a lot of time researching evidence and thinking about workshop proposals. After all, my original proposal was simply to enact DS and see how that works. On the other hand, my friend Looie asked for a full case, and as soon as the full case was accepted, he disappeared from the whole thing. I guess he knew something that I did not. And speaking of disappearances, I now realize that all my concerns on behalf of Jytdog were misplaced. Stupid me. But something that I absolutely do not regret is having stood up for the importance of Wikipedia presenting content that actually tells our readers what reliable sources say, instead of what our noisiest editors want to soapbox for. I'm worried that some current Arbs have not figured out how to use an evidence page, and instead are getting swayed by theatrics on the workshop page and, as a result, failing to see the GM forest for the GM trees. I've commented in the case about other editors perhaps being exasperated. At this point, I'm exasperated, but it's not going to make me go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit I was expecting more editors to present evidence that are involved in the GMO topics even discounting Jytdog. I'm guessing that speaks to the level of exasperation editors have in this area. It took a ton of my spare time (didn't have much this fall) to just barely keep up with the case, so it wouldn't surprise me if other editors just decided they didn't have the time. I'm just hoping ArbCom realizes how much exasperation has played into this, especially with the overall picture seen at evidence and workshop and which editors primarily showed up. Maybe DS will help alleviate the problem of reluctance to deal with behavior issues at ANI due to those conversations usually resulting in no action (essentially poking the hornet's nest instead of taking care of it). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I was too busy IRL to devote a block of time to the research needed to develop useful workshop proposals, or to really follow other related events. When I did have a bit of time toward the end, I looked in and saw - and I forget who I'm plagiarizing here - that it was a great example of "arbitration pages exist for people to demonstrate the behaviors that got them dragged to arbitration". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
That's true. When I look back at the workshop page now, I am struck by how conspicuously and noisily the POV-pushers lined up to vote (and I mean vote, rather than !vote) for and against proposals according to their POV-pushing agenda. There's a limit to how much one can reasonably try to get WP:The Last Word in against them. That is very much what has been the problem on the GMO pages, and it's very much what led Jytdog to act in the ways for which he has been criticized. Based on the few Workshop comments by Arbs, I have a bad feeling that at least one of the Arbs was swayed more by the theatrics there, than by the evidence on the evidence page, which he may not even have read. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: I usually steer clear of Arbcom politics, allowing the sinners, the saints and our elected pharisees to sort their problems without my redundant opinions on the contretemps du jour. That said, someone needs to ask the following questions of all Arbcom candidates in the run-up to next month's election:
(1) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, has the ability to issue a punitive block? If so, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."
(2) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, has the ability to issue a so-called 'procedural' or 'automatic' block without considering the merits of the individual case? If so, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."
(3) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, has the ability to issue any block 24 to 36 hours after the conduct complained of? If so, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."
(4) "Do you believe that Arbcom, or any administrator acting on behalf of Arbcom, must adhere to the blocking policy and WP:ADMINACCT, and provide a reasonably specific public explanation for any block issued, including relevant policies and guidelines, when requested per ADMINACCT? If not, please explain and cite all policies and guidelines that support your position."
Those are excellent questions! And I'm pretty confident that I already know what Brad's answers would be, and I agree with those. But I'd love to hear answers from current members of the Committee! At this point, I'd say that Courcelles and DGG have already, in effect, answered intelligently. And Dougweller has expressed sincerely conflicted feelings about it. But the other current members appear to be expressing either a lack of understanding, or deliberate silence. I realize that they are swamped with the PD and another case request right now, and I'm sympathetic to that. But I'd like them to do better than silence about it, in due time. Above, DGG and I discussed how real human beings make decisions. If the only response from the rest of the Committee is going to be silence, then let's just create a bot that generates silence. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, those aren't the tough questions, I don't think, but here's how I'd answer them: (1) Rarely if ever, but an admin will hardly ever call a block punitive, whether it arguably is so or not, so this doesn't really cut to the heart of "how do you decide whether to block or not?" (2) The "authority" to, probably; whether it's a good idea is a very different question to which I'd usually say no. Personally I've always come down on the "standards" end of the classical "rules vs. standards" spectrum, but de gustibus (for cogent, if historical, criticism of my approach, one can read the old essay here). (3) Yes, but that authority should be used only when it needs to be. If I discover that two days ago, someone replaced a BLP with a picture of an intimate body part, I'm likely to block despite the delay. If I discover that two days ago, someone went to 4RR in an article that's now stable, I would generally let it go with a warning, if that. (4) Yes, unless there are extremely cogent reasons for not doing so, such as a user privacy issue or a RL legal issue (these rationales will rarely apply to blocks of long-time editors). I'll leave "explaining and citing all policies and guidelines" as an exercise for the candidates, though. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, this is diverting, so I'll play my hand at some answers (but, no, that does not make me a candidate). I'm not really directly answering Dirtlawyer1's questions, so much as providing my take on how to follow-up to what Brad said, placing it more specifically in the context of what happened to me:
What is essential is that it should be possible to explain coherently what kind of disruption the block was intended to prevent. If there is no coherent explanation of that, then it was a bad block.
There are certain disruptive behaviors that are so bad that blocks are to be expected, of course. But it is absurd to issue a block without considering the facts. It is particularly absurd to issue a block because of fear of being accused of favoritism.
Again, it comes down to what is being prevented. If, after a lot of time, there is still a good reason to expect that the user might create further disruption, then a block can be useful. But that changes when the user has already, repeatedly, said that they recognize that they made a mistake and do not intend to make that mistake again. If the user saying that appears believable, then blocking anyway is a bad block.
When there are privacy issues, it's reasonable not to comment in ways that draw more attention to those privacy issues, although best practice is to also consider whether the block itself will draw unnecessary attention to something private. However, when there are valid questions unrelated to those privacy issues, administrative silence is an unacceptable tactic to avoid accountability.
I want to add that my saying those things should not be misconstrued as me trying to discount my own mistake. Two wrongs do not make a right. But two wrongs also do not mean that we only look at one of the wrongs. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
one add-on to point 3: We are neither gods nor telepaths. It is impossible to predict to what extent a promise of reform is believable. Trusting blindly to them has the effect of giving preferential treatment to plausible liars, or to people with compulsive behavior, and unfairly negative treatment to people too stubborn or proud to apologize, but who might still not offend again. The present arb com has been somewhat more liberal this year in accepting assurances from previously banned users. Some of these have not turned out well. Obviously the only way to find out is to try, but after a try has failed, and the individual re-banned, how shall we handle a subsequent promise? DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, DGG, although, with each new day that I log on, it saddens me not to have heard from any more of your colleagues. Inevitably, I see this discussion through the narrow lens of my own situation, so that makes me point out that I, individually, am very, very far from being a previously banned user, nor a compulsive liar. I do not think that my specific case was one where what I said lacked believability. I'm both stubborn and proud, but I also very explicitly apologized, and I did so three times during those 38 hours. Given that what I told ArbCom via e-mail was really not different from what I had already said on-site, I don't think that the Committee needed any telepathic skills in order to know that they did not need to block in order to ascertain my intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I really can't and don't disagree with you. Having said that, we have had even sitting admins recently act in a way which might be best described as "unpredictable," and shortly thereafter retire. It can be kind of hard to tell when any individual may have reached some sort of personal breaking point. Like I said, I don't disagree with you, but the number of such unusual incidents can maybe make some people a bit more hesitant to place too much trust in others. Unfortunately. I hope, maybe, certain current cases might be able to help reduce the amount of cheap shots and personal attacks a lot of good editors are subject to, and, maybe, make it easier for those in positions of power and authority to really feel comfortable in extending the trust that they in many, if not most, cases would want to. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying, and again, I very much welcome anything that anyone wants to say. But I still think that, no matter how much other aggravation an Arb is dealing with – and there is no doubt in my mind that the quantity of such aggravation is immense – there is still an expectation from the community that the Arb will not choose to distrust one editor (me) simply because someone else is an unpleasant case. After all, what I told them via e-mail was really the same thing that I had already said three times on-Wiki, so if they didn't trust what I had said on-site, it's not clear to me why they would instead have trusted what I said via e-mail. But I don't really think that it happened that way. I think that they either didn't see my three on-site apologies because they failed to pay attention, or they knew about it but felt for other reasons that they needed to block (ie, to make a point, that they weren't "playing favorites", or to enact some imaginary requirement that blocks are automatic in certain circumstances).
And I think that making anybody retire would be an undesirable result here. My (optimistic) hope would be that, just as I acknowledged that there are certain things that I will not do again because I learned something from this experience, they could do likewise, and then everyone would be better off. Above, DGG talked about editors who are too stubborn or proud to apologize. I'm not even asking for apologies, but with each passing day, I become increasingly concerned that some members of ArbCom are too... what? is it stubborn or proud? or frightened? or too overwhelmed with other responsibilities that they just don't have time to respond to me??... to indicate that they recognize some things were suboptimal practice and they can reassure the community that it won't happen again.
I've gotten e-mails from various individual Arbs, writing as individuals rather than on behalf of the Committee, and of course I am respecting the privacy of what they said to me. But, given speculation here about what they were thinking, I believe that I can describe in a general sort of way some things that I know. I earlier said that I think that some Arbs argued assertively for a block and others just sort of went along. I know from some e-mails that, at that 38-hour time point when the block was made, something that I will describe as "uncertainty" (my word, no one else's) was going on within their mailing list discussions. Maybe it was some of them opposing the block, but I'm speculating there and I do not know. Or maybe it was some of them not being present in the list discussion at that particular moment, so that those who were discussing things at that moment were waiting to hear back, but again, I don't know. But apparently, at that moment, there was some feeling that, if they waited further, it would add another 24 hours (approximately) to the decision process. In other words, 38 hours would have gone on to become something approximately like 62 hours, plus or minus. And the decision to go ahead and block then was partially influenced by a desire not to let it take that much longer. In my opinion, that does not reflect very well on how the decision was made, and it does point to some element of dysfunction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"Wow", as of now
Although I make mistakes, I try hard to be constructive at Wikipedia, and not to knowingly cause difficulties. I have been waiting (and waiting. and waiting. and waiting.) for the posting of the Proposed Decision in the GMO case, because I know that the drafters have been having a hard time of it, and I wanted to show them some consideration by not raising an additional demand on their attention and time, until they had gotten the PD out of the way. But there are some things that I have wanted – very badly – to say ever since I got back from the conference I went to, which is now several weeks ago. And I have sadly come to the conclusion that waiting any longer is a fool's errand, and that the consideration that I extended was to some extent unearned. So I have some serious things to say now.
First, I want to make it clear again that I am not seeking to deny or to minimize or to distract from my own responsibility. I also do not believe that I should not have been blocked on the basis of my being an experienced editor with a good track record, the so-called "vested contributor" thing. I do not believe in that. Rather, I believe that, given my record, there was good reason to trust me when I had said, three times, that I regretted the edit, knew that it was a mistake, and would not do it again. There was no valid reason to think that I could not be trusted to have meant what I said, and there was no valid reason to have failed to see what I had said, because two of the times I said it was on case pages, and there was no valid reason to trust what I eventually said by email more than what I had already said on-site.
What I said about my own feelings right after the block was accurate. I wasn't particularly disturbed about it, because I expected everything to be discussed and worked out collegially. When I got back from Chicago, however, I was shocked to observe what I commented on here. That is more than objectionable. It is appalling. And more broadly, I am disappointed at how most (not all) of the Arbs have never really bothered to comment in a manner that acknowledges the ways that the block was problematic. It's as if they are doing the Wiki-equivalent of "pleading the fifth", except that this isn't a court whereas administrator accountability does apply.
These things, taken together, have changed how I feel about it. I resent it, and I feel mistreated about it. That has made me feel alienated from Wikipedia, to an extent that surprises and disappoints me. I've been having a feeling of "oh, why bother" with respect to actual page editing, and have pretty much just been commenting on talk pages. So, as of now, I feel differently than I did originally, and not for the better.
So I am going to point again to something that Risker said here earlier...
I am afraid you are very, very much mistaken that we "always block for outing". I'd say fewer than 50% of unintentional "outings" result in blocks. In the case where the user has already recognized the error and it has been corrected, blocks are almost never done. Please don't ever think that a 38-hours-after-the-fact block is okay; it's not, and Arbcom has censured admins who made similar untimely blocks in other cases. The overwhelming majority of "outings" are carried out by trolling accounts or accounts with a significant history of behavioural problems, they are intentional, and the editors are often unrepentant. It's not okay to pretend this is an okay block. Tryptofish, who already felt guilty about his actions, may find it was okay, but there are a lot of other observers who find it gravely concerning. I'm one of them. There is NO policy that says anyone who ever makes an edit that could be interpreted as outing shall be blocked indefinitely until arbcom gives royal assent to their unblock. There never has been. Please don't make things up out of whole cloth. Risker (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
...because she has gotten it exactly right about what happened.
I'm looking for something that I can point to in the future, something that I can actually link to and point out, that shows accurately the problems with what happened. Not to deny my own responsibility, but to have a meaningful rebuttal when inevitably the block is "used" against me. And I'm also looking for the Arbs who participated in the decision to block, and who have not already said that they recognize that there were problems, to do simply what they asked of me: to indicate affirmatively that they understand, and that they have learned from it going forward.
So I am saying this now, and I will then wait approximately one day to see if there are any responses. Then, unless there has been a very significant improvement, I am going to begin a not-exactly-RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I got an email from Roger Davies, saying that he will reply to me in the near future, so I am eagerly awaiting that.
As for this diff, [13], I want to spell out very clearly what it means in terms of my having been blocked. There is one bit of information that is not disclosed in that diff, that the editor quite reasonably would like to keep private, and she has every right to do so. My edit very briefly referenced that bit of information, and it was appropriate to oversight it. As I have said earlier on this talk page, my edit also included something that was unintentionally WP:BEANSy, and that also was my fault. But I think that if a typical Wikipedia editor were to have seen my edit, the basic take-home message they would have come away with would have been exactly what you see in this diff here, with that private bit of information seeming like a minor sideline (not minor to the editor it concerns, but minor to anyone else). The "big headline", as most editors would see it, is disclosed voluntarily in that diff, so I did not "out" that. I'm not saying any of this to be unkind to the other editor, who is entitled to privacy. But the appearance of an ArbCom block for outing, coupled with the theatrics in #Block above, portray a very different picture of what I did, than what I actually did. And I have every right to make sure that my conduct is not misrepresented. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have had an email exchange with ArbCom, and that discussion may well continue further. However, there is one entirely non-private fact that is now very clear, and I want to make it clear here. When I was blocked, it was Roger Davies who persuaded the rest of the Committee that I should be blocked, and it was he who advanced the idea that blocks for anything related to outing must be made automatically, and that he regards it as having been a punitive block, and he regards the punitive nature of it as being just and correct. He has also stated on-Wiki, at the PD talk page, that he believes that I should have been sanctioned by ArbCom because of those "unclear links" in my Workshop proposals, regardless of what the Guide to Arbitration said at that time (and which he changed today). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of accuracy:
"he who advanced the idea that blocks for anything related to outing must be made automatically" No, I have never said that though for outing and harassment, blocks must absolutely be at the forefront of the mind.
"he regards it as having been a punitive block" No, I don’t and I have never said that.
"he regards the punitive nature of it as being just and correct" Again, no, I have never said that or thought it.
"He has also stated on-Wiki, at the PD talk page, that he believes that I should have been sanctioned by ArbCom"{{CN}} No, I have not said that either.
"those "unclear links" in my Workshop proposals"{{CN}} Nope, I have never mentioned “unclear links” or anything similar.
If someone else on the Committee said it first, then I accept that someone else said it first. And I actually agree with you that outing-related misconduct ought to be treated with the highest of seriousness. I've never disputed that. But someone must have said that it was necessary for there to always be a block, and that argument persuaded other Arbs to go along with it, per [14]. And we now know that it is not always the case.
You said in your email to me that I should consider myself lucky that it wasn't worse. That sure sounds punitive to me. And if a block is not preventative, then it is punitive, so why has no one ever given a convincing answer to this question: What was it intended to prevent? Surely, you already knew that I had made it clear that I was not going to do it any more.
Of course you did not say that, in so many words, but what else am I to conclude from your email to me?
[15]: You sure seemed to be calling for something, some kind of finding, like that here.
The words are not yours. They are NativeForeigner's: [16]. And you are definitely referring to something similar in: [17]
What is so sad about this is the way that ArbCom are defending yourselves in such lawyer-y ways. Those were not my exact words. It saddens me, genuinely, to see you retire from the Committee saying these things. No one is on trial here. I'm just asking for recognition that Arbs understand that there was nothing to prevent in the block. It's clear I will not get that. And I'm just asking to be able to have evidence that portrays my own role accurately. And it's clear from what Doug just said that ArbCom is not willing to help me in that way. So I expect that I will have to look elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? You're saying that we are being blindly led about by Roger and don't have minds of our own? That's nonsense. I won't say who first called for you to be blocked, but it wasn't Roger. And I cannot find any evidence he threatened you with sanctions, nor can I find the phrase "unclear links" on the PD talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm upset about the email that I got, and I bet a lot of other editors would be upset if they got an email like that, too. Well, the phrase comes from the PD proposals that were withdrawn. [18] Roger says plainly on the PD talk page that he would have proposed serious findings in the PD. [19] I didn't say that you are mindless, so please don't exaggerate. I said that he persuaded others. I don't know who first raised the block, and I don't expect to know, but it's clear that he was an advocate for it. If others advocated strongly for it, I'd be interested to know, and I don't see it as subject to confidentiality. Are you denying that you, yourself, said earlier on my talk that you and apparently others were initially disinclined to block, but were persuaded to change your minds, and that after the outcry following the block, you were having second thoughts about the way that it happened? [20], [21] Is it your position that the block was intended to prevent something? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to reproduce a paragraph from the email that I sent in reply to ArbCom:
For a very long time, I have been a good member of the editing community, and someone who has time after time been helpful to ArbCom. Whatever it is that has led Roger Davies to feel the way that he does about me, it should not be something that causes a fissure between me and ArbCom. You know well how many users go all around the ArbCom talk pages and the Village Pump and so forth, saying that ArbCom should be torn down and saying all kinds of awful stuff about you folks. Good heavens, the other day I found out about one of you getting a fist waved in your face! I am not one of those editors. I urge you to understand that, and to stop treating me like one. I am deliberately keeping my complaints, except when those ridiculous proposals about me appeared briefly in the PD, only on my user talk, in order to not advertise it all over the Wiki. And I have repeatedly delayed complaining about things, in order to give the drafting Arbs time to work on the PD, even though I wanted to raise these issues sooner. After all, how many editors come back from a block, and say this: [22]? My concerns are valid, and they have been endorsed as valid by experienced members of the community. You would do well not to treat me like some sort of enemy of Wikipedia.
[W]hat has led Roger Davies to feel the way that he does about me ... As far as I'm concerned you're party to a case who has behaved sub-optimally ... Roger Daviestalk20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've had a good night's sleep, and I cannot overstate how much I want to put the entire experience of the GMO case behind me and return to editing content that I enjoy editing, but here's the thing. All I've been asking for, all this long time, is a simple indication that most of the Arbs understand the criticisms that, not just me, but so many experienced editors, have raised about some aspects of the block, and that they understand that they should do better in the future, and also something concrete that I can point to, when inevitably someone tries to "use" the block against me, that will accurately reflect what the reality is. That's not unreasonable, and it's not cranky. But yesterday, I was very upset to receive an email from one of the Arbs, that had a tone of escalating, rather than deescalating, and really came across as very hostile to me. I replied to it yesterday as thoughtfully as I can, and I do not know whether or not I will get a reply to that. I can fairly summarize one part of the email to me as saying that I should consider myself "lucky" (that word is an exact quote) that ArbCom lifted my block at all, implying that I might have remained blocked a much longer time even after emailing them back. Up to now, everything that Arbs have said has indicated that the purpose of the block was to make sure that I would email them back and establish that I really understood exactly what the issues were, and that "indefinite" meant only that, with the block lifted as soon as ArbCom was satisfied that I was on the same page as they. But this latest message seems to me to reflect some dissent from that, and a belief that the block was – and ought to have been – punitive. I cannot see how that is anything other than an abuse of ArbCom's mandate from the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen the email in question and it doesn't say that. It does say you were lucky that it was only 24 hours given the sensitivity about harassment. It isn't fair for you to portray it the way you have or to suggest that it was an abuse of our mandate. Outing is one of the most serious forms of harassment. What you wrote was, IMHO, worse than actually naming someone. It wasn't just beansy and could have had more personal consequences than naming. Obviously I'm not going to discuss what you wrote further and I'm sure that you won't. I'll only add that I think most editors would agree that it was blockable. And it was on a case page, making it that much worse. You of course aren't the only editor to have been blocked for outing during the case. I've gone back over the earlier discussion and realise that there was confusion between "always block for outing" and "always block for outing on an ArbCom case page". The former isn't the case, the latter seems to be an accurate reflection of past cases - at least no one seems to have come up with an example contradicting it. Of course you aren't an enemy of Wikipedia. But I think the block was justified and I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Roger isn't the reason for it. Maybe it's time to drop it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug, it is splitting hairs to say that there is a difference between saying that it was lucky that it was only 24 hours, or saying that it was lucky that the block was lifted at all. Either way, it is saying that it was lucky that ArbCom agreed to lift the block after I emailed back saying that I understood what the issues were. In other words, it is telling me that ArbCom would have been justified in leaving the block in place, even after I complied with the stated conditions for lifting the block. So how is that not a punitive block? I keep asking and asking what it was intended to prevent, and all I get is ArbCom digging in, and making wikilawyering excuses like it might have been different if it hadn't been on a case page (as if outing is more OK on some other pages). And you are exaggerating the nature of what I said in the oversighted edit, in ways where I cannot defend myself. (I also didn't say that it was just beansy; I said that it was in part beansy, and that the beansy part was something I should have realized was wrong.) I don't think most editors would agree with you, and neither did this editor. I don't think most editors would agree that a block is acceptable as a matter of process, even when I had already made it clear, on case pages, that I regretted it and would not repeat it. It was a punitive block, and you and your colleagues do yourself no good by digging in deeper. If Roger wasn't the reason for it, he certainly is the one who sent me that email and the one who NativeForeigner said (on the PD talk page) had wanted findings against me in the case. And if it was someone else instead, then it still was someone on ArbCom. I've made it very clear here that I have no intention of denying or minimizing or distracting from my own fault in this. I accept my own responsibility. So please don't make it sound like that. But I maintain that it was a punitive block. You did, after all, say this, and I am not seeing how you plan to deliver on your promise there to "make sure no harm comes." And I'm not asking for heads on a stake. I'm not even posting about it anywhere other than here. I'm just asking that ArbCom acknowledge that you should do better next time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug: I don't know what Tryptofish's redacted comment was, but I think it would be eminently reasonable to assume it was not a malicious attempt to out someone. W/r/t whether or not arbcom always blocks for cases of outing that occur on arbcom pages, although I don't have a diff offhand, I can assure you that this historically has not been universal practice. When dealing with the Wiki-PR situation I explicitly outed the founders of the firm multiple times, including in how I worded my community ban (which is now both ensconced in our cban list, and was included in a C&D sent by the WMF,) and at least twice on arbcom pages - I was never blocked for it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kevin Gorman: While that was a very different situation (especially as WMF Legal were involved and acquiescent), you seem to have a very laisser-faire approach to the principle of anonymity and the protection it affords against intimidation and chilling effects. Is this right? I know that you are interested in what Danielle Citron had to say in her Keynote on the subject because you suggested arbitrators watch her talk and act on it. (I also bought the book.) Prof Citron regards anonymity as essential in online space to prevent the silencing of victims and to secure the necessary preconditions for victims' free expression.["Hate Crimes in Cyberspace", p 28]. In the light of this, would you agree that Wiki-PR was an honorable exception to WP:HARASS or do you think we should adopt similarly relaxed approaches in, for instance, situations where a woman is the target? Roger Daviestalk21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually Roger, WMF Legal was not yet involved when I began to publicly connect the real names of the founders of Wiki-PR with specific user accounts that they had used, including on arb pages. I don't know what I've said that leads you to believe I have a laissez faire approach to the protection anonymity affords against intimidation and chilling effects experienced by victims of harrassment. Someone made a claim that they were unaware of any situation where engaging in outing on an arbcom page had not resulted in a block; I simply offered evidence that at least one such situation had already occurred. I agree whole-heartedly that Wiki-PR was an extremely unusual situation that is not the kind of thing that is likely to occur often, but it occurred which means the suggestion that outing on arbcom pages always necessarily results in a block is not true. Coincidentally, Danielle Citron's work is responsible for a majority of laws regarding revenge porn that have passed in the United States, and since these laws necessarily involve stripping away the mask of anonymity, I'm sure she'd agree with me that situations involving the potential violation of anonymity should be individually evaluated rather than any categorical rule about them formed (which is in line with WP:OUTING, btw. Even if Keilana hadn't publicly disclosed her first name to be Emily, if I non-maliciously referred to her as Em in a conversation on-wiki, outing would not call for my punishment.) I've made multiple outing blocks myself, and can't think of a situation where I've argued we should take anything approaching a laissez faire approach to outing. (The closest I can think of is the situation involving RO yesterday, where the extent of my argument was that if RO wasn't being actively disruptive it was inappropriate to indef her in the middle of a thread. I received emails from multiple people in the thread about previous incidents that had me considering taking action under WP:OUTING once the thread had closed, but since I so no immediate danger of anyone being outed, saw no reason to block her during the thread. I'm not sure what RO's last post was since it was oversighted before I read it, but Godot (whose images are absolutely stunning) has revealed enough information about himself on-wiki that even if she explicitly outed him, I doubt he suffered harm in the extremely brief period of time her post was up, whatever it contained - he seemed more concerned just about false accusations (though I had explicitly warned her not to out him, and had a discussion with her where I concluded by the end, I think fairly reasonably, that it was unlikely that she would.) Similarly, you're surely aware that since I am not +OS I have no idea what the contents of Trypto's post was, but from the contents of this thread and my past interactions with him am extremely dubious that it was deliberate outing (which is the only situation where an automatic block should be called for, barring exigent Wiki-PR type circumstances.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I find it a bit funny that in defending tryptofish by bringing up an action that was supported at the time by the community, arbcom, and WMF, it's now being brought as a reason to vote against me for arbcom :) If I hadn't mentioned it, everyone woud've forgotten it. Trypto, if you ever want to spend a couple years knee deep in ickiness, if you ever felt like running for arbcom, you'd win and be quite good at it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, I just tracked that down, and yes, that question was asked by someone who was recently on my talk page. I'm so sorry that it took that turn for you. I don't think you were boasting here; rather, you were explaining something. It goes to show: no good deed goes unpunished. As for spending two years knee-deep in ickiness, that sure sounds appealing! I'm sure that I can be forgiven for wanting merely to put this mess behind me soon and get back to content editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe Kevin's point was that ArbCom does not have an actual history of automatic blocks for posts on case pages. But apparently now, I am implicitly being compared to people who silence victims. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that. I always have. But it is not necessarily always to the same degree, and intent matters a lot. You seem to think that I did it intentionally, even though GorillaWarfare's email to me at the time stated that she thought there was a consensus on the Committee that I had not done it intentionally. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And something else. I cannot spell it out here, but in my email reply to ArbCom, I pointed out some things that I did or did not know, and that I only found out from Roger's email to me. There is some assumption of bad faith in assuming that I was aware of things that I wasn't, in fact, aware of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I have fully acknowledged that I should not have done that thing that I will vaguely describe as beansy. I've said that all along. I cannot say more, but I hope that you have read my email reply, and I hope that you will assume good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so very much, Kevin! I, of course, am familiar with what my comment was, and although I deeply, deeply regret it, I can honestly say that Doug's characterization of it just above was about as truthful as his claim that ArbCom has always blocked for outing on case pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Kevin's "outing" was (a) of an editor who had been indeffed months earlier; (b) not on a case page; (c) not part of case; and (d) not part of a dispute with the person outed. Plus, I don't think it was picked up at the time. Apples and oranges. Roger Daviestalk21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with what happened with Kevin. But I assume that he was telling the truth when he said that he did it twice on case pages, and I would think that it would follow that it occurred during a case. I appreciate that an indeffed user is a much different case than an editor in good standing, but surely if one believes in the importance of privacy, then an indeffed person can still be harmed by outing. And when you talk about these things, you are presenting it in terms of something where there must be punishment, rather than prevention. It's like you are implying that, if the harm is greater than a certain level, then there ought to be a punitive block whether or not it is preventative, but if the harm is lesser, then not. You are categorizing it in terms of how much you abhor it (and I do not find fault at all with you abhorring it!), rather than in terms of protecting the project by taking care that it will not happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kevin: I just want to pin this down for sure. You made two of those outing edits on case pages, during a case – that is correct, isn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually... now that I think about it I've probably intentionally violated outing on arb pages - but not to my memory during a case - in more than two edits. From memory, one set of such edits occurred after the ban of Phil Sandifer was announced for outing Cla68 off-wiki, in the clerk started thread about the decision. Cla68 hasn't been careful about hiding his identity, to the point of allowing his real-life identity to mentioned on a WPO blog post (and he's involved enough in WPO that if he didn't want his name mentioned it wouldn't have been) and having various diffs in his editing history (which I don't feel like digging up at this point) that 99.8% identified himself - and has been blocked for on-wiki outing previously, as well as having engaged in WPO shenanigans. It seemed like an utterly bad decision to indef ban someone who had brought up valuable contribution of Wikipedia for outing offsite someone who has never taken any great pains to hide his identity, so I (in an admittedly WP:POINTy move) explicitly outed the founders of Wiki PR including tying one of their names to an account that he had personally operated, and asking if Phil deserved an indef for outing someone who both had not hidden his real identity and had gotten a much shorter outing block himself what did I deserve for doing fairly extensive off-wiki research to out someone who to the best of my knowledge, whatever else you can say about him, had never outed a WP editor. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the additional information, Kevin. First, please let me quickly say that I've had some very good interactions with Cla68 myself even if we don't agree all the time, so I absolutely do not want my talk page to take a detour into the dispute between Cla and Phil. Let's end that discussion right now. But as for what I asked you, that's a helpful clarification. My take on it, for purposes of the present discussion, is that you made those edits on pages that are under ArbCom's direct supervision, so if anyone at ArbCom is going to argue that it doesn't count as the same circumstances as my edit, because my edit was on a case page but your edits were on non-case ArbCom pages, well, that's just the silliest kind of wikilawyering that I can imagine. No Arb of sound mind would accept that as a persuasive argument if a party to a case were to have made it, so Arbs should not make it either. The bottom line is that the supposed "rule" that ArbCom always and automatically issues blocks for anything related to outing on case pages, regardless of what may or may not happen on non-case ArbCom pages, or non-ArbCom pages, is something that was made up out of whole cloth. That doesn't mean that editor privacy isn't something that should be protected very strenuously. Privacy is properly of the very highest importance. But it also doesn't mean that administrator discretion should take a back seat to imaginary rules. I find it ironic that the Arbs are discussing administrator discretion a lot at the AE2 case right now, but a few of them have demonstrated less-than-optimal discretion in my own situation, and have, so far, shown a disappointing failure to own up to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I echo your sentiment entirely and have no desire to pick a fight with Cla68 (and respect an awful lot of his work.) But yeah, I definitely made the edits in question on pages that were under the direct supervision of arbcom, and I can't imagine a reasonable argument that pages under the direct supervision of arbcom are inherently different than case pages. I agree that privacy should be in all cases a concern of the utmost importance, for both editors, sitebanned users, and people who don't have anything to do with Wikipedia. But I also think administration discretion is not something that should be left behind in any circumstance, and given everything I've gathered about the nature of your block - particularly the fact that you're a trusted member of the community who had already realized what he had done wrong before the block was issued and apologized multiple times - combined with the time elapsed between when you made the edits and when you were blocked makes me think that someone failed to exercise discretion when they probably should've. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In this context of "administrator discretion", I find it interesting to take note of parts of two principles that the Arbs are in the process of adopting in the GMO case: "Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and... from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals." and "Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand." If my overall editing history has been taken into account in that things have not been harsher than they were, then I guess the second of those is being followed, although there may also be an understandably human tendency for Arbs to see things too much through the prism of what they see on their own case pages. But I think the tone of what has been directed at me recently here fails to take sufficient account of the first of those quotes, and it was sub-optimally considered in the ways in which discretion was or was not employed in my block. There is no question that I made a mistake and had a lapse of judgment. Once, not with malice, and not as part of a pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No splitting hairs, no one intended it to be permanent. I also don't think a recent email can change the nature of the block. My characterisation of blocking for outing was "the latter seems to be an accurate reflection of past cases - at least no one seems to have come up with an example contradicting it." Now Kevin says he has, but no examples came up during our discussion on the list. I'm disappointed that you think that I'm being untruthful (which means I'm lying) in my description - that makes it very hard to have a good faith discussion with you. I didn't say it was malicious because I can't read your motivation, but not being malicious doesn't make it excusable. I think that anyone who posts what you did should expect a block. No, I don't think it's now possible to make sure no harm comes. The more you write about it the more attention it gets. At the time I assumed you'd just drop it and move on. Doug Weller (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Doug: On second thought, you are right that I should not have used the word "truthful". I should probably have said "correct" or something like that. I apologize to you for that. This is a heated discussion, but I own my mistakes when I make mistakes. It saddens me that ArbCom does not do likewise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's very clear. You and Roger, and maybe others, consider me someone who should be punished, in part because I have continued to criticize ArbCom's bad performance. It would have been so easy to have a good reason to drop it weeks ago, if ArbCom had simply responded appropriately back then. It really would have been no big deal. Just admit that Risker, for example, had made a good point, [23] and say so. It wouldn't have been difficult at all. I was ready to drop it in that case. But I came back from Chicago to see Roger saying what he just affirmed here, and I rightfully expressed concern. And since then, all I am seeing from ArbCom is doubling down, demonizing me for my attempts to be helpful in the GMO case, even to the point where the final decision is probably going to be suboptimal as a result, sending me emails that escalate the situation, and twisting yourselves into all manner of wikilawyering to try to justify what you did. The message is that the present ArbCom does not tolerate criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been my experience, I'm afraid, that almost all the parties to all our cases regard their own actions as helpful and those of their opponents as unhelpful. It's the nature of an adversarial process .... Roger Daviestalk21:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, and I agree. But not all parties come with the same intentions of good faith. Whether you believe me or not, I made my redacted edit in good faith. It was stupid, but it was not intentionally stupid. Similarly, my participation in the Workshop has been in good faith. And it doesn't change the fact that it would have been so much easier for all of you to have settled these concerns many weeks ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I find it a bit interesting that a long-time sitting arbitrator would describe arbcom as an adversarial process, when it's original mandate was far closer to an inquisitorial system than an adversarial one, and I suspect that if processes were revamped to make it resemble something closer to an inquisitorial than adversarial system, the amount of drama involved in arbcom proceedings would significantly decrease. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The committee's role is inquisitorial, but the parties' relationship is adversarial. (Evidence. Rebuttal etc) There's really no way round that, unless you forbid the parties from commenting on each other at all (which is scarcely conducive to getting at the facts). Inevitably, things often get out of hand and we don't really have the resources to keep things in check. This is why there's extensive and active discussion of abolishing the workshops altogether, as that's usually where things get heated. Roger Daviestalk22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can understand that it is adversarial in terms of one party in relation to another party. But when the Arbs are adversarial to parties, as they have been throughout the GMO case in ways that have shifted from day to day, that's a problem. And the problem is worse, when as in my case, that party is a filing party trying to present a balanced view of the case as a whole, however imperfectly I did it, as opposed to a party who is a combatant in the dispute. And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with whether blocking me was punitive or preventative. But I'll say something further about the case. As I've said repeatedly, I did not want a full case, just DS. When I went into it, I was very much motivated by the history of me trying to sort of mentor Jytdog, seeing him as a talented and very promising editor, but one whom I repeatedly advised to be more careful about his conduct. He disappeared just as the case opened, and I didn't know why. I worried very deeply that something bad had happened to him. So I spent way too many of my allotted diffs on the Evidence page trying to prevent him from being site-banned. And consequently, I didn't have enough diffs to really document what other editors did (and I failed to think of asking for an extension). And boy, was my good faith misplaced! He completely failed to earn the consideration I extended to him. But I figured it was more important to prevent overly harsh sanctions than to obtain harsh enough sanctions for other editors. So look what happens. I get called what Roger has said about me because I didn't have enough diffs where, in hindsight, I needed them, and too many where, in hindsight, I didn't need them. I wish I never got sucked into the case to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's some additional information that I want to point out here. In the case, a big part of what I did was to try to analyze the evidence presented by other parties. The Workshop page has a section at the bottom that is for Analysis of Evidence. I saw a lot of evidence that was presented on the Evidence page that was misleading in some very serious ways (and I have been disappointed in how some of the Arbs appear not to have figured that out). So I did a lot of analysis there, doing things like providing diffs of what happened just before or just after another editor's evidence, and showing what the real context was. I was making edit after edit of that sort, examining one piece of evidence after another. The edit that I made, for which I was blocked, was one in a long, long series of these edits that I was making, one after another, hour after hour. When I made it, attacking the other editor who had presented the evidence was the farthest thing from my mind. In my mind, at the time, I thought that I was explaining something about the evidence. That was a stupid mistake on my part, and I regret it very, very deeply. But I did not do it out of malice. I've made almost 40,000 edits to Wikipedia. The laws of statistics and of human frailty assure that I would screw up in some of those edits. But it was a stupid mistake, not a deliberate act of malice. I'm a human being, and I'm not perfect, and I have never claimed to be a perfect editor. That doesn't make it OK, and I never said that it makes it OK. But that was my frame of mind. And I knew, on my own, how it was contrary to policy when I looked back at it, without needing anyone from ArbCom to take me to class about it, and I had made that clear in my three apologies. The way that some editors who oppose me in the case have painted my intentions, and the way that some of the Arbs here appear to have swallowed it uncritically, bloviating about the horrors of malicious outing, is really nothing more than the casting of aspersions that the Arbs are supposed to oppose, not practice themselves. Again, that doesn't make my own mistake right. Two wrongs do not make a right. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It prevented further incidents until we'd established that you were fully aware of the policy and were satisfied you were not going to repeat the behavior. Roger Daviestalk21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And that, in principle, is exactly what blocks are supposed to be for. But, in context, 38 hours had passed without any repeats. There was no reason to conclude that I was repeating the behavior. But what did happen during those 38 hours is that I apologized on three different pages, two of which were case pages where someone on ArbCom should have seen it. During the block, what was asked of me was that I email ArbCom and satisfy you of just what you said here, and I did that. But what I said via email was essentially the same thing as what I had said in my three apologies before the block. So I do not really believe that you found out anything from that email that you did not already know before the block. And, again, your email to me yesterday said that I should consider myself lucky that the block did not last longer, which appears to be unrelated to the time that I sent the email to ArbCom. So, taking all of that together, it is not really believable that my email to you during the block allowed you to "establish" anything that you did not know before the block. So, in context, I'm still not seeing what you were trying to prevent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Roger, it strains credulity to suggest that you didn't think Trypto was fully aware of the policy, or to suggest he would repeat an incidental outing once he had realized what he had done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Clearly he wasn't fully aware of the policy (or at least was aware and misinterpreted it). Anyhow, the incident is more complicated than that. Roger Daviestalk22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No that's wrong, and you answered Kevin without answering me. I exerted bad judgment when I made the edit, and I deeply regret that. (You have a Principle on the PD page, that says in part that editors are expected to make occasional mistakes, and there was no repeat pattern with me.) But after I had made the edit, I realized the mistake that I had made, and I understood it fully. I understood it fully, prior to the block. And ArbCom knew that, prior to the block, or should have. In terms of demonstrating that I understood, you did not really learn more from my email to the Committee while I was blocked, than what you should have realized from what I said in three places, two of them case pages, prior to the block. And I did not really learn anything more from ArbCom during the block than what I knew before the block. Those are facts. (I expressed questions about why I had been blocked, but those were not questions about why what I had done was wrong.) You did not prevent anything, and you did not educate me about anything. So again, how was that preventative? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
In brief, by the time the block was enacted (and in fact well before that), I was fully aware of the policy and understood it correctly. And ArbCom had every reason to know that. That's before the block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying hard to think of anything else it could be. I realize that what I said via email went into more details than what I said on-site in my three apologies. But that was because, by the time I made those apologies, I realized that I must not go into the details that I said in the email. It wasn't because I didn't understand. And let me remind ArbCom of something else. If you look back at the chronology of the emails during the block, my first communications were with NativeForeigner, before my messages to the list went through. He told me the general situation, but said that I should wait for the "official" message that eventually came from GorillaWarfare, to explain the exact details of why the block was made. I got concerned about waiting, and I hope that you all remember that I went ahead and sent an email along the lines of: "I'm pretty sure this is what you are asking me to clarify, and here is my understanding of why my edit was wrong." That email went to the Committee before I exchanged emails with GorillaWarfare, and that email was the reason cited for unblocking me. So that demonstrates that I did, indeed, understand policy correctly before anyone from ArbCom had to explain it to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Trypto, with the PD more or less settling in, have you thought about asking the drafters to include an FoF stating: 1. You were blocked for outing. 2. You indicated it was a good-faith error on your part after you realized the error citing your multiple times mentioning this after the offending post was deleted. 3. The block coming 30-some hours after the deletion was unneeded with the events of 2 in mind. Something to that effect at least as fact-fact-reason as opposed to trying to something meant to blame ArbCom. I imagine 2. would be acknowledged giving you something to cite if the question of your block comes up from the case directly, but even if 3. causes oppose votes, it would help make the reasoning behind the block apparent. It's late, but it might not hurt to ask either considering it seems very suited as an FoF just for a clarification of ArbCom action directly pertaining to the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of this. I don't think I'm going to do it, however. It seems to me that if ArbCom were inclined to do anything like this in a way that would be helpful to me, then the responses that can be seen just above would have sounded very different than they do. Also, ArbCom typically only makes FoFs as the basis of a sanction, and I've never known them to do it in the form of either an apology or of a taking-back of a previous ArbCom action, so they would certainly frame it as having been a good block. And I also think that if I were to propose that to them, they would regard that proposal as pointy, with some justification, and it could boomerang in unpredictable and potentially unpleasant ways. In short, with respect to anything about the block, I think that they have made it quite clear that they do not want to say anything more about it than what they have already said. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
So as not to lose the thread of the discussion, I repeat the question. Considering what I have explained here, and in that context, what was preventative about the block? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!
After sleeping on it for one more night, I'm going to close the "informal poll" below, and then I am going to archive this entire talk page and put the whole business behind me and move on.
Before I do that, I want very much to do something that I've been wanting to do ever since my block ended, and that is to say "thank you" to the many editors who, in various ways, were kind to me in the course of what happened. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. So, with low confidence in the Wikipedia notification system, but with the hope that everyone concerned will see it anyway, please let me say a very sincere "thank you" to everyone on the following honor roll:
Trypto, I have remained quiet about your ban for my very misguided reasoning that by not criticising ArbCom, I thought I might have altered their decision about my own topic ban. Clearly, I was so very wrong. From the first moment it was issued, I saw your ban for what it was - punitive. It can in no way be described as preventative - it is absurd to suggest so. Whilst this is just one in a variety of extremely concerning incidents in the debacle over at ArbCom in the WP:GMO-gate case, I feel somewhat ashamed I did not stand up and show support for you before. I apologise for that, and I also thank you sincerely for your helping me over there. I hope you can find peace with your ban, and please be reassured that many, many people are totally of the belief that you did not deserve it and will come to your defence in the future, should this be needed. DrChrissy(talk)22:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Your attention to your own protection is entirely understandable, especially in the context of how ArbCom have been conducting themselves lately. Indeed, they have just opened a new case against someone largely because of something that editor said in my defense here on my talk page, and you can bet that I am going to have something to say about that when the time comes. But anyway, I fully understand your reasons, and I want you to please not worry about it. Thanks for saying that now, really. (Technical point, it was a block rather than a ban.) I was disappointed that the AN discussion about your earlier topic ban (not a block) ended with them not lifting it, but the close encouraged you to seek a second review early, and I think that you are well-entitled to do so. At the same time, please let me point out that your very active editing at glyphosate just up to yesterday's close of GMO-gate will probably be summarily reverted and will be seen as boundary pushing. That's just the way that it is. If you ever feel like asking me for advice about boundaries, please consider my door always open to you. But, as I repeatedly tried to say at GMO-gate, I think it stinks that they could not get it through their heads that there were other editors whose conduct was significantly more of a problem than anything that you did. It sure looks to me like the current tranche of ArbCom are a bunch of people burned out by their responsibilities and just limping towards the finish line, more concerned with getting cases closed than getting cases right. End of my rant, and thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the ways the Wikipedia administration enables itself is to keep bathing content builders in a stream of the reassuring but ludicrous myths we have all become so accustomed to. Constant exposure to this mind-numbing propaganda is pacifying, and all too often it seems to lull content builders into acquiescence. You know the run of the liturgy... "adminship is no big deal", "policy is decided by community consensus", ... onwards till we reach things like the manifestly silly "admin abuse is always abuse of admins" and the splendid "admins are held to higher standards than content builders". Then of course, we have "bans and blocks are preventative and not punitive". As this recent block review shows, the emphasis can be very much on punishment rather than prevention. But it seems impossible to get acknowledgement of the reality from the admin corps as group, and even more impossible to get the de facto principle formally written down as policy. In the case I just cited, the only follow up was an angry call for bans on administrators who don't support punitive blocks. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Epipelagic. I quietly followed that case to which you linked, and what stands out to me is the extent to which it was one person misunderstanding another, multiple times in a row, and treating each misunderstanding as something that required punishment instead of as requiring clarification. As I said to EEng near the bottom of #Discussion, below, I don't see everything as admins versus editors, but on the other hand, I very much agree with you that, when admins make mistakes, there is a system in place that tends to circle the wagons around them, and that is multiplied many-fold for ArbCom. Just think how simpler everything would be if more Wikipedians were simply capable of saying "woops, I misunderstood what you said, or I make a mistake, but now that we clarified that misunderstanding, let's just get back to editing". What's utterly appalling to me in my own experience is that, once I had apologized three times during the 38 hours before my block, all ArbCom had to do was leave an inconspicuous message on my talk, asking me to email them back and clarify any potential misunderstandings, and that would have definitively prevented any problems from happening again. Instead, they dithered, then issued a punitive block, created a Streisand effect that was unfair to the other editor, and then went on a mini-rampage of making stuff up and attacking me when other editors pointed out their mistakes – all in the hopes of distracting from their mistakes. A lot of friends have pointed out to me here on my talk that there is no need for me to feel like my so-called "good name" has been damaged, and they are right. But the Arbs who reacted defensively were, paradoxically, doing so out of concern for their own "good names", and still more paradoxically, they instead did themselves harm in exactly that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I could do with asking you a question privately. If you are open to this, please ping me, guy@chapmancentral.co.uk. Ta everso. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Right now, I'm kind of e-mailed out, if you know what I mean. And I'm in the middle of preparing for my trip. Can it wait til I get back?
Welcome back. At the conference, could you be on the look out for research focusing on the link between gut microbes and the brain, and report back with anything you find? After reading Rabid: A Cultural History of the World's Most Diabolical Virus (2012), I'm completely obsessed by this topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I just spent the last several hours going through the online search engine for presentations, and preparing my itinerary, and my time is going to be pretty much filled already (I have very specific research interests of my own, and they don't necessarily overlap with what I edit here), but I'll read those sources and tell you what I think when I get back. I'm quite convinced that there is indeed an important new research topic opening up about the microbiome and the brain (in fact, the microbiome and pretty much the whole body). You may not be what you eat, but you are what colonizes you, or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
What's so amazing about this is that it's a case study of what was previously considered fringe science breaking through to the mainstream. From a history of science perspective, I'm curious about how this phase change occurred. Was it the weight of the evidence or did the naysayers eventually disappear? FYI... if anyone wants to help develop this topic, the article is called gut–brain axis. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting; I never knew there was an on-wiki article about this. How did it go mainstream? I always find it helpful to blame the gluten-free mafia for anything in life. They carried everything gut-related (including microbes & mood, leaky gut [syndrome], etc.) with them as the mainstream world started more and more to revolve around (avoiding) that horrible dreadful gluten. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, I LOL'ed when I read your observation about that phase change. Touché! But the answer is that serious scientists, working in the realm of peer-reviewed experiments, are finding results that strongly support the existence of microbiome effects. That's what scientist do. When the empirical evidence supports a conclusion, they go where the evidence goes. And when it doesn't, they don't. When they have studied the microbiome, they got positive results. Likewise for climate change. When they studied vaccines and autism, or GMO foods and health effects, they didn't. Ideology stays out of the picture (at least when the system works properly). See you all in a week! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Yes, that does seem to eb the case. Of course, for every one case like this there are a gazillion where the naysayers are right, the proponents of some new hypothetical thing are wrong, and the quacks and charlatans are off and running :-) Guy (Help!) 22:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm going to mix together a disparate bunch of replies to the disparate bunch of comments in "Hmmm", in no particular order.
I appreciate the various requests about e-mailing, but at the moment, I'm not going to e-mail anyone back. But that's not a snub. It's just that I am very parsimonious about Wikipedia communication off-Wiki. Partly, it's because I believe in transparency, and mostly, it's because I am extremely cautious about privacy matters (opinions of ArbCom notwithstanding). I recently had a lot of e-mails with ArbCom, but that was for a special reason, of course. And I went against my usual practice, and sent an e-mail to Jytdog, because I was extremely worried about him. (Which turned out to be unwarranted, and frankly I feel a bit misused.) But anyway, no e-mails going out from me right now.
Viriditas and the IP editor, I'll get back to you soon about the neuroscience-related questions, so thanks for your patience in the meantime. But I can report back a few WP-ish things from the meeting in Chicago, so I want to pass those along here. (Actually, first, I'll pass along something utterly worthless. Each day, I took a shuttle bus between my hotel and the convention center. It passed a construction site, where there were portable toilets. Those had a logo that read: "Oui-oui Enterprises". Yes, I know, that's a piss-poor pun. Stranger than fiction, and yuckier too.)
OK, back to business. Every year, the convention has a section called "Publishers' Row", where publishers of scientific books and journals display their wares. I went through it, looking in part for anything Wiki-useful. Viriditas, I specifically looked to see if there are any new books coming out about the microbiome and the nervous system, and there was nothing. And I am certain that there are plenty of folks eager to jump on that wagon when the time comes. But, as a measure of secondary (verging on tertiary) sources, that time isn't yet. So I think that has some bearing on where the topic is at, currently, in terms of secondary sources not yet considering it to be established. (The actual scientific content at this kind of meeting is primary sourcing in the extreme, which makes it incredibly interesting for professionals like me. It's almost entirely material that hasn't yet been published, or peer-reviewed, but simply at the point where the investigators are ready to seek peer feedback. I love it, but it requires critical thinking. An example: I was looking at a poster on a topic that interests me (general topic area of opioids and pain), and I noticed something kind of funny about the poster next to the one that interested me. In the program listing (prepared a few months before the actual meeting), the title began: "Sex differences in...". In the actual poster, that title had changed to: "No sex differences in...". Yes, I know that makes scientists look a little shady. But it would actually have been shady if they had not corrected their report. Anyway, it's preliminary stuff.)
Oh, but EEng, I did come up with something from Publishers' Row! There's a scholarly book out, about that person with the iron rod in his skull (actually about more broad stuff too, going into trephinning and phrenology), by an author who is not currently cited on the page. And I can even get you a big post-meeting discount if you want to buy it (which I didn't). When I get my notes out in another day or so, I'll post about it on the article talk page. Until then... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
On the sex differences title, it sounds to me like the ever common plague us scientists face of needing to figure out what your talk or poster is going to cover before knowing what the results actually will be (i.e. abstract deadlines). I had one meeting recently that wanted us to submit almost a full year in advance. We could edit abstracts a bit later at least, but that was probably the blandest "Stuff about X" title I've ever put on something. It probably sounded like a grade-school science fair project title, but I don't like predicting results in titles especially. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, although I think it's something that scientists, collectively, need to do a better job of explaining to the lay public. It happens all the time, and the time delay between the abstract deadline and the actual presentation date is a problem. (Frankly, I think that the delays in getting anything scientific published are pathetically antiquated, but that's a rant from me for another day. Wikipedia does peer review better than professional science does, and Wikipedia sure beats the competition in terms of seeing one's writing right away, pending changes notwithstanding.) I'm sure what happened here (but I did not look beyond the title) is that, this spring, they were getting some intriguing results that looked like sex differences, and they wanted to present it. Then, over the summer, the results did not hold up. But I found the way that the title changed pretty funny, so I figured I would pass it along here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Brains and bugs
I'm making a subsection here to talk about the questions Viriditas asked me about the microbiome and the nervous system. I just put gut–brain axis (a page title I dislike, but that's another conversation) on my watchlist, but it's actually not the same thing. There are non-microbial signaling systems including leptin, ghrelin, and a bigillion (that's the exact number) others, whereby the gut influences the brain. But where the microbes really come into play is at the page we have on microbiota, and particularly microbiota#Effects on cognition. The Nature source, [24], is an excellent source for Wikipedia's purposes. I didn't have time to look at poster presentations at the SfN meeting, but abstracts like the one you cited, [25], as well as [26], need to be understood, at least for Wikipedia purposes, in the same context as what I said about the abstract that changed from "Sex differences in..." to "No sex differences in...". This is still a new field of scientific study, but the Nature review is an ideal source, particularly if anyone wants to add to the microbiota page. I can also point out that the rabies virus is, of course, a pathogen (and not particularly associated with the gut, although it certainly spreads via saliva), whereas most microbiota are present naturally in healthy people. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I brought up the rabies virus as a relevant analogue because it's classified as a microbe, and the research on microbiota in question is classified under the subtopic of "microbes and the brain". The Nature link I provided even makes this analogy: "Microbes and the brain have rarely been thought to interact except in instances when pathogens penetrate the blood–brain barrier — the cellular fortress protecting the brain against infection and inflammation. When they do, they can have strong effects: the virus that causes rabies elicits aggression, agitation and even a fear of water. But for decades, the vast majority of the body's natural array of microbes was largely uncharacterized, and the idea that it could influence neurobiology was hardly considered mainstream. That is slowly changing." Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. Oh, and on another neurobiological point, woops. I said earlier that I thought that I found a new book about Mr. Gage. Sorry, EEng. When I got my notes out, I looked more carefully, and... woops. Here's what I saw at the meeting: [27]. You can see how the title threw me, but I see now that poor Phineas is nowhere in the index. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking some more about the idea of rabies relative to the newer scientific findings, and something more occurred to me. Rabies causes the behavioral changes because it damages neurons in the brain, as is expected for a pathogen. What is remarkable and even revolutionary about the most recent science is that, instead, we are talking about microbes that are, loosely speaking, providing a "nutritive" function, in that they help with the development and maintenance of those neurons. One can think of the rabies virus as a parasite, whereas the new science is coming to realize that microorganisms that were previously regarded as commensal are actually mutualistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Something to sink your teeth into - unless you are an agnatha
Hi Trypto. I have been following your responses and reactions to the ArbCom case. You seem to be wanting to return to some main-stream editing. I am sure you have 101 zillion projects you want to get involved in, but I thought I would suggest another. There is some interesting discussions going on at the Pain in fish article. If you fancy it, come over and join us. Your contributions, as ever, would be much appreciated.DrChrissy(talk)18:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, the irony: pain in [T]-fish! You know what I really want: less pain! I half-way saw what's happening there already, in fact. Anyway, thanks for asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have just found out that your name possibly means "stone-licker" and you have only one nostril - that's not to be sneezed at!DrChrissy(talk)22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my user page! I really appreciate no longer being known as the Tory from New Hampshire, when i'm really a Patriot from Connecticut! SageRad (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Amazing what a little colon (the punctuation mark, not the intestine) will do. Wikipedia is chock full of little tricks like this. Same thing with templates, if you want to link to a template but don't want to actually put the template in your edit. (And I'm really a fish from parts unknown.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
EPA uses Monsanto-funded research to determine safety
That's a very good and timely (in terms of Wiki-drama) question, so I'm going to try to give it a thoughtful if lengthy answer.
How I think that Wikipedia should treat it: This being Wikipedia, and Tryptofish not being a reliable source, my opinion about how Wikipedia might report it is altogether different than my personal opinion on the subject. I'd be inclined to say something along the lines of: "A June 2015 analysis by the US Environmental Protection Agency of studies about the safety of glyphosate concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be an endocrine disruptor.(sourced to the EPA report) However, according to The Intercept, (and I think it's particularly important to link the attribution to the page about the source, so that readers can judge for themselves what they think of the source) 27 of the 32 studies analyzed in the report received funding from companies that sell glyphosate-related products. (sourced to that source)" I wouldn't want Wikipedia to go much beyond it than that.
My personal opinion: Should scientific research be "independent and impartial"? Hell, yes! And the search for money to support scientific research in the present-day US is awful, and particularly awful for the scientists. There has been a big problem with medical researchers taking money from the companies that sell the medicines that the researchers are evaluating, and I am pleased by recent trends in which scientists are required to disclose their conflicts of interest. When I was a professor, my university required me to sign a form every year, in which I had to list all sources of research funding and (nonexistent, for me) outside sources of income, and reveal any possible way I could think of that it would present a COI for me, and the forms were kept on file in case of a subsequent controversy. Personally, I never had industry funding, but that was mainly because my research was too basic to interest them. I have a very good friend whose lab was down the hall from mine, and his research was about nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Because of the nicotine connection, he had some support from a tobacco industry organization (along with grants from the National Institutes of Health and a private foundation that did not have an agenda). He would joke about how, if they thought he would use the money to publish something that would reflect well on tobacco, they would be disappointed. One of my favorite anecdotes (except I cannot remember the person's name) is of an MIT professor who got funding from the Koch brothers, and used the funding to perform an analysis that concluded that climate change is human-caused and real. (I assume the Kochs did not provide further money.) What I'm saying is that most scientists do not go into the line of work because they want to be corrupted. But, when money is scarce and on the line, corruption is a real danger, and a serious one.
Another serious issue is what science does get published and what science never gets published, and I think that could play a significant role here. Do a study, get an interesting result, and a scientific journal will be willing to publish it. Get a valid, but uninteresting, result, and you'll have trouble getting it published. And that's wrong. (Consider a medical researcher studying a new medicine, and finding that it doesn't work well. That needs to be published, but until very recently, it never would be.) Here, I tend to think, however, that this bias might have worked the other way. Anyone getting evidence that glyphosate was an endocrine disruptor would probably have a better chance of getting it published than the studies here.
Should we have a structure in which most scientists need to turn to industry to fund their research? No! The wonderful (said sarcastically) US Congress is incapable of a lot of things, but one of their many failures is the lack of anything remotely near to sufficient funding for scientific research. So what is a university researcher to do? You need money to do the research, you need to do the research in order to have a career, and you end up looking for money where you can find it. I recently read about Charles Darwin, about how he was wealthy enough to have a magnificent estate from which he could work on his theories at leisure, and I'm very jealous. I'm glad I'm out of it now. The public has every right to be skeptical of science that is industry-funded, and the system is broken. But that doesn't tell me that the glyphosate studies actually were flawed, and it doesn't tell me that they were flawless. I don't and cannot know. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)There are unique things when you get into university agriculture research. The point of professors at land-grant universities is partly to do independent quality-control for the public in agriculture and finding ways to get new science out to farmers. That's a service to the public, but it is also a service to industry. They basically bridge the gap. Industry funding in this case is not a symptom of lack of funding us scientists often deal with, but an intentional role of university researchers. Industry funding is expected for researchers doing things like comparing efficacy of different pesticides from different companies. That's not because it's like paying for a lawyer to represent your (the industry) point of view, but more like paying court fees that pay for the judge. Industry needs to have someone to independently validate products for different reasons, and that's going to cost money no matter who does it.
What a lot of people not close to areas where this kind of research goes on don't realize is that bought for results just don't work. If someone actually is just paid off by industry for results, the company usually won't deal with that researcher anymore because they don't know if they have a good product they can claim efficacy on. Then you've got the issue of liability if something goes wrong with that product in the future (i.e., failure and bad rep from that or damages directly from the product). That's all just with one company. Once other companies hear that someone purposely biases results, they know the researcher isn't trustworthy for actually showing they have a better/as good product as other companies. You basically have no career as a university researcher if that happens.
I can go down the hall and talk to people that have had to tell companies quite a few times they had a crappy product from an industry-funded study. They still have the same companies coming to them to do more testing because the companies expect to hear about bad results as much as they do with good results. One even got a request for an evaluation four times as large when they showed very negative results the previous year.The company specifically said the larger request was because the researcher was so rigorous that they found something the company missed. As you somewhat alluded to Trypto, everything working like the industry wants is almost the equivalent of negative results for us researchers. Finding an issue gets us excited to publish, and that runs contrary to the view that problematic research for industry is swept under the rug. I can't speak for the pharmaceutical industry, but those in the agricultural industry have a good history of knowing they're losing one of their few potential sources of support (when warranted) if they started thinking they could just pay a researcher for results. That's why I always caution people that have knee-jerk reactions about industry funding equating to research that always supports industry. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was really very interesting to me, and I learned a lot that I did not know before, because my experiences in academia were about as far away from that as can be. I was unaware about that aspect of academic culture at land-grant agricultural schools. It is, indeed, different from that at universities like where I was, where the attitude tends to be that NIH (or maybe NSF) support counts for the most. Partly, that's because university administrators care so much about indirect costs (overhead), that other sources of funding usually don't include. (Explanation: direct costs are what pay for the actual research project; indirect costs are an additional payment for the university's indirectly related expenses, like paying for libraries, buildings and grounds, and university administrators – so university administrators take a strong interest!) But partly, it's a cultural thing, based on perceptions that NIH has such rigorous peer-review processes. (I was once on a tenure review committee, where I was dismayed by an outside reviewer who criticized the young faculty member for having a big grant from the American Cancer Society, on the ridiculous grounds that only an NIH peer-review would be good enough to demonstrate tenure-worthiness.)
But I honestly am not comfortable with just making a sweeping conclusion that faculty can be trusted to be honest regardless of their source of funding. Maybe I'm more of a glass-half-empty person than you are, but I've seen too much pettiness and sneakiness in academia. I've seen people in the pharmaceutical industry all over the spectrum. Some are indeed impeccably honest, and recognize that in the long run they do their company no good to move ahead with a new drug that will later expose them to liability. But I've seen others knowingly sweep stuff under the rug. Put money into the mix, and some people will do the wrong thing. In the biomedical sciences, there have been recent examinations of the reproducibility of published results, and the findings are sickening. I made myself a promise during my career that I would never lie about results from my lab, and I'm proud of that, but I also have a very bad feeling that there were other people who published more than I did and got more funding than I did but who probably just reported whatever they thought would get the publications and grants. It's not everyone, by a long shot. But I am sure, in fact I know, that there have always been some bad apples. End of rant, and I hasten to add that I cannot extrapolate from that, to the source that Viriditas found. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is yet another example of the government working closely with industry to harm the food industry.[28]. This kind of thing is found in the news every day now. If the government is this incompetent and in such collusion with industry forces against the people they were elected to represent, then it is safe to say that the government no longer represents the people. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I had heard about that a while back, the mayo industry trying to shut down non-egg mayo substitutes. That one, however, has nothing that I can see to do with scientists or academia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there a parallel there, with biotech companies trying to push GMO products, using the government to help them sell their products both domestically and internationally? I read several articles about this on the Cornell website, where biotech and government work hand in glove to market and sell their products, even if the efficacy and safety of such products is not yet proven. Here in the states, GMO companies have fought many initiatives in the court system, often appealing to federal judges to block the will of the voters. Or more to the point of science and academia, how about the NRA-sponsored federal funding freeze on any scientific research on gun violence, preventing the CDC from having data driven science informing policy. How can the US lead in science if industry controls its direction? As any historian of science knows, you cannot control or predict where pure discovery is going to go or end up. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Inevitably, I'm responding from the position of my interest in the role of scientists themselves, and that certainly is an aspect of the first piece we discussed, about funding for the glyphosate studies. (And, since this is a Wikipedia user talk page, I'm mostly interested in discussions that pertain to the content issues that I follow here. I'm not into editing about government corruption, although it's certainly an encyclopedic topic, subject to WP:RGW.) There is an undeniable role of an industry-government tie in the mayo thing, but I was just saying that I don't think anyone has any reason to blame it on scientists, nor to see it as a role of what the science on the subject says. But I think it's very clear from my earlier comment that I am very unhappy with the inadequacy of government support for scientific research. And when, as you point out, the government actually imposes restrictions on scientific inquiry, then that's horribly worse. I'll tell you something about whether the US can still lead. I've been noticing in my own area of neuroscience that more and more of the work that impresses me the most has been coming from researchers in Canada, and I do not think that it's a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not so good to mix up issues here. To me a GM apple is an apple, but a substance without eggs in it is not mayonnaise and shouldn't be labeled as such, any more than a soy-burger should be labeled as meat. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Looie, I almost didn't see this amongst all the other stuff going on here. I guess some people of good faith would argue that mayo without eggs in it can still be mayo, in the way that a soy-burger is still a burger even if it isn't meat. Apples, eggs, and meat are things that exist naturally, whereas burgers and spreads such as mayo are the products of human recipes. In any case, the issue with glyphosate pertained to possible scientific corruption by money, whereas the issue with mayo does not pertain to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Words
I'd really like to have your help at WP:BIOMEDICAL. That's the page where the actual "line-drawing" exercise has been going on, and I think that time spent expanding and adjusting that will have more long-term value than a fight over one word or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me. With the caveat that I'm already feeling spread in too many directions, so I might not be that quick about it, yes I'll put that on my watchlist and try to help. And I agree with you, that the issue isn't really which word should or should not be used, but rather, which meaning or application of a word or term is meant as MEDRS or not MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
GMO Decision
I have been working on extensively throughout last few days (and even before the pd due date). I'm not happy with it and probably should just say it's imperfect and post it rather htan delay further, but that's how things are. I've asked for help from more experienced drafters, but hasn't really come. We have tremendous inactivity at the moment, and it sort of feels like I'm on my own. I'm largely tremendously demotivated and fatigued, but I'll get out the PD, then probably melt or something. I can't describe how glad I am to be off the committee. Perhaps if I didn't have other things going on, but when it's competing for time it's immensely frustrating. Furthermore it really weighs into me the fact it is late, not for lack of effort, but that it is holding the whole mess up in the air for the participants. So all in all feeling bad about it, hopefully will have it out soon (I could probably post it in its current state...), and be done with it. NativeForeignerTalk05:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner (and likewise Guerillero), thank you for being so kind as to post this message to me, and thank you for working on what I know is a rotten albeit necessary job. The tl;dr of what I want to say to you is: Post whatever you have today, please.
It has been objectionably long waiting for it. Please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or at least good enough. The PD is not the final D. And please don't worry about getting feedback from other Arbs before you post it. If they have feedback, they can give it and/or offer alternative proposals during the PD voting period. And if they are just going to be AWOL, then fuck them (and the community needs to know that, before the election). And there will be nothing wrong with you getting feedback (some of it useful, some of it worthless) from editors on the PD talk page. After all, that's how Wikipedia works.
I've seen some of your earlier posts about how long it has been taking you to finish it, and to tell you the truth, I have put my own next comments about my block, here on my talk page, on hold until you have posted the PD, because I did not want to create an additional distraction. But I am very eager to restart my own discussion, and it has been a source of stress and disappointment for me to have had to hold my tongue this long. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner, I can't say I'm well-versed in ArbCom procedure, but if it's possible to do a sort of rolling PD that comes out in chunks at a time, that might help split things up to to slightly smaller bites. Maybe the template and voting procedures make that tough, but just a thought. I have to mirror Tryptofish though and say that sorting through the whole case and drafting this is a thankless job. Even though we're all waiting for some resolution, it is understandable if it's a bit late for a case this size. Not ideal, but I think most people realize that there are factors that make the drafting job tough, especially for this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I am puzzled why this discussion is taking place on the Talk page of a Party to the case who was outspoken in urging bans and blocks for other named Parties. Surely this could be viewed as improper? Shall we ping everyone and have a general discussion? If so, perhaps on the ArbCom Talk page? Jusdafax19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If the outspoken party may reply to that question, I suspect that it was prompted by [29]. I'm disappointed by the tone of your comment, as it relates to me in particular. I was a co-filing party, and the party that, for better or for worse, presented the most extensive workshop proposals in the case. Now as for what the posting by NF to me suggests about the eventual decision, it seems to me that if the drafters merely went along with my workshop proposals, it would not have taken them this long, so I'm pretty sure that some of what I proposed will end up being rejected. And I didn't propose blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
And something more. When the case began, my position was against having a full case. I argued for DS, for seeing how that would work, and seeing if that could make a full case unnecessary. My friend Looie instead asked for a full case, and that's what happened. Looie didn't present anything in the case, but I did, and my primary objective was not to sanction anybody, but to try to prevent excessive sanctions for another editor, who repaid my efforts on his behalf by going AWOL. I got blocked for dubious reasons, and there is still an unexplained veiled threat by an Arb against me on my talk page. I want to have some closure on that, but I decided that it was best for Wikipedia if I would hold off until after the PD was finished. This whole experience has ended up diminishing my enthusiasm for Wikipedia. So if anyone wants to huff and puff about me being such an awful outspoken party, try me and I'll show you what outspoken really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the reasons I Iike this old coot (lighten up buddy, I'm continuing the bird metaphor) going by the name of "Tryptofish" is that he comes off as an authentic person in every way. When I get the sense that I'm talking to a real person with similar hopes and desires, I'm more able to trust them and more importantly, respect them. At one time, I didn't really respect Tryptofish because he was so closely aligned with Jytdog. But I think Tryptofish is starting to see the game for what it really is, in all respects, and he might have some questions about what's really going on. I think a lot of us questioned Jytdog's true motives and reason for being here for good reason. He did not come off as an authentic person. And when the fit hit the shan, Jytdog disappeared in a puff of smoke, as if he had never been here to begin with. I think people need to ask the real hard questions about this state of affairs, and start calling things for what they truly are. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. This is not the time or place to relitigate a case that has yet to be closed, but just as I am happy that I kept an open mind about you(which is why I did not add you as a party, by the way), I also have an open mind about Jytdog, to the extent that I don't see him as inauthentic, but as having been driven away, and as being inconsiderate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and something more, since you raised the point. I always try to keep an open mind about whether I was wrong about something, because aside from being a coot and a fish, I'm also a human, and humans make mistakes. Even Arbs make mistakes. But don't ever think that I'm not going to align myself with reliable scientific sources. I'm always going to align myself with the much-maligned "mainstream science", and against anyone I see as POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
See, Jusdafax, that's what I said. And it looks like everyone is worn out at this point. NF, please do post it, and get it over with. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I kind of swatted you away from my talk page, because, first, I don't want to further discuss that other editor, and second, because the discussion was in a section related to the ArbCom case and I don't think it's right to continue to post "evidence" about parties at this time, and third, because I felt that a discussion about the subject matter was getting off-topic in a discussion about process. But that doesn't mean that I'm not up for discussing it with you. You asked me about what you see as a contradiction on my part, in that so many governments have banned GMOs. Governments make political decisions, not scientific decisions. There are US states that require doctors to tell women that abortions cause breast cancer. That's politics, not science. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You have confused me with another editor who doesn't understand the politicization of science, a topic I have written about for years. You have disingenuously focused on one of several aspects of an issue while ignoring the relevancy. Government agencies in the US have been captured by GMO interests. This is not true in many other countries. Further, the promotion of GMO products has become official US foreign policy, presenting an even larger COI. Finally, the agencies who are supposed to regulate have instead accepted safety studies from the GMO companies themselves in lieu of independent testing. Your claim that that is "mainstream science" is laughable at best. We know the pesticides and herbicides made by these companies are harmful and causing harm, yet this is somehow treated as a separate issue when it is one and the same. We also know that these companies have a long history of making unsafe products and claiming they are safe, so there is a record of problematic claims from the beginning deserving skepticism, not blind trust on the part of regulatory agencies. More to the point, we know that when SPA's show up to Wikipedia and edit the same topic for years on end while pushing a singular POV and causing massive disruption to the project, there is likely more going on behind the scenes and there is likely evidence to support such a claim. Lastly, I should point out that your statement "mainstream science is only disputed by POV pushers" sounds more like religious orthodoxy, not scientific methodology. Mainstream science is continually challenged and disputed, that's how the provisional body of human knowledge changes and progresses. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Disingenuous? Me? Laughable? I laugh at myself a lot, when I'm not crying. Please lighten up on the old coot. Part of what you are saying, I think, is that business has adversely infected politics in the US. I agree with you about that. What I was trying to say is that, in the countries that ban GMOs on the basis that they are potentially harmful to eat, those governments are swayed by cultural and popular opinions among the people who live there instead of basing it on science. One can argue that GMO companies exert improper influence on the US government and its policies, and I will agree with that, but I will also insist that this influence has nothing to do with what scientists say. The fact that the US government says GMOs are safe does not prove that they are safe, and the fact that other governments say that they might not be safe does not prove that they might not be safe. I also kinda think that you are implying that Jytdog was an SPA who was paid by his employer to edit for a POV and that he left because he started working for a different employer who didn't need him to make those edits anymore. I've edited with him at Christian terrorism, and I don't think that he was doing that for profit. Not everything is a conspiracy. And, yes indeed, mainstream science requires constant challenge and reevaluation. Have you confused me with another editor who hasn't made a career of doing that? But challenging it by Wikipedia editors, or by bloggers, or by activists, isn't how science reevaluates things. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You're about four years behind. The conspiracy is real.[31] And the evidence offered on the arbcom page isn't from bloggers or activists. Look, I get it, don't bother you with the facts, your mind is made up. But don't you dare piss on my talk page and tell me it is raining. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that way, and I hope that you don't remain angry at me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the structure at the lower right, labeled "Recombinant plasmid DNA".
(edit conflict) And please indulge Professor Tryptofish with this. In the figure, you can (sort of) see how genes are put into GMOs. And I'm talking specifically about the safety or lack thereof, of eating GMO foods. So let's say that a GMO company puts a gene into a food crop plant. That gene is like the black sequence of DNA in the picture. Now if that gene codes for the antigen found in tree nuts that causes allergic reactions to tree nuts, and it gets put into a tomato, then it will definitely be dangerous to people who have that allergy. But that happens only if that's the gene that gets put in. It would be crazy for even the most profit-seeking company to do that, because it wouldn't be profitable. One always knows what gene one is putting in. It's essentially impossible to put the wrong gene in by mistake, and even more impossible to then fail to realize that it's the wrong gene. So no GMO commercial crop is going to have a gene put into it that is harmful to human health. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I am also going to wait until ArbCom gets finished before I respond below, and I will be doing so in the hope that the anger that has been flaring up will calm down with the passage of a little bit of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I gather from your commentary that you have a background in the biological sciences, as do I. I think that background makes people like us a little bit more comfortable with the idea of genetic engineering. After all, we use transgenic animals and other, more basic, tools of molecular biology routinely. I think there are a lot of mistaken, or even mystical, beliefs about how genetic engineering works, and what the possible failure modes are, among the general public. I don't doubt that GMO foods are safe to consume, and frankly they are subject to a significantly higher degree or scrutiny and safety testing than "conventional" foods and thus may be even safer (it's not like our "conventional" food supply is all that safe, after all).
At the same time, I do worry quite a bit about the unintended ecological consequences of widespread GMO production. I think that outcrossing is inevitable, and the reality is that we just don't know a) whether GMO foods can out-compete and replaced wild-type stock, and b) what sorts of downstream ecological consequences outcrossing will have. Anyhow... I studiously avoid the GMO articles on Wikipedia, but I have a more general interest in how scientific and medical topics are conveyed, particularly in cases where political directives conflict with scientific understanding (e.g. abortion, climate change, etc). So I am interested to see how the ArbCom case is decided. MastCellTalk19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your friendly comment! Yes, I was trained (a very long time ago) in biochemistry, and my academic research was in neuroscience, but I can follow the agricultural biotech source material without difficulty. Normally, however, I make a very strong effort not to claim any special status as an editor based upon who I am, and I think that's important. As for the ArbCom case, I'm beginning to go from interested to impatient, alas. I totally agree with you about the ecological issues, and have said so during the ArbCom case, although I end up getting painted as an unalloyed GMO apologist nonetheless. As for what's going on in this thread on my talk page, I figure that whenever a Wikipedia editor says, as above, "The conspiracy is real", it's time for me to take a step away from the computer in hopes that the discussion will become less heated. It's difficult to discuss things when editors are angry. And nothing in this content dispute is really worth getting angry about. Actually, the Reuters source mentioned below is an interesting one, but based on when it was published, it sounds like the "some studies" it refers to are what happened in the Séralini affair, that was making headlines right at that time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh God, the Seralini paper. What an embarrassment, for the journal that published it and for the people who rushed to publicize it. In a way it's good that the original paper is still available despite its retraction, because it is a great litmus test to determine whether a reader understands the basics of how to interpret statistical claims in a manuscript, and how think critically about a manuscript's claims rather than simply swallowing them. I've even used it once or twice as a (cautionary) example when I teach trainees, informally, "how to be a peer reviewer". MastCellTalk01:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. And there is a great deal of interest on Wikipedia in giving due weight to the argument that the retraction wasn't really a retraction, that Séralini was a truth-teller who became the victim of Monsanto-funded suppression that was abetted by the US government, and so forth. And I'm getting called a POV-pusher. I do hope that ArbCom gets it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
With all these red herrings swimming around here, it's beginning to look like an aquaculture operation. Let's see, where to begin: nobody has discussed any objection to genetic engineering, a topic that interests me considerably as I'm fairly certain human space exploration will depend on it. And, nobody has discussed Seralini. With all of these distractions, who has time to look at the the safety of glyphosate, the impact of GMO monoculture, and the harm of crops like GMO corn to butterflies? Yes, by all means keep talking about things that have nothing to do with the topics under discussion. I believe Jytdog pioneered that method... Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to discuss that with you, so long as the discussion takes place without anger. It's too difficult to come to a thoughtful outcome when editors are angry. And perhaps we have misunderstood one another. I'm very capable of making a mistake, in which I assume that someone else is thinking about the same thing that I'm thinking about. What I was thinking about was the specific question of whether or not it is safe to eat food made from GMO crops. And what I have been saying about that is, I think, correct. But there is a separate question of whether it is safe to eat foods that carry residues of pesticides, or to be in an environment where there is exposure to pesticides. On that question, I agree with you that pesticides can be dangerous to health, and I am concerned that they are used much too widely. But it is also true that pesticides are used on all kinds of agricultural crops, whether GMO or conventional. The pesticides used specifically on GMO crops (like glyphosate) aren't particularly better or worse than the pesticides used on conventional crops. MastCell made a good point above, about how conventional crops aren't necessarily hazard-free. (Obviously, I'm not talking about organic farming here.) And there is a third question, about monoculture, a practice that predates GMO farming, but that has been accelerated by the use of GMOs. In my opinion, monoculture is a very bad thing, and a very serious problem. And I hope that you remember that I have said that to you previously on my talk page. And there is a fourth question, about effects of GMO crops on other species, including but not limited to butterflies. Just above, both MastCell and I agreed that we think that's a significant potential problem as well. So I sincerely hope that you see that I didn't intend what I said to indicate that everything about GMOs is good. Rather, I was addressing the specific, narrow question of whether GMO plant materials are – intrinsically and separately from any chemical residue that they may have on them – safe for humans to eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Again with this? You cannot continue to argue that GMOs are safe -- separately from the multitude of chemicals required to grow them and their impact on the environment and other living things. Your absurd argument is equivalent to arguing that nuclear weapons are safe, as long as you don't use them. I'm at a complete loss as to why an intelligent person like yourself could possibly view this as valid argument. As any good scientist will tell you, nothing is inherently safe, and everything has risks. And yet, you and others consistently ignore the red flags raised by biotech companies, who insist that they tested it and found it to be safe, and gosh darn it, we should just take their word for it and ignore the last fifty years of their lies, false statements, and outright distortions about all the other products they made and claimed were safe and later turned out not to be, but golly gee, they pinky swear that they mean it this time! Trust Us, We're Experts! Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are written with neutral, reliable secondary sources like Reuters, which says: "The biotech crops are controversial with some groups and in many countries because some studies have shown harmful health impacts for humans and animals, and the crops have been associated with some environmental problems. They also generally are more expensive than conventional crops, and the biotech seed developers patent the high-tech seeds so farmers using them have to buy new seed every season, a factor that makes them unappealing in some developing nations. Many countries ban planting of biotech crops or have strict labeling requirements."[32]
These are not fringe views as you claim. These views do not challenge mainstream science as you claim. These views are a NPOV summary of the recognized problems with GMO crops. Yet you would have us believe otherwise. Who is doing the POV pushing here? Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas has put it brilliantly, and he speaks for me. I will await resolution of the ArbCom case before commenting further. Jusdafax16:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Question
Hi Trypto. This recent edit summary had me confused a bit, namely the "reminding the editor of the ways I have helped him recently" bit. Were you referring to me? I'm a bit confused if it was as you aren't on my "bad side" or anything like that where reminding would be needed. I'm going to let you answer though instead of me speculating further.
I do want to point out though that I harbor no ill will towards you after the recent lede hashing out at Kevin Folta. Quite the opposite. I know dealing with all the nuance there can be stressful when building content, and I tend not to worry about if someone thinks I'm angry with them or not when it's just a good natured content dispute. I'm a huge adherent of AGF and knowing people often are misunderstood in that kind of situation. I tend to just focus on content on talk pages, so that can make me seem a little aloof after I disagree with someone I normally agree with. Just been wanting to make sure that's clear and that I'm not holding any grudge or anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries at all. The threading just made the post look like it was just directed at me, which made the striking edit at little confusing as to intent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh s--t, I just looked back and I see what you mean. I was replying to you after an edit conflict about which version you were commenting on, but then I included that other part, where the other editor asked me to strike it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been spending time with an African Grey Parrot for the last several years (not mine) and it's really easy to fall in love with them. You can see the intelligence in their eyes and in their facial expressions. This is one reason I've been a vegetarian for more than several decades. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I just got around to watching that cockatoo. Wow! Impressive interpretive choreography skills. And the first time I've seen anyone head-banging to Queen. Complete with a Mohawk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I commented during the Arb case about possible exasperation of other editors. Well, at this point I'm exasperated too. I said above that I still have some serious issues to express about my block, and I've been waiting for the PD before going forward with them, and I will tell you that day after day of looking for a PD and not finding it has taken a toll on how I feel about Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank goodness for the content box or I'd still be scrolling. Oh, and referencing the time it's taking for the PD makes my comment here [43] seem far more realistic than humorous. I actually did get all my holiday shopping done. 😁 Atsme📞📧15:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that my talk page needs archiving, but I am deliberately not doing that until certain issues get resolved. I sure do hope the PD gets posted soon, because tempers seem to be flaring in the vacuum that is being left, and frankly, I cannot imagine what improvements to the PD will come from further time, that haven't come already. At this rate, we may still be waiting for it when you start your next round of holiday shopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that's what I get for offering a statement. The hits just keep coming and coming, and I guess I should know better by now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You've just been parroted
The Fish That Crowed Award
Whenever fish crow they are recognized by getting parroted by a yellow-shouldered Amazon parrot (Amazona barbadensis). It's much better to get yellow-shouldered than cold shouldered. Now you've had both. 😆 Atsme📞📧02:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That means a lot to me! An awful lot of the messages on my talk page have, instead, made me want to duck, and frankly it's been kind of ruff and made me feel a little chicken. It's so much better to hear from an editor who is not a loon or a turkey or a booby. Maybe things will take a tern for the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
One good tern deserves another. I'm always glad to help; just say wren. And do whatever you can to steer clear of the yellow-bellied sapsuckers. If you can't, call a crane - it carries the most weight. Atsme📞📧03:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Can't believe I'm sitting here laughing so hard over this pun-ishment.
Coming from an old buzzard, I must say that was funny DrChrissy!! Poor Tryp doesn't realize what he got himself into with his punderful little self. We give new meaning to WP:PEACOCK. Atsme📞📧16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm back, and I thank both of you for all the tweets. At this point, I think that I may have evolved in my appearance, so in place of the previous images, I'm placing this new portrait of me here. (And, once again, everyone should view that video of the dancing cockatoo that Atsme linked to! It's the best music video of all time.) Oh, and as for the dignity of my talk page, that flew away a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see you are still seeing the lighter side of life considering the actions recently of a cock or two (think about it!)DrChrissy(talk)17:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It's pronounced cocka-tootle-too! and it's a declaration made at 5 am, or thereabouts. Anyway - I'm about to fly the coop but before I do, answer this one question: Which came first? The ostrich or the egg Tryp laid?Atsme📞📧17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Which came first?The original Tryptofish, and that is exactly what I look like, so watch out!
Well the answer to that is easy: the fish came first! Well, actually, it was the dinosaur, but... Oh, and let's leave this stuff about editors getting laid out of this! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Idle comment: I get a lot of advertising emails from home aquarium-related companies, and I'm mildly amused by the subject line of one that I got today: "Eliminate filter socks from your tank." Sounds vaguely Wikipedia-related. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we oughta just trout everyone and call it. It seems like the weirdness factor in this case grows exponentially. What is the definition of an "unclear link?" Jusdafax23:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, at this point, trout is too small a fish to satisfy me. I want there to be accountability, and I am ready and willing to work for Wikipedia's improvement. Whatever else one might say about me, I'm stubborn when I get worked up about something. And I see the situation as one where there are people who need to be held accountable, so wherever they may end up, I'm not going anywhere. And I really don't want the case thrown out. I just want it fixed. As for throwing any Arbs out, well that's something to which I am now amenable. By the way, every year for the past couple of years I've written a voters guide to the ArbCom election, and you can be sure that I'm going to have one this year. And where I talked higher up on my talk page here, about starting a sort-of-RfC about what these Arbs have been doing, that is coming soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
[Bishzilla is intrigued. Sticks the little alien clowns in her pocket.] Might as well. Full of strange creatures anyway. Also, how is little Scary Original Tryptofish getting on with election guide? Awaited with interest! [Bishzilla is working on her own guide. Hasn't posted it yet. First thoughts: Will definitely support little Newyorkbrad, whether is candidate or not.] bishzillaROARR!!23:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC).
Well Scary Big Tryptofish doesn't take any s-t from bullies, and poof! the stuff about me on the PD page has vanished in a cloud of shame. My guide will come out very soon after all the candidates announce, so maybe Wednesday. As for Bishzilla's guide, I'm going to lobby for as many new guides as possible to be created, with each of them simply linking to my guide. Evil laughter. Victory dance. Sticks out fish tongue at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Translation: The Arb who posted those PD remedies about me has self-reverted, and apologized to me on the PD talk page. Speak truth to power, people. It works. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you consider "spun" in regard to this comment? Do you consider the evidence that i've provided to be spun? If so, how so? I'm curious. I really am asking this in genuine curiosity, not in contention. I would like to understand things here, in more depth. SageRad (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for asking me. No, I wasn't saying it with you, in particular, in mind. I think that if I give you a very specific answer about where it was, I'll just be inviting a barrage here on my talk, and I don't have the stomach for that. In a general sense, I was trying to suggest to the Arbs that they approach much of the presented evidence as reflecting the stance of the editors presenting it, rather than as objective evidence, as I described in one particular example in my comment just above the comment you are asking me about. It's like, don't take things on face value; whereas I have to say honestly that the evidence about edit warring is pretty hard to dispute.
As I've said there, I really am worried that it would be an unfair outcome if they were to site-ban you, and I've been trying to prevent that from happening. My best guess now is that it won't happen, but the topic ban looks inevitable. You'll be able to appeal it after a year, and as long as you "keep your nose clean" in the interim, I'll be happy to support you and I think you'll probably succeed. But there is something that has been worrying me, and I have hesitated whether I should tell you about it or not. Since you approached me here, I will, now. You are posting a lot of stuff about it being a kangaroo court, etc., on the PD talk page. Some carefully calibrated criticism of the Arbs is appropriate, as I did successfully yesterday. But I think you are taking it too far. It's like telling someone "fuck you", and then asking them to treat you kindly. I hope you'll dial it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Pinging
Trypto, I just pinged you at the arbcom case and I am now wondering whether I should have done. My motivation for pinging you was to alert you to the fact I made a comment on your edits. I have just had a thought that you might interpret this as a "demand/request" for you to reply. It was not intended in this way whatsoever. What is your interpretation of when someone is pinged?DrChrissy(talk)18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I just thought that it would be rude for me not to acknowledge that you had pinged me.
I don't think that your argument, based on your table, is correct, because the reverting takes place in a context that is different from editor to editor. And I would not be doing you any favors to have said that, there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I really do appreciate very much why you are not/saying things and I am grateful. My take on this is that all my "crimes" in the proposed FoF's have involved Jytdog. These could very easily have been remedied in my case by an interaction ban, without a topic ban. But if Arbcom decide to topic ban me for edit warring, I am simply asking for consistency when others have behaved similarly. I posted the above before reading your null edit. My point should really have been directed at the arbcom rather than you. Apologies.DrChrissy(talk)18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. While you are here, let me suggest, entirely in good faith, something else. The more that you protest the topic ban at the ArbCom case, the weaker your argument will be seen when you very shortly ask for the previous topic ban to be lifted. Admins, editors, and even I, would want to see that you aren't going to "make excuses" (as others will see it), if a previous topic ban is to be lifted just as new topic ban is imposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Good, thanks! Can I just say something more general, not really in response to you. This whole case, from beginning to end, had been the most disheartening thing I have seen in all the years I've been on Wikipedia. I've seen editors whom I genuinely like get into all kinds of awful stuff, and editors I think have behaved very badly show apparent determination in their bad behavior. The process has been awful, even for me. I never wanted a full case, just DS. And it came at a time when a distraction from peaceful content editing was the last thing that I needed or wanted. The whole thing is just very sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here. Hello Tryptofish. Sorry to hear that. Have you seen any improvement in the quality of WP:educational assignments, by the way? Are WP:WEF staffers cleaning up student edits these days? I haven't been following the program lately. I was wondering if you have. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not fully up to speed on all the business with the GMO case, but it's suddenly lit up the oversight mailing list and OTRS queue; you've probably noticed my block of Jytdog. Having looked into things I noticed you got a similar block the other day, and obviously I've seen the oversighted diffs. I don't know what conversations you've had with arbs about this, and if I'm a day late and a dollar short feel free to ignore me, but I wanted to offer some advice in the hope that there won't be any more oversighting and blocking and hard feelings. I strongly advise you (and all parties to the case, and ideally all Wikipedia editors) to focus your criticism on editors' on-wiki conduct, backed up with diffs. I would strongly counsel against looking for information about things they do elsewhere than Wikipedia, and if you have any information about off-wiki activities (however it came to your attention) to keep it to yourself and—for all intents and purposes on the wiki itself—pretend you don't have it. If you come into information that isn't freely available on Wikipedia and you think it has a direct bearing on an arbitration case, email it to the committee. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on policies and procedures around here, but why would Jytdog have their talk page access revoked? Is that something you can answer HJ Mitchell? It seems heavy-handed at first glance. Couldn't Jytdog have made a simple mistake? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Biosthmors: Revoking talk page access is standard with that sort of block, because discussion of the block on Wikipedia itself would be inappropriate. As for a simple mistake, he made a very similar edit 36 hours earlier which was oversighted and he was warned not to do it again; he'll probably be unblocked before long, but that's a conversation that needs to take place behind closed doors. Apologies, Trytpofish, for using your talk page to reply to Biosthmors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Thank you very much for your message. Please let me assure you that I agree with you entirely, and I have no intention of doing any of the things that you advise against doing. Indeed, I never have had such an intention. You seem to be assuming some things about me that are not accurate, and of course I cannot know what misinformation might be circulating on those mailing lists. Please do not assume that some statement about my intentions that you may read is true, where I do not have access to it and do not know about it. I am sympathetic to where another editor may be upset – really! – but I am concerned that messages sent privately to functionaries may be misrepresenting me and that functionaries may be drawing incorrect conclusions based on misinformation.
Please understand that I have no control over Jytdog. He and I are two different people. I looked at his talk page, and his response to your block appears to include some argument with you about whether he had really done any outing, in a way that might reasonably lead administrators to want to make sure that what he did would not be repeated. In other words, your block of him might reasonably be considered to be preventative. In contrast, my edit that you saw was something that I said carelessly rather than with intent to harm, and after I made it, I apologized for it, and made it clear that I regretted it and would not do it again. I said that in three edits, not just one, on three different pages, two of which were ArbCom case pages. Having done that, I would think that reasonable people could have concluded that I had made it clear that I understood the situation, and that I was very determined never to make such an infraction again. Therefore, I remain unable to understand what my block was intended to prevent. ArbCom had me email them, and say in effect what I had already said three times on-site, and they used that as the reason to unblock me. I remain unable to understand what I said in my email, that I hadn't already said on-site before my block, that provided a reason to unblock me, different from the reasons not to block me in the first place, unless the point was to issue a punitive rather than preventative block.
It's not just my opinion, when I'm saying this. Here are comments about it from some experienced members of the community: [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. I'm afraid that some people are making me the target of a battleground, but let's keep things factual. And I'm wondering why no administrators are taking an interest in this, where an editor had been blocked for saying something awful, and it was redacted (not oversighted, just deleted), and yet other editors recopied it and engaged in mean-spirited mockery.
You talk about focusing on content and not on editors, and backing up accusations with diffs. Of course! It appears that some evidence I presented to the Arbs was found by them to not be convincing. OK, I can accept that. That's how the system works. But I see that some Arbs are trying to cover their own mistreatment of me by fabricating a claim that my evidence combined with my workshop proposals constituted casting of aspersions. That's patent fiction. I presented evidence, and I made proposals. If they decide that they are unconvinced by my evidence and are going to not use my proposals in the PD, that's fine. But that does not mean that I was tossing around personal attacks.
Again, thank you for your advice to me, and please rest assured that I understand it and will do my very best to comply with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't my intent to accuse you of anything, merely to suggest the best way forward, and I based the advice on the oversighted edits rather than comments on a mailing list—yes there was some discussion among oversighters, but it was more of the nature of one list member asking others to look into something, and various people responding with their conclusions. Nobody is casting aspersions about your actions, at least not on any of the lists I have access to. Obviously it's difficult to judge intent, especially in text-based communication, but as far as I can see you haven't done anything like that before or since so if you tell me it was unintentional I'll take your word for it. Obviously I can do little other than speculate on what prompted ArbCom to block you; I'm just a humble oversighter and not privy to their deliberations. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. When I transclude your voter guide (and the others) into a single page (to facilitate reading and comparisons), the resulting page becomes a member of the [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides]].
To correct that, the Category in your page should be protected by a pair of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. In the Main space, I would have done that by myself. In your Userspace, I think it is polite to ask your permission. Pldx1 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me. I had planned to do it yesterday, but got, um, distracted. The nominations are closed. I expect to get it out in the next few hours. (By the way, about that message I left at your talk about you asking the candidates your questions, I think it's less urgent now. I've asked the incumbents who are running a question of my own, and I have formed my opinions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to get, in one place, opinions about an ArbCom block of me. This is an informal advisory poll. It is not an RfC.
Anyone who has previously commented on my talk page or elsewhere about any of this should feel free to endorse a view. There is nothing redundant about doing so.
What do editors think about the following specific aspects of the block?
It was for an isolated occurrence of bad judgment on my part (for which I accept full responsibility), and ArbCom told me that there was consensus that what I did was unintentional.
After making the bad judgment, I realized on my own that I had done something that I should not have done, and I wrote apologies on three different pages, two of which were ArbCom case pages, indicating that I understood why it had been bad judgment.
The block was made 38 hours after my edit, those three apologies having occurred during that time prior to the block, and there was zero indication that I was repeating or continuing that one bad edit.
The block was lifted because I sent ArbCom an email in which I said essentially the same thing that I had said in the three apologies before the block.
Asked for the reasons for the block, ArbCom has said that some members persuaded other members that it was required automatically, as a matter of process, because ArbCom always blocks in these circumstances. However, other editors have proven that this has not in fact been the case, and former Arbs have said that this has never been the case and that the "rule" was made up.
When I have asked ArbCom what the block was intended to prevent, I have been met with either silence or with evasive answers, but I have never been given a credible explanation of what was preventative about it.
You can read the links above if you want to evaluate these characterizations for yourself.
Some ground rules
There are two "views". Please support one of them if you agree with it.
No opposing of views. Please only support.
Please do not create additional views or new sections. If you create a new section, I will revert it. If you do not agree with either view, then do not endorse either one, but you are welcome to comment in the Discussion section.
Important. Please do not in any way, directly or indirectly, comment about the other editor in the dispute.
Important. Please do not in any way, directly or indirectly, make any comment that in any way might bear upon issues of privacy.
This is not about sanctioning or attacking anyone on ArbCom (or anyone else, for that matter). Please do not go there. Please keep everything civil.
I do not want this discussion to become too much of a general attack on ArbCom or administrators, nor do I want to draw excessive attention to things that should not be subject to more attention. I will post brief announcements of this poll at WP:Administrators noticeboard and WT:Arbitration Committee. Please do not post links to this discussion anywhere else on or off Wikipedia, nor discuss it elsewhere on Wikipedia.
It is also inappropriate for other editors to sidetrack this discussion to complain about their own blocks or attack individual administrators. This is not a discussion about The CabalTM. I have hatted some comments for that reason, and I will continue to do so. I intend this poll to be a meaningful discussion about the specific issues associated with my block.
You are probably wondering why I am doing it this way, so here are some explanations
I have two objectives: (1) I want something that I can link to when inevitably someone tries to "use" the block against me, and (2) I want to send a sort of "message" to the current tranche of ArbCom, not as an attack on them, but as advice not to do certain things again.
No discussion here can be binding upon ArbCom, because they set their own rules. Consequently, this poll is advisory, not binding. As such, a formal RfC is of limited usefulness, and I think an informal poll is just as useful.
There are very serious issues relating to the Streisand effect, and so it is undesirable to advertise this poll widely. Also, I really do not want to be one of those users who go around all over the place shouting about how ArbCom is evil, and all that. I've thought hard about how to deal with those concerns, and decided that it is best to keep the discussion on my user talk page, rather than to advertise it as widely as a normal RfC would need to be advertised. Also, by skewing the respondent pool towards administrators and experienced editors, as well as whoever watches my talk page, instead of to all users (which would include those who want to rag on all administrators), I think a case can be made that the results may actually be more useful for the intended purposes. And finally, I recognize that I am not framing the poll in a neutral manner, and that is intentional, so it would also not be appropriate for a formal RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Closing statement. There is no good way to evaluate what happened, because no one who is uninvolved really has access to the most relevant information. But at least I kept all of this discussion here on my user talk page, because it would have been unhelpful to spread it all over the website.
It is justified to conclude that it was a bad block, or at least sub-optimal, and that the handling of the subsequent discussions was very poor. It was a punitive block, in no way preventative, and the arbitrators who supported the block failed badly in their accountability for it. And let me make it very clear that in no way is my saying that a denial of my own responsibility for what I did, which I sincerely regret.
There obviously is only a limited basis to draw such a conclusion from the small number of "votes" in this informal poll, but it is worth noting that those who criticized the block include some very experienced members of the community, whose opinions merit being taken seriously. More useful in determining consensus is to look beyond just the poll, at all the comments that have been made, by many editors. Set aside my own opinion, and the opinions of my talk page watchers, who may perhaps be considered friends. Also, set aside the comments of the arbs who made the block, and those of the editors who were on the opposite side of the dispute from me, as well as those of a few people who came here only to be disruptive. In what then remains, there are opinions from roughly two dozen editors – and there is not a single one defending the way the block was imposed! The closest to a statement of support for the block is a comment in the discussion section below that nonetheless concludes that the block was "a bum deal". And among those criticizing the block are experienced administrators and former and current members of ArbCom.
Let me note for the record these comments in particular: [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53].
I'm archiving this discussion as a record of the facts surrounding my block. I do so, however, with an understanding that nothing in the block really reflects on who I am as a person, or means anything in terms of my so-called "good name". Paradoxically, the arbs who have left a permanent record of their blocking me are the ones whose reputations will be affected by it, not only in spite of their efforts to distract from their own failed responsibilities, but because of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
View 2. These aspects of the block were sub-optimal. Please do not do this again.
Per #asofnow. It was not preventative, and some of the Arbs have been more defensive about accounting for the block than they needed to be. I'm not looking for anyone to be punished, just seeking to give clear feedback. In no way am I trying to minimize or deny or deflect from my own responsibility. I accept full responsibility for what I did, and I really just ask that ArbCom do the same. I hope that other editors will agree with me. Once this is resolved, I want to put this entire bad experience behind me, move on, and return to peaceful content editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't preventative, and the sheer amount of time between the OSed edits and the block sure make it look punitive. There is no categorical requirement that WP:OUTING result in a block, even if it occurs on an arbcom page, and I would expect administrators, particularly arbitrators to exercise discretion in applying even WP:OUTING in each instance where it is applied. From everything I am aware of regarding Trypto's block, I do not believe it should have bee made. The time delay looks especially bad. I don't doubt that Trypto accidentally ran afoul of WP:OUTING, but by the time the block was placed it was clear that he fully understood the policy and presented no chance of being a repeat offender. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal this time, because Trypto came back. But things like this affect editor retention, and bring the committee into disrepute. Bad block. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 14:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
I think there is such a thing as discretion, and ArbCom could have used it, but didn't, and ended up placing a block so late that it can only be understood as punitive, and was not warranted. Corinne (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I empathize to a greater extent than probably anyone else on the whole project with the arbitrators when they are faced with decisions of this kind. And as an ex-arbitrator I also acknowledge that some ArbCom actions involve non-public information, and that those lacking access to such information may therefore have a skewed or incomplete knowledge of relevant facts. That being said, I've watched this page closely over the past few weeks, and based on everything I have seen, it appears that Tryptofish's inadvertently detailed comment could have been, and was well in the process of being, addressed without blocking. Sometimes, when it is not necessary to block, it is necessary not to block, and it looks like this was one of those times. (That said, I also agree with those who have commented below that Tryptofish should not allow this incident to define, much less to terminate, his participation in Wikipedia—but I could also well understand a rejoiner that that's easy for me to say, who has only ever been blocked for one inadvertent minute six years ago, by some inattentive, butterfingered putz of an admin.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Personally? I doubt you'll find the answers you're looking for with this. Hopefully though, it may give you a measure of closure. Complex situations don't lend themselves to simple, equitable, or even fair resolutions. You aren't blocked, and I am glad to see that. — Ched : ? 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel that what happened was equitable or fair? I get it, that life isn't fair, and Wikipedia does not promise to be fair. But, since you are an administrator, would you prefer to see editors in the future be treated better than this, or would you prefer to be part of a community that takes the posture that bad stuff happens, and we don't care about doing better with it, so get used to it and shut up? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and Ched, if you meant that I should not expect any kind of "apology" from ArbCom themselves, I can assure you that I have no such expectation. I never wanted an apology, but I used to want an acknowledgment, and I do not even expect that anymore, beyond what a minority of the Arbs have already said. But I will be very disappointed if other editors just take the attitude that we should shrug and give up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, after I vote, I will be putting down this "admin" account for a while. I haven't followed the GMO topic on-wiki, only what I read in various news articles. In fact, I was honestly hoping to see others offering you feedback, and responded because I felt you deserved a response of some kind here. From what VERY LITTLE I read (in your links); then on first blush I would say it was not fair or equitable, but I can not give a full or fair evaluation to you because I am not familiar with the full situation. — Ched : ? 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate that, and I'm really not looking for more. But I think it's a shame when editors-of-good-faith reach a point of giving up, in whatever fashion they might give up. It would be a pity if you were to cut back on your activity here. And I have thought many times of just leaving Wikipedia because of this, but I am sufficiently convinced that Wikipedia can do better that I am determined not to give up on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Something else occurs to me, and it's a general comment rather than directed to Ched. Although Ched and I discussed "fair or equitable", those are not really the attributes I am concerned with here. I'm really asking about something more concrete: the relationship to the policies to which I linked in "View 1". It's entirely apt to consider the extent to which ArbCom is or is not exempt from those existing policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know much about ArbCom, and I don't know a lot about Tryptfish's editing history, but I have been following what happened recently to Tryptofish, and I'd like to share my thoughts. I think what Tryptofish would like, which is an acknowledgement from ArbCom that it erred in blocking Tryptofish, is reasonable. However, that is unlikely. Second to that, Tryptofish's wish that ArbCom (and especially the newly formed one, after the elections) be more careful in the future not to issue what appear to be punitive blocks when an editor (i.e., Tryptofish) has already made it abundantly clear what he did was inadvertent, not on purpose, and would not happen again, is also reasonable. Since a block – particularly, I would assume, a punitive block – on an editor's record might make it more difficult for that editor in the future to be selected as a member of ArbCom or another administrative body, it is a big deal, especially for an editor who has dedicated a lot of his or her time to constructive editing over several years. It is quite clear to me that Tryptofish is an extremely intelligent, articulate editor who keeps abreast of the latest developments in several scientific fields. I would also like to add that in all the dealings I've had with him on Wikipedia, he has invariably been very kind, helpful, and generous in explaining things. He also has immense patience. I saw that in his many discussions with User:EEng regarding the Phineas Gage article: even though he disagreed with EEng, he never lost patience, threatened, or became uncivil. He was consistently polite, and used reason, logic and evidence, and good ideas, to persuade EEng. Wikipedia needs editors like Tryptofish. If ArbCom imposes what appear to be punitive blocks (when it is too late to issue a preventative block) on editors of the caliber of Tryptofish, Wikipedia runs the risk of those editors just leaving Wikipedia altogether, and the encyclopedia will be the worse for it. Corinne (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a source of no small pride for me to have acted as a sort of patience/civility stress test allowing Tryptofish to display his personal strengths. EEng (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, Corinne. As for the things that are simultaneously both reasonable and unlikely, you are correct about that and I already realize it. And it's all the more reason to make note of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Holy macaroni!!! A block log is permanent??!!?? OMG, how will I ever got a job in the real world again? Will this effect my Social Security payments? How do I explain such a terrible black mark to my family and friends? Will I have to go door-to-door and read a card that says "Hello, my name is Beyond My Ken. I live in your neighborhood, and I am required by law to tell you that I have been blocked on Wikipedia." What if I want to get a loan to buy a house, will it show up on my credit report? When my son applies to colleges, will I have to include my block on the application forms? Does it appear on my driver's license?>What? What's that you say? It only appears on this website, on my account, which is a pseudonym? Oh, well ... never mind.Tryptofish, get over it, and stop whining. The ed17, stop facilitating the whining; go edit an article. BMK (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I am "denigrating" no one's opinions, I am criticizing someone's behavior, as whining is not an opinion, it is a thing that one does (but shouldn't do). Big difference there. BMK (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think what Trypto is trying to do is quite worthwhile. This appears to be an instance where arbcom failed to use discretion and imposed a purely punitive block on a longterm valuable content editor - that's pretty much never a good idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
He had the potential to do so, given the particulars of his situation. Now he's just fishing for sympathy. Too bad really, ruining a good opportunity like that by going about it in the wrong way... --Jayron3205:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I knew ahead of time that I would get responses like those from BMK and Jayron32, and that's fine. I asked the questions, and I opened the door to those replies. And I'm not angry about that. For what it's worth, I've also been commenting at an AN discussion in which another editor has been requesting a topic ban review, and BMK said similarly rigid things there, so I think it says more about him than about me. And I totally get it, that this is just a website and it's not like my life is ruined or whatever. I'm really not an emotional basket case. Rather, given that I'm not leaving Wikipedia, I'm insisting on holding Wikipedia to high standards, whether that succeeds or not. I understand why Jayron32 objects to the format. But think about what that really means. If, in fact, my "view 1" reads as obviously incorrect, does that mean that I misrepresented what happened (no), or does it mean that it is obviously incorrect? We have policies like NOTPUNITIVE for a reason. If someone wants to change the policies or decide that ArbCom is allowed to ignore the policies, let's get a consensus for it. But if ArbCom decides behind closed doors to act in violation of what the community has made into policy, there is nothing wrong with calling them out for it. And as for me being a "whiner", let's look at the facts. My reaction after the block was this. Not whiney, is it? (And just after the block, I put this on the blocking admin's talk page.) And my reason for changing my mind and deciding to prolong these discussions was this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
If you had left it an open discussion, you might have generated some comments which had indicated that some people didn't think you are wrong. By framing the debate ahead of time to make the people who disagree with you look like idiots, you've made the entire discussion invalid. That's my objection. If you want people to be able to discuss the case on its merits, and see whether or not people agree with you or don't, just ask them. When you constrain the choices between "My preferred answer" and "Answer only an idiot would agree with", you've poisoned the well. Many people would have likely agreed with you, and now all you've done is make people disagree with you for your actions after the block rather than on the merits of your point. --Jayron3219:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I am, in fact, someone who tries to listen sincerely to what other editors tell me, and I try to correct my mistakes when I realize that they were mistakes. (Would that some members of ArbCom would do likewise.) I listened to what you just said, and it makes sense to me (unlike saying per whining). Thank you, and I appreciate it. I just revised the wording of the first view. (I'm reluctant to change the second because two other editors have already endorsed it, so I made the change in this way.) If you or anyone else can make further suggestions, I really am listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is this: You ask the question "What does everyone think of this block?" and then leave it open ended. That would have generated much less drama than this. --Jayron3202:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that, and I sincerely appreciate it. As you know now, I did make a change in response to your earlier advice, so as to make the question sound less like I'm denigrating or mocking anyone who selects my "unfavored" view. And if I can go further along those lines, I'd appreciate advice about how to do it. But as for the open-ended question, it's actually something that I thought about in advance. It would resemble when administrators sometimes ask at AN or ANI for a "block review", where other administrators give feedback on whether a block was done well or incorrectly (except of course that I, asking here, am the blocked user instead of the blocking admin). But there is a big problem with asking the question in that way. If one is going to review my block as a whole, then one must evaluate some things that must not be discussed on-Wiki. And obviously, I cannot ask that. So if I ask that open-ended question, then editors responding would end up having to say something like: "Well, I cannot really answer that, because I don't have access to some key information. All I can do is respond in part, about those aspects of the block that are not subject to privacy concerns." So in fact, I posed this question in terms of those aspects that are not subject to privacy concerns. In addition, I think that anyone who would like to evaluate for themselves whether my poll question is reasonable or unreasonable can read the background links that I provided. There is a background, and I'm not asking the question in a vacuum. There is already a basis, from comments from experienced administrators and present and former arbitrators (as distinguished from my own personal opinion), establishing that the question, focusing as it does on those aspects of administrator and blocking policy, is a legitimate issue to examine. And if one reads the background and really thinks it through, one will conclude that it is indeed reasonable to evaluate what I am asking people to evaluate, without knowing the private details. That's because, even if one imagines the worst possible edit I could hypothetically have made, if one imagines making that edit as awful and offensive as it could be, and yet still keeping it consistent with what the involved Arbitrators have said about it here on my talk, then you can still come to a conclusion about punitive versus preventative. (And if, perhaps, one AGFs that my own accounts of what I can reveal about it are not misleading, then the worst one can imagine the edit to have been is a lot less bad than that.) I encourage everyone to do a thought experiment, in which you ask how bad the private information would have to have been, to make you prefer View 1 over View 2. And if anyone chooses to endorse View 2 while saying that they are basing their endorsement only on the limited information that they have, they certainly may do so. So, in summary, the question as I have posed it really does not constrain replies any more than an open-ended question would have. Beyond that, yes, I have an agenda here. It's not neutral. Perhaps one can think of it better as a petition than as a traditional block review. I'm not trying to conceal that. But again, that's not happening in a vacuum. There's a background. And finally, about drama, I definitely hear you. But look at what I said right after my block, and the reasons that I gave for changing my mind and pursuing this further. I suspect that the initial drama on my talk page, after opening the poll, has happened and is now going to die down. It's not that bad, in the overall scheme of things. But please, please observe how I have restricted that drama just to here, on my own user talk. Not at the Village Pump, not at an ArbCom talk page, not advertised as an RfC. Please contrast that with what other editors who are unhappy with ArbCom routinely do. They post all over the place, and really rant against ArbCom, making the drama very public. I recently saw an experienced admin threaten to block a drafting Arb over being "not here", because of a disagreement over the draft (fortunately self-reverted the next day). I even saw an Arb describe having a fist waved in his face in person. When grandstanding started here in my talk, I quickly "hatted" it and shut it down. I dislike drama, and wish this never happened to me. I can readily understand how you and others, seeing this now, for the first time, would feel like this is a far cry from the accustomed block review, but I urge you, if perhaps you are interested now, to take the time to examine the entire context, and reassess whether I am really asking anything unreasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with some others that this seems like a bit of a rigged poll, divided into black and white, when in my opinion the whole thing is and was a gigantic grey area: Outing is a bright line and is almost always associated with a block; we're discussing events which no one but a handful of people know the actual facts of; Jytdog got indeffed for doing something similar (although apparently on a much bigger and repeated scale) about the exact same editor; ArbCom is a committee of fallible human beings; exceptions are not made for exemplary editors nor should they be in principle; etc. I'm actually glad they conferred and polled and waited -- I wish that had been done in the latest Corbett block and de-sysop of Yngvy. I realize you have to get all this out of your system and make some sort of emotional or intellectual peace with it, and all of that is understandable. You got a bum deal and a block log. But it was for less than 24 hours. Once you got over the initial shock and hurt and confusion and outrage, why would you consider leaving Wikipedia? Unless you were planning to run for adminship or ArbCom or cratship or WMF, it wouldn't matter in the long run (except maybe emotionally: I haven't been there so I don't know). Some of our best editors have block logs (and some of those blocks were unwarranted), and yours was short and more-or-less inadvertent. Like I say, get this out of your system, plan some fixes to the Arb system if you can (I like those ACE questions submitted far above), but don't let it dominate your life or wiki airwaves, and don't take it personally. Kind regards and best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender, you raise very thoughtful points, but your comment actually illustrates why what I'm doing here is not only justified, but necessary. It's natural for editors who do not know all the details to lump together what Jytdog did with what I did. But it's incorrect, because there were very big differences, and we are two different people. And I get it, that editors hate it when there is outing, but that does not mean that we punish it. We prevent it. And I ask editors to see what I explained about it in these earlier comments: [54] (4th paragraph), and [55], [56], [57]. I take full responsibility for my own serious error, and I regret it very much, but it matters what the context was, and what I did is very far away from when a troll or a battleground editor does what one usually envisions as outing. I keep getting portrayed as if I were such a troll, and that is untrue. I'm entitled to set the record straight. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
On re-reading, did you really say that the block was short and inadvertent? Anyway, about "except maybe emotionally: I haven't been there so I don't know", it occurs to me that it is useful for me to comment about that. I am sure that every editor who gets blocked has an individual emotional response to it, so no size fits all. But let me describe it, for my experience. Before it happened, I really was not sure how I would react if I were ever blocked. But if you look at what I linked to, my comments just after the block was lifted, you will see that I thought that it was not a big deal. I wasn't particularly upset about it. If I think back on how it felt while it was in process, the worst part was waiting for email replies, which took a while, but that wasn't really that big a deal. But you'll see that when I came back, I did ask why it was thought to be preventative, which is a reasonable question. And then, when other people, not me, started saying that they were very disturbed about it seeming to have been a bad block, something happened. Arbs who initially congratulated me on my post-block statement started getting very defensive, and it progressively went from bad to worse. By the time I got back from my trip to a conference, I was seeing Arbs portray me as someone who is nothing like the editor that I really am. Remember, I've been editing since 2008, and have made almost 40,000 edits, and I think I'm widely seen as having had a good record all that time. Suddenly, I was having Arbs wanting to see findings of fact against me in the case, and subsequently I've gotten a really hair-raising email from one of them. I'm reminded of the old line about the cover-up being worse than the original crime. This wasn't a crime, of course, and it wasn't really a cover-up, but what I've ended up feeling badly about – and let's be very clear, I do feel very negatively about this – is that the subsequent way I have been treated has made it feel much worse than what the block itself felt like. If you have done your best on the project for a long time, and then abruptly you start to feel like you are being treated like someone who is not valued, that will sour how you feel about editing. If, ultimately, I am made to feel that I am not valued as an editor, I will see no reason not to find another hobby. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
And no, that is not an invitation for anyone else to start describing and complaining about their own blocks. Please don't go there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an extended conversation between Viriditas and me, mostly about my frame of mind. If you are interested, please read it, but if you are thinking tl;dr, you can safely skip it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. How do you expect people to empathize and connect with what you are saying unless they can personally relate to it by comparing it to their own experience? While it would be nice to have everything be just about you, we are all connected on multiple levels. No one is an island, Trypto. By pushing people away and demanding that everything focus on just your special predicament (which is not so special after all), you are missing out on directly connecting with your fellow humans. There is a shared experience here, that goes beyond you and I. Don't ignore it. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that's actually a very good question, thanks. First of all, I am going to be very disappointed with Wikipedia if it turns out that most editors cannot empathize with me based simply on the public facts of what happened. This discussion, if I split hairs, isn't about me, but it is about what happened to me. There are all kinds of things that go wrong with editor blocks, and I know that. But I really am asking a specific question. I well realize that other editors are more interested in other questions. But I still want to ask this question, and it's reasonable that I do. It's not that my predicament is special. It's that it presents some particularly narrowly identifiable issues to examine, and they need to be examined. If anyone thinks that I don't realize how all editors are connected on multiple levels, then they are ignoring my almost 40,000 edit history. I've shown an awful lot of kindness to a very diverse group of other editors over a long period of time, and I know that Wikipedia is just a little bit better for it. I'm thinking very hard about how what I see here each successive day is telling me about whether or not other editors empathize with me. Up to this time, I'm disappointed by what I see as so many editors who have previously made it quite clear that they recognize the problems, but who cannot bring themselves to endorse View 2 yet. I'm seeing a mixture of "stop rocking the boat", and "this is about Tryptofish not me, so I want to make it about me instead". Disagree with me if you will, but I think that it takes a very small person to read here, even to comment here, and yet not to endorse View 2. If that's the typical editor, I do not want to be connected to that. I'll tell you something where I am dead serious. In the last few days, I've been seriously considering changing my mind about what I have said up to this time. I'm never going to be interested in hanging around Wikipedia, just to complain about how rotten the culture supposedly is. If I conclude that the culture is rotten, I will just leave, and move on with my life. For the first time, in the last couple of days, I have started to seriously consider retiring permanently from Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it helps to make use of different conceptual frameworks when analyzing a problem. Often we get stuck in just one way of seeing the world, and this limits and narrows our overall understanding and perception of reality. I'm sure you are familiar with the notion of an ambiguous image. It's an old idea that's been around for a long time. These images force one to shift awareness from one perception to another and demonstrate how a singular, unitary view might be subjective. IMO, this is a good metaphor for what happens when we draw upon our personal experience to empathize with others. For example, there are editors (and admins) who think that if a user is blocked, that means they can't be trusted with advanced permissions or as upstanding members of the community. But there's another view entirely, and you touched upon it in several previous comments when you discussed what it was like to be blocked and how it felt. You personally empathized with the blocked user, and you stood in their shoes and saw through their eyes. Even though this was your personal dark night of the soul, you transcended your own subjective experience of the block and your awareness shifted to encompass the perception of others in the same situation. This transcendence of your consciousness was made possible by something bad that happened to you, when a member of arbcom harmed your reputation. But I (and I suspect many others) maintain that your reputation has not been harmed but rather strengthened through your travails. While it is certainly true that there are a small number of editors who migh try to use this against you, at the end of the day, only you and you alone can own the experience and incorporate it as the Jungian shadow that is always in the background. By owning it, for right or for wrong, you become more powerful than before, and nobody can use it in the future against you. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are some really excellent insights, and I thank you for them, and I feel better just reading them. You are absolutely right about owning it. It's something that I have done in things much worse than this, in my past off-Wiki experiences in real life. I know that I am the person that I am, and no amount of stupidity from other people at this website can ever change that. I can continue editing here with my head held high. And if I do that, I can have all the more empathy for other editors who get blocked, and that's a good thing. I can also decide not to continue editing here with my head held high. The funny thing about this informal poll is that, in the end, it says much more about the Wikipedia community than it does about me. But, that said, it doesn't mean – and in fact it really follows – that I cannot quite reasonably come to the conclusion that the project is not worthy of me. But, having said that, and I realize how egotistical it was, I really want to say to everyone reading here: if you cannot bring yourself to step up and endorse View 2, can you still feel good about your own position as a member of the editing community? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You're still holding on for dear life. Just let go. When you do, you'll experience this enormous rush of freedom. I signed View 1 just to show you how silly this was. You want the community to react in a certain way, constrained by two POV. But is this as important as you think? People get bad blocks every day. Instead of making this about your bad block, expand your horizon with your newfound transcendent approach. Make this about bad blocks in general and start a community discussion. I could easily sign View 2, but will that really change anything? Think bigger and go for maximum impact. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not holding on, and sorry if it looks that way to you. There is nothing newfound about my view of the world. You were on a real roll there, and I wish that you had left it at that. Your View 1 thing only made you look silly, sorry. The purpose of View 2 is not what some people seem to think, to do some kind of psychotherapy for me, and if that's what is stopping anyone from signing it, then I urge them to set that aside (or for that matter, I wonder why they would think they were helping me by not signing it, or why they would want Wikipedia to have less empathy). The purpose is to say what the words there say. If someone does not sign it after becoming familiar with the background, then I figure either that they don't like the way I am asking, or they think it's OK for blocks to be made that way, or they are signing on to "hasten the day". And if, in the end, it turns out to be anything like that, I can happily and confidently hold my head high as I quit Wikipedia and move on with my life. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing can make me look silly, as I am silly. I'm silly for editing Wikipedia as this is a truly silly place and you are a silly person trying to get the community to recognize your silly block made by a silly arb. Revel in the silliness. Swim in it. I defended you from BMK and Jayron before because they said you were trying to gain sympathy. I explained that you would have more success requesting a blog lock annotation. You persisted in your silly block review by asking the silly community to make silly comments. Now, however, you are looking for sympathy. You've threatened to leave several times now. If that's what you want, do it. I will be sad to see you go as so you have so much to offer (and I think Atsme and many others will pine away in your absence). But really, stop with the "If you don't love me, I'm leaving" game. It's doesn't suit you at all. We love you, isn't your talk page evidence of that? Arbcom fucked up, but let it go now. A larger community discussion about how to retain editors subject to bad blocks and how to preserve their reputation going forward would be wonderful, but it seems like you aren't interested in helping prevent what happened to you from ever happening again to others. Please expand your awareness, from this incident to all future incidents, from your talk page to the community talk page, from your wounded pride to the collective wounds of editors hurting everywhere, suffering from bad blocks with no recourse left to them. Or, you can choose to walk away from their pain, indifferent to the suffering and cries of the world. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's well-said, so thank you once again. Am I coming across like certain so-called "vested contributors" who do diva quits on a schedule like clockwork? Uh-oh, I better re-assess. I'm really just thinking out loud here, and I find it interesting how people respond. Please don't say that I'm not interested in having this help other users, because that's unfair and untrue. As for things that are silly, and things that do not suit me, do remember that I'm the editor who tells people (and didn't I say it to you, a very long time ago?) "yes, and I smell bad, too". Assuming I do stay around, I want to tell you very seriously that I will be a committed advocate for the "editors hurting everywhere" you describe, and I will be better at it as a result of this experience. On the other hand, walking away would not in any way reflect being indifferent. And please expand your awareness, to recognize that it's OK for me to have a poll about what happened to me, as opposed to what happened to you (and this discussion between you and me should probably stop here). But seriously, thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It just occurred to me to point out something else. In my opinion, not all blocks are bad blocks. Actually, I believe that the vast majority of blocks are good blocks. Usually, people get blocked for good reasons. Bad blocks are the exceptions to the rule, which is why it is a good thing to examine them. And that's another reason why I object to making this discussion about all blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Before you hat or end this particular thread, I need to respond to the pining...Absolutely if Tryp decides to leave. Since Tryp doesn't appreciate my humor, I won't opine but I don't think he'd mind if I pine, and truly hope it never gets to that point. I thought my sentiments about Tryp were established in the very first post I ever made on his TP but perhaps not. I can't think of any other who would put their arses on the line for a pseudonym as he did, especially after that pseudo jumped ship for whatever reason. I truly do appreciate that kind of loyalty in a person and would much prefer to be working with than against. Well, realistically speaking, I don't work "against" if I can avoid it so don't take the latter to heart. Editors like Tryp are few and far between. Atsme📞📧22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not really black and white, it's grey and white. "Sub-optimal" is not accusing anyone of some awful misjudgement. I will add one tiny point, talking to ArbCom is like talking to a brick wall. An acknowledgement that this was, perhaps, an overly zealous block would be useful, not as a an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, but that the message has been received. Though I have received numerous apologies from ArbCom for procedural matters, getting them to discuss the possibility that they were wrong on anything substantive is harder than extracting hen's teeth. I think there's a hidden subtext "If we admit a mistake here, everyone will be challenging our decisions." I understand that fear, but I think it should be met head on, stuff that is challengeable gets challenged anyway. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 14:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
The solution is very simple. Ask an admin to annotate your block log with a new entry that consists solely of a comment on the original block, describing it in a way you prefer (unnecessary, mistake, overreaction, etc) and points to a discussion about it with a URL. Even though you disagree, I think Ched nailed the problem by describing it as one of fairness. For reasons that are a bit too complex to go into here at the moment, the Wikipedia community has always had an unusual (and some would say "fringe") interpretation of the concept of fairness that differs with the expectations of most people. This has a lot to do with the philosophy of objectivism and libertarianism that many editors bring with them here, and the somewhat deviant notions of ethics embedded in those ideas. Those of you up above who are accusing Tryptofish of whining or looking for sympathy, you couldn't be more wrong in your assessment. Tryptofish is doing neither; he's looking for closure so he can move on. What he's going to eventually realize is that his expectations are diametrically opposed to those of most admins and arbs, who have no use for the ideas he values. Viriditas (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
As for annotating, I expect instead to link here whenever someone brings it up. As for me coming to realize the unfairness of Wikipedia, I already realize it. But what's wrong with Wikipedia simply reflects some things that are wrong with human beings. And I've experienced far worse in real life. This is small stuff in comparison. That doesn't mean that I should abandon my own values. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It isn't clear if you are making a statement or disagreeing with me. I'll assume it's the latter (for the same of clarity) in which case: 1) linking to this discussion in the future is far less effective than having an admin annotate your block log pointing to a discussion where arbs other admins like Risker agree it is a bad block; 2) I was not discussing the unfairness of Wikipedia at all, I was pointing to the admins and arbs who hold unusual, fringe concepts of fairness that differ with most people (such as those who aren't on Wikipedia or help run the site). In other words, the concepts of fairness and other related ideas such as justice, have been deliberately distorted to push unusual ideas. Like I said, this a bit too complex for this discussion. This doesn't mean Wikipedia is unfair at all, it means the admins and arbs are unfair and they are purposefully unfair because their understanding of fairness is seriously warped by techolibertarian influences. 3) I was not arguing that you should abandon your values, I was arguing that your values are superior to those of this site, which is why I support them. The only way to change the current value system is with the help of a memetic, semantic virus that redefines and reinterprets how editors interact with each other. Some extremists have already succeeded in this endeavor by writing essays which have convinced large numbers of people on this site that basic notions of fairness are incompatible with editing. Those kinds of values have superseded your own, in what can only be described as a deluge of delusions. You are dealing with vast numbers of people who are easily swayed and moved like sheep, which is ironic because they like to think of themselves as intelligent and as independent thinkers. You need to be the sheepdog on the ass of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't really disagreeing with you. A "sheepdog on the ass of Wikipedia" – wow, this fish will have to remember that one! I guess there's an issue that, if administrators are too full of certain misconceptions, whether it would really make sense for one to annotate anything. And actually, it has long been noted that a flaw in the block log software is that there is no good way to annotate. The only option is to make a second block and then quickly undo it. No thanks to that. But that's not a central issue for me. The way that I see it (and we should really have any meta-discussion in another section, not here), life is unfair generally, and that does spill over into Wikipedia. But as for administrators, I don't see it that way. What I do see is some amount of immaturity some of the time, and a sadly human tendency to circle the wagons when a mistake is noticed. If one looks at my initial reaction after the block was lifted, none of what I am doing in this poll would ever have happened if some members of ArbCom (with, let it be noted, some notable exceptions, who you can see commenting wisely in some talk sections above) had not gotten defensive and in effect lawyered up, or actually went on an offensive and started making further attacks on me. In my opinion, one of the marks of a good administrator is to deescalate a conflict, instead of escalating it or becoming defensive over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Annotating a block specifically refers to making a second block with a comment, and that's the only way it's done. I'm surprised you find that objectionable, as it's your only good option. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The more I think about that, the more I feel like it opens up all kinds of issues. Some people are so, well, flawed that they would just look at it and say look how long that block log is. But, given that it was officially an "ArbCom block", any administrator who is not on ArbCom would likely get desysopped by ArbCom for doing that without ArbCom's permission. And it's pretty clear that no one on ArbCom is going to do it themselves or permit anyone else to do it. It really becomes a self-fulfilling circular argument. I'm comfortable with what I'm doing with this poll. Wikipedia runs on discussion and consensus, and in a world of imperfect choices, I'll have to settle for pointing to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On Wikipedia, polls are given little credence unless they lead to a second phase. Maybe you can use the poll to ask an admin to annotate your block log? :-). I'm kidding, my friend. Anyhoo, the game is rigged here, just like anywhere else. When you rebel against it, you get punished. In the US, for example, the local, state, and federal laws are designed to punish individuals who make free choices that deviate from the preferred choice. If you are single and unmarried, childless and self-employed, rent property instead of own it, and decline to play the stock market, you will get penalized by the government tax code. There is an illusion of freedom, where each choice you make is gently corralled into preferred choices condoned by the establishment. The notion of imperfect choice is a feature, not a bug. Authortites benefit from imperfect choice. Look no farther than the for profit prison industry or the health care crisis. The same is true here in the Wikipedia fiefdom. Your poll will bring no change and no closure unless it leads to larger reforms. When admins and arbs are rallying to oppose you, then you know you are heading in the right direction. Arbcom, in some way, benefitted from wrongly blocking you. Just as the cultural values of marriage and capitalism are built into the US tax code, so too are the values of unfairness and injustice designed into the centralization of power that gives arbcom the right to block you for poor reasons and not apologize. You have only two choices. You can request a block log annotation or you can work tirelessly to change the Wikipedia system. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel a need to point out to anyone else looking here that this discussion may be about me, but it is not about Viriditas. And if Viriditas' comments end up being used against me by other editors as guilt-by-association, then, Viriditas, you will have put yourself into the same category as Jytdog. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryp - I sympathize, but there's not much more I can do except try to make you laugh. I'd best wait til some of the dust settles. I remember well how (don't transpose those last two words) I was treated at various drama boards because certain editors (1) simply didn't want to hear the truth, and/or (2) had a different agenda. I tried to steer clear of those who tried to WP:POV_railroad me into a block with their relentless aspersions but they kept on keeping on until they finally managed to get me on that train - and without one frigging diff to support their allegations. I stood on the platform of that caboose wondering if I should wave goodbye or shoot the buzzard that was circling - IOW, shoot the bird. The aspersions still haven't let up, which is why I'm far more sensitive to the need for supporting diffs than a few others appear to be. You may find some comfort in your words of advice to me after the train pulled out of the station, [58]. Oh, and here is the advice you referred to: [59]. In a nutshell, there is no recourse, Tryp, but at least you knew the reason for the block, right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Hey - I got an AE warning for an inadvertent emoji and had to jump through hoops to get it retracted, not redacted like the more privileged get done. Anyway, what matters is that it happened, it's on the log and that's where it will stay. I tried to get another erroneous block removed from my log and well, that just doesn't happen. Why, just last week I applied for an AmEx card and was rejected because of my block record at WP. Oh, and I recently discovered there's a big tattoo on my posterior that reads, Disruptive Editor, so be careful where you sit from now on and try not to smear the letters, especially if you wear a Speed-O to public beaches. You don't want folks thinking your tattoo reads outie which anatomically belongs mid-torso. Anyway, my aspirations to run for ArbCom one day or even become an admin are now squelched. Sad. At least it doesn't keep me from voting for good editors who are content creators with GAs and FAs to their credit. I don't think your ant-sized block will affect you the same as what mine has me, and shouldn't prevent you from getting a credit limit increase, or new car financing. Ok, I've said my piece, now I'm going to go design a wikilove banner for you, and hope it makes you smile. Atsme📞📧22:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm really not amused. Again, I want this discussion to be about what I asked at the top. It's not about other editors. Not about Atsme, not about Viriditas, not about BMK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, you seem to be experiencing outrage that a core sense of decency and fairness does not ultimately prevail within the Wikipedia administration. It does, but only as far as the aspirations of arbitrators and administrators goes. It does not, will not and can not extend to content builders, particularly given the attitude and philosophy of the founder. While there are individual exceptions (some have recently retired in despair), the administrative caste as a body is wholly dedicated to the preservation and expansion of their already overbearing powers over content builders. On power issues there is no such thing as "community consensus" on Wikipedia. Any proposal to do anything that could impact admin powers is always totally under the control of the huge collective body of the admin corps. This is easily demonstrated by examining the huge string of failed proposals to reform the system in the direction of equity and fairness. Many individual members of the admin corp are almost inactive on Wikipedia, but they stir into life when some proposal that could give dignity to content builders looks like it might otherwise pass. There are over one thousand admins, many of whom have never, and will never experience the power they hold on Wikipedia in real life. All they have to do to retain their privileges is to be aware, or be made aware by others of any reform proposals that are not in their interest. This pattern is seen over and over when reform proposals are made. The admin corp as a body pulls together in a remarkably cohesive manner whenever it is in their interest to so do so. That is the core reality on Wikipedia, the one cohesive thing that does happen on Wikipedia. Content builders now are powerless and don't get a look in. Significant groups of content builders provide additional reinforcement to the admin corp, and often do the worst of their work for them. These include admin wannabes, drama board devotees, and naive editors who buy into the self-serving myths encouraged by admins (such as policy is controlled by "community consensus" and being an admin is "no big deal"). Yet I notice that you yourself, Tryptofish, on your ACE guidelines, are supporting some admins that are at the front line chipping away at any remaining power or dignity that might be left for content building. In particular, you are supporting redacted. Why are you doing that? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The system is inherently unfair and unjust. It is working perfectly as designed to concentrate power and decision making into as few hands as possible and to diffuse and abrogate responsibility and accountability. The community has few options other than to bend over and take it. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I won't tell you what to do, but I feel a need to reply. A case can be made that the ground rules I set preclude oppose !votes, and that you are really opposing this view, in the sense that you seem not to think that it is a good thing. I also set a ground rule that the discussion should not become one of attacking administrators, and a case can be made that you are doing that as well. I would not want to see someone else try to make a pointy !vote to counteract you, nor to blame me via guilt-by-association. This is one of the reasons why I did not advertise this discussion more widely. As I said, I'm not telling you to change your position, but I do want to note my own position here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand, my friend. However, if you take a few steps back for a moment, get into that electric car and drive to the top of the highest mountain, get out, and then take a deep breath and look at the entire discussion below you, then I think you will quickly realize that it cannot possibly get any "pointier" than expecting the community to solve one of the greatest unsolved questions in governance. In which case, my good sir, I raise my glass of organic, free-range grape juice in your honor, and toast to your elfin pointiness, with whose sharpened apex you have stabbed me. Et tu, Trypto? Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Following up my vote above, with special reference to old butterfingers: Tryptofish, having a "clean" block log is overrated, and I personally see it as a bit milquetoast. I hope you will come to be proud of yours as I am of mine.[60]Bishonen | talk20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC).
Thank you both very much about that, and, aside from anyone else's fingers (having fins myself), I agree with you. In the tl;dr discussion that I collapsed in green, between Viriditas (my self-appointed spiritual, technical, and menu advisor), and me, I did indeed come to acknowledge that I have every reason to hold my head high, regardless of anything we are discussing here. I get that, and I thank you for reminding me of it. But, at the same time, I sincerely believe that no editor who cares about other people should feel reluctant – either because they want me to move on (which I will, after this discussion and the GMO case end, I promise!), or because they think a poll like this is somehow "not how things are done" – to, in effect, sign the petition. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
[Affronted.] Bishonen toxic personality as attested by little godking, yes. Tetchy, difficult, holds grudges. 'Zilla by contrast very mild-mannered and easy-going! bishzillaROARR!!10:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC).
Whatever else, this discussion is proving to be, in my toxic opinion, a fascinating study in the varieties of human behavior. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
TL:DR only just came here after all this time. If this is all about your outing block from ArbCom, then I thought it was solely punitive at the time, and nothing I've seen since has changed my mind. Mind, I never saw what you actually wrote as it had been removed from my view before I had a chance to read it. AFAIC the Troll outed himself when he got here, and nobody has done any outing since with regard to that individual. I've got a stupid and undeserved block on my record too. -Roxy the dog™woof13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
<All freeze as if turned to statues. Stunned, embarrassed silence throughout the room, some eyes fixed determinedly down at their dinner plates, others sidelong at Tryptofish. Several take refuge in the fantasy that any moment Mr. Spock will end their torment by beaming them up.> EEng (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been giving some very meticulous thought to what some of you have been telling me about being proud, in order to really wrap my head around it, and I feel like I have come up with a better understanding than what I had before.
On the whole, Wikipedia is a lot less dysfunctional than it really has any right to be. Things usually work surprisingly well – not brilliantly by a long shot, but middling good. And most active administrators are good people, reasonably smart and well-intentioned. Most blocks are good blocks. Really.
Bad blocks are the exceptions to the rule. And, as such, the best thing to do with them is to try and understand what went wrong, so as to improve the process for next time. Not sweep them under the rug. When some editors go around saying that all blocks or most blocks are bad blocks, sorry, but it puts me in mind of someone who got a mediocre grade in college math, and goes around saying: "Albert Einstein got mediocre math grades too, so my grade shows that I'm as smart as Einstein!"
I've come up with a good analogy for bad blocks. Please stay with me here. When an administrator carelessly or foolishly issues a bad block, it's like someone with a drippy, gooey nose and bad manners sneezing directly in your face and giving you the common cold. As I said, please stay with me here. Most of the time, the common cold is no big deal. You get over it. You get on with your life. There's no lasting damage. Same thing with a bad block. It would be kind of strange for someone to say that they are proud of having gotten the common cold. But it is undeniably nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about, to have had a cold. It doesn't define who you are, and it does not mean that you are a bad person. Same thing with bad blocks. But there is someone who comes off looking, well, sub-optimally: old sneezy snotnose, who sneezed in your face. Same thing for administrators who make bad blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The only people who never get colds are those who never leave their apartments. The pride of the cold comes from their implication that you're willing to move among those not obviously healthy, taking what may come. EEng (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
That's an excellent answer, and I expected nothing less. If I may split hairs, that pride is, precisely, in the willingness to move among the public, and indeed, isn't that exactly what Wikipedia is all about. Yes indeed, never leaving home leaves one all the poorer in experience. Hmm, but maybe I should log off my computer and take a walk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment; returned. There's a more blunt formulation, too. See [61], and consider: if you don't get blocked once in a while, you're not standing up to assholes enough (and I don't necessarily mean the blocking admins—though that's often the case, just as often they're unwitting tools of others). EEng (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Per what I said about Einstein and college math, I think that standing up to assholes is indeed a mark of honor, and I'd like to think that much of my editing over the years has been just that. And just maybe, my extended discussion of my block here on my talk is that, too. But I don't really think that it can be measured in blocks. Most active administrators are neither assholes nor the tools of assholes. But, as with all human endeavors, there are of course exceptions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please take this injection of humor lightly. Your friends are trying to make you laugh to lighten your day and make you happy again. We don't care about your block log. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Mashed potatoes with mushroom gravy (Cafe Gratitude, Berkeley)
Rosemary and hazelnut scaloppini in a cranberry cabernet sauce (Crossroads, LA)
Pumpkin tart with pecan pâte sucrée crust, roasted pumpkin and sweet potato filling, topped with cranberry caramel sauce and spiced maple pecans (Cafe Flora, Seattle)
Hey, I'm impressed! (And here I had mistakenly pegged you as someone who would fashion turkey out of tofu and poi.) And let me assure you that I love vegetarians. Medium rare. Nobody in my family was ever that fond of turkey, so the family tradition that I will continue tomorrow will center around duck – which is, after all, bacon with webbed feet. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Turkeys are in fact very intelligent. There is a welfare issue around them being raised on very long daylengths or continuous light. So, to find out what daylength they want, I trained 10 turkeys to turn their own lights on and off by pecking on a switch. One of them (subsequently called Einstein!) learned this within 3 minutes!DrChrissy(talk)16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I enjoyed all of those comments! And maybe there's no catering, but next year, I'm spending Thanksgiving in Hawaii. DrChrissy, the Turkey Whisperer, maybe we can train some Wikipedia editors that way. Or maybe not, come to think of it, although there certainly is no shortage of peckers in the editing community. Turkeys in Central Square, and I can attest that there are also turkeys in Harvard Square, as well as on certain unnamed governing bodies at Wikipedia! Seasoned greetings, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you know that if you put a turkey in front of a keyboard he (or she) will eventually peck out all of Wikipedia? (Wouldn't take very long, either.) EEng (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Related only by the pecking, but still one of the most charming/amusing/weird things I've ever heard of -- still makes me laugh 30 years later: Project Pigeon. Best passage: "Early electronic guidance systems use similar methods, only with electronic signals and processors replacing the birds."
How do you come up with these things? (Please don't answer that!) I think the best part is the wet cat coming out of the water. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
He told me both stories -- I remember it vividly. Only the pigeons have an article though, so I googled cat guided bomb or something like that. EEng (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. It's just that I had this mental image of you searching endlessly through YouTube videos to find ones that could be mentioned in a humorous manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to believe another year is about to expire. It's time to enjoy the festivities and welcome yet another wonderful New Year! May yours be filled with dreams come true. Atsme📞📧04:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tryptofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
--Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you so much for being so kind as to ask me. I did it myself. Happy to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
