User talk:SlimVirgin/February 2016

RfC (procedural) question

Hi there Sarah,

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

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

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

RfC question

Do the sources support the content?

Content:

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

Final statement by closer:

I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

Although I have participated in many DR discussions, my knowledge is pretty limited, and to be honest, I think the system does not really work, because neutral third parties are not really invited to talk and perhaps not really welcome. In fact, when I tried to get more involved and participate as a neutral 3rd party at DR to counter having the "usual suspects" dominate everything, I was told not so politely to shut up and mind my own businesses. Later when I was taken to AN/I (in an action where you defended me), and I was threatened with being topic banned from an area I enjoy editing in, the heaviest arguments against me were not from my edits to the topic area, but instead for my participation in a NB on a completely unrelated topic, a topic which was under heavy protection by the skeptic editors who I believe basically control Wikipedia from their activism that Petrarchan47 has mentioned. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: you mentioned the "usual suspects," but I see this on both sides. For example, after Jytdog recently posted on Jimbo talk about the Knowledge Engine, you went there too and argued in opposition, which means you support not being told what is happening to a project to which you devote considerable time.

That's the problem with the GMO debate and lots of others on Wikipedia: people line up according to ideology and who else is involved, instead of examining the arguments. Critical thinking is time-consuming, so looking to see who else supports something is a useful shortcut, and everyone does it, but it has its limits. The more complex the debate, the more limiting it is. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not take the position I did because of who made what arguments or from any ideology. I look at the available information before me and see what makes sense. If I cannot see clearly what is going on, I do not take a position. For example, recently, when I was supporting Prokaryotes' TB appeal, someone complained about Prokaryotes' edits to Arnnon Geshuri's WP:BLP. The flurry of new editing there seemed to be towards creating an attack piece on Geshuri. I was curious why and found this vote of No Confidence, which Prokaryotes voted against. I looked at the arguments for and against and I saw merits to each. There was insufficient information for me to take a make a decision, and I have yet to weigh in.

In the instant case, I have been following the drama of the board removal from its inception, reading the voluminous posts on Jimbo's page and at Doc James's page, the Signpost, off-Wiki articles and other references with an open mind, trying to understand what exactly happened and who--if anyone--behaved badly. I even looked up the Knight Foundation to see if it is some right-wing "think" tank or foundation with an agenda that could slant content. I definitely could see both sides of the argument, but had insufficient information early on to form a judgment. What shifted me to support Jimbo's arguments was my discovery that the search engine has been misrepresented in two ways: (1) to make it sound like it is for commercial purposes (2) the claim that it would replace or act as a substitute for well-written Wikipedia articles.

I originally trusted those supporting Doc James who led me to believe Wikipedia was trying to bring in income from a search engine. Now it appears to me that the propagation of this false rumor is simply self-serving. Worse, it undermines the grant and the search engine and Wikipedia, by bad PR that will also alienate donors.

As for (2), that one is laughable. One only need look at the engine's results to see that they are not even close to competing with the real article on Bach. And if those who were so up in arms did any research on AI as I described, they would see why.

These kinds of rumors needlessly create problems for what to me looks like a good research project with exciting potential. And it is very clear to me why there was a need for secrecy from Google and Yahoo and other commercial engines, and that secrecy has unfortunately also been undermined.

As for users having to have input into this particular project, that now appears over-rated. It bothers me that editors seem to feel that Wikipedia and the foundation is there to serve their interests. I disagree. Wikipedia and the Foundation are there to support the encyclopedia (and similar projects) which is about a democratized way of creating NPOV content based on RS, rather than based on $$$ or ideology. Yes, the Foundation should listen to the editors who raise issues and ask for help in achieving the Mission, but some decisions must be made without editor (or user) input for strategic reasons. I can definitely see how this search-engine will help in the Mission. The grant comes with money to support the work. If there is insufficient man-power to do the work the engine requires, due to too little interest by exiting and/or new editors interested in the project (including grad students and under grads interested in AI), it will fail. It is, after all, an experiment just like Wikipedia was. (Given: The Flow Project did appear to be a small disaster, and perhaps more input from editors may have been advisable, but it was also an experiment and had limited overall impact, and hopefully anyone who tries to come up with a better user interface for editors--much needed IMHO--will learn from Flow's problems.)

So in summary, I think the search engine looks like a good research project and I think it unfortunate that it is being misrepresented and has all this unnecessary drama around it. That is why I spoke up at Jimbo's page. Not because of who was supporting which position. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You wrote above that it is "very clear to [you] why there was a need for secrecy from Google and Yahoo and other commercial engines." Perhaps you could explain. I'm very puzzled by that aspect, especially given that someone working on search for Google is on the WMF Board of Trustees. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the last page of the now public grant here, which says:

Risks: Two challenges could disrupt the project:

1. Third-party influence or interference. Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which could reduce the success of the project. This is the biggest challenge, and an external one.

2. ...attrition...

Yes, I was aware there is a Google employee (or former employee) on the Board. At the time I read it, I was not aware of what he did there until you asked me about him and I looked into it. He had written a compelling letter which I had found among the correspondence Doc James provided here. When I first read it, I had the feeling Mr. Vrandecic's loyalty to the WMF that was much stronger than to Google, even if he was employed there. If it is not, I'm not clear on why he would be on the WMF Board. I might have even been left with the feeling he was a former employee or even a disgruntled Google employee who had a philosophy closer to Richard Stallman than to for profit software. Regardless of his loyalties, his letter gave me the feeling that he wanted to be able to speak frankly about certain things about his work at Google and how it might apply to the Project that he did not want to make public and he did not feel he could do that in front of Doc James. Regardless, I could see how one might allege a possible COI with having employees of Google on the WMF board given the statement I quoted above, something that did not occur to me when I first was reading that letter. I have not seen anyone address that in these discussions, where false rumors that this engine is likely to be for-profit seem to be preferred over looking at the facts of the grant which make is extensively clear that that is not the goal. If you have more information about Mr. Vrandecic in the regard to what I have written here or at Jimbo's page, please share. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

David, two things if I may. The notion that WMF may have been pursuing a "search engine to compete with Google" at one point, is not the heart of what people are upset about.

About Denny - he has very deep roots in the Wikimedia community - he led the team in Germany that created Wikidata and and has led development of it (see his bio at his user page), and he has been working for a long time on all kinds of ways to use Wikidata (see his publications, available at his Google bio page here, and has a vision of building articles on the fly from it and other structured content (see here) that he has been advocating for, for a long time. What you are calling "laughable" are steps toward his life's dream, which is unkind at least.

That said, SV was asking you to explain more about your statement that it is "very clear to [you] why there was a need for secrecy from Google and Yahoo and other commercial engines" with regard to the work proposed under the Knight grant, and I don't want to distract from you responding to her request, which you haven't done yet... Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I explained it. Just read what I wrote above. I read what Mr. Vrandecic wrote in the post you refereed to. I don't see the "generation of articles on the fly" as being a substitute for material that is edited by users, but a supplement, a way of creating more access to non-commercial information from RS--as a starting point--a bit like creating stubs. If anyone thinks the articles generated by a computer (or translations of articles) are as good as something written by a human, that is indeed laughable. See [3].

Although computers now regularly beat the best human chess players, it is not because they are "smarter", but primarily because the computing power and technology has improved exponentially so much so that the Brute-force search approach of systematically and exhaustively looking through every possibility and combination of moves was sufficient to go beyond the human approach of using concepts, logic and abstract thinking. (See [4], [5]). Despite these huge advances in technology, the computer chess engine is still not all that "smart". It gets into trouble by the Horizon effect for example. As a good example, you see the computer unable to "create a plan" against Kasparov (See [6] and [7]). Relatively simple positions for humans to understand (e.g. a fortress) still baffle even the best computer engines of today [8], mentioned in our article Fortress (chess) "Fortresses pose a problem for computer chess: computers fail to recognize fortress-type positions and are unable to achieve the win against them despite claiming a winning advantage". (There is some mention of using neural nets for "learning" that has exciting possibilities.) Note how I describe in this paragraph how an exhaustive "search" is what the computer is really good at, not writing a poem.

So again, the idea that a computer translation or "generation of an article on the fly" will be a substitute or replacement for an article created or maintained by a human is silly and naive. I expect that Mr. Vrandecic would agree with me on that. To anyone who does not see how naive that is, I suggest taking more courses in in literature, creative writing, poetry, philosophy, art and the humanities.

The grant materials I have seen do not suggest the authors are that naive or that the computer search output will replace Wikipedia articles and editors, and those who say that is the plan sound paranoid. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Copying the text from the grant doesn't explain why you think there was a concern about competition from commercial search engines. The question goes to what you understand the grant was for and in what possible way what a commercial search engine might do, could have any impact on, or even relationship to, what WMF was proposing. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you guys are trying to get me to say. Sorry. Why don't you just tell me what you *think* I believe and I can tell you if I agree or not? Otherwise you are just wasting your time trying to get me to say something I probably don't believe. It seems fairly obvious to me from reading that section that confidentiality--at least in the initial stages--was important to the project's success as accessed by the authors of the grant. If you think that is not indicated by the language, then I have no idea what you think it says. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

SV was kind of enough to ask you an open question. Why do you think there is a competitive risk from commercial search engines? Copying the answer from the grant, isn't an answer. That's all. Nobody wants to put words in your mouth. I could tell you what I think, but you haven't asked me, and I don't want to taint your answer. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been thinking about why this is, perhaps, not as obvious to you guys as it is to me. I have spent a number of years in Silicon Valley, and before that while I was getting my Bachelors and Masters in Electrical Engineering, I was surrounded by people who had either done their time there or somewhere like it and understood how the industry works. I also spent a considerable amount of time studying about the industry and even on working on projects that my supervisors both in industry and in the University had hoped would be novel and ground breaking. I may take it for granted that the general public is familiar with the basic themes that make the place tick.

One of the major themes is this: Novel ideas, innovation, especially the ability to apply ingenious techniques in a practical way to make something useful, are highly valued both in industry and in the university. Individuals, projects, companies and universities are eager to get credit for being the first in anything new and exciting in technology. Following the History of Apple Inc., this is how they have successfully sold themselves, which was presented in the excellent documentary on Steve Jobs. But Apple is in no way unique. Plenty of other companies in Silicon Valley have done the same. Universities like Stanford, UC Berkeley and M.I.T. have all come out with revolutionary ideas that industry developed into products.

When something new like the "Knowledge Engine" is proposed, others who might see the value in it, will want to do it first and get credit and notoriety that comes with being the first. Being the first is a "big deal". So companies are often extremely guarded about letting others outside know what they are doing. And they hate nothing more than experts from inside the company taking an idea developed there with them and creating a product from it somewhere else. I imagine the writers of the grant, including people like Jimbo and the people who have worked at Google know this phenomenon all too well, as do those at the Knight Foundation who approved the funding.

I am getting the feeling you guys do not see the potential value to a company like Google or Yahoo to use the ideas of the Knowledge Engine concept to benefit their bottom line. I certainly do. Those companies may have been aware of the potential but thought it was impractical. It is possible that Mr. Vrandecic pitched it to Google and they wouldn't fund it. If Google finds out that WMF is going to put $2M into a project using those ideas, then they may take that as a sign they underestimated its potential and might divert resources to a similar project and even recruit engineers off of WMF's project to understand it better with the goal of beating WMF to the headlines and release. That happens all the time in Silicon Valley...

I hope this explains why the "Knowledge Engine" does not need to be a commercial product, require advertising or be of a for-profit nature to be of value to Google or Yahoo or other search engine companies who do want to make a profit, and why there might be a need for secrecy and danger if the others try to get in on the game and be first. To me that concern for secrecy is obvious, but maybe for others who are less familiar with Silicon Valley, it might not be. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Man you are so busy showing off your tech creds that you are ~totally~ missing the point. The issue here is that they were obviously thinking of building a search engine when they submitted the grant or they wouldn't even be worried about competition. That is the key point. But now they are denying up and down that the WMF itself was ever thinking of it - they are trying to lay it all on Damon. I don't have anything more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree it is like a commercial search-engine, but it is not a commercial search engine that makes profit using advertising, but instead a non-profit democratic open-source search that relies on RS and Wikidata--Jimbo said that many times, and the documents make that crystal clear. And from the output you posted, it appears to me it functions in a way no other search engine currently on the market does using AI techniques, so it is novel and exciting from that perspective. No one has produced anything that says otherwise or even remotely suggests that the "Knowledge Engine" is for profit venture. That's all paranoid speculation and rumor IMHO and Jimbo has denied it vigorously. As for your now deleted comment "There is zero competitive threat from commercial search engines for a search engine whose #1 marketing claim is that it is noncommercial. This is business 101. " [9] LOL. One only needs to ask why Google created Google Scholar. Perhaps understanding why Google created that requires taking an upper level or Business 102 course.  ;-) I do not know who Damon is or how how it is "all being laid on him/her". --David Tornheim (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposition

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

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

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

You've got mail!

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

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

Canvassing vs. FRS bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endgame

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

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

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

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

Page Protection

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

---

Can you restore Boomer's edit[10] or [11] with the compromised revisions before it is locked up? You have accidently locked up the edit-warred WP:SOCK version. I also requested this in my report. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

It's in the "old diffs" and the comments section [12]. I never stated it as "sock" but it's obvious. Same user for the past 7 years. The IP removed the undefeated seasons, awards, and all the compromising edits to push his agenda. You should restore it to the version before the edit-war started which is one of the versions [13] or [14] posted above. I even requested that to be fair, at the bottom of the report. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just re-read (again) the "discussion" (mistaken for consensus) over this on the Clemson article talk page, which was merely "carryover comments" from an AfD over a deleted article.[15]. "Over a dozen editors" as GarnetAndBlack misunderstood, did not actually "work" on this, meaning any writing or editing to the actual article or section, and "merge" or "redirect" to football article "in some fashion." It didn't say how. They simply "discussed" the deletion of an article deemed inappropriate and unnecessary to wikipedia created by User:ViperNerd, who was later banned from wikipedia for constant edit-warring.[16]. Thör did a poor job of handling this from the start back in 2008, although nothing is set in stone. JustAGal2 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The more I read about this Sarah, however, the weirder it gets: User:ViperNerd, User:129.252.69.40, and User:GarnetAndBlack are all suspected to be the same user[17][18], which seems even more evident since all of the reverts are almost exactly the same: starting here[19], and [20], [21], [22], and identical to the ones made 3 days ago. I just don't think this ViperNerd / GarnetAndBlack understands that "consensus" and "WP:COMPROMISE" are both active, necessary, and continuous parts of the editing process, and continuously change from editor to editor, allowing the encyclopedia to be "gradually added to and improved upon over time." JustAGal2 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea, JAG2. Why don't you try to con another yet another user (you've only hit up four so far today) to help you circumvent the consensus that was established in Clemson Tigers football through the work and agreement of over a dozen editors back in 2008 [23], simply because you don't happen to like the facts that were added by a merge that appears from the discussion archived on the Talk page to have been unanimous. If you are successful in sanitizing this article of well-sourced material that doesn't suit your POV, what's next on your agenda? Are you going to have the two probations mentioned with nearly the same level of detail in South Carolina Gamecocks football reduced down to a couple of sentences? Are you going to lobby to have the Reggie Bush scandal minimized in the Southern California Trojans football article? Are you going to file an AfD nom on SMU football scandal? I'm genuinely curious if your distaste for relevant material that reflects in a negative fashion on college football programs is universal in nature, or only when it concerns Clemson University. Oh, and when you make future edits to remove well-sourced information from articles, will you write misleading edit summaries as you did in the Clemson football article in an attempt to make it appear as though you are making innocuous additions [24][25] rather than deleting material added by consensus? Inquiring minds would like to know. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Despite continued denial by JAG2, consensus was reached over 7 years ago regarding content in the section of the article in question. That's why the final comment in the Merge discussion is "so we have consensus then?" and not only was there no apparent objection raised to closing with consensus, there was no subsequent debate about the material added to the article by Thör as a merge from the separate article dealing with Clemson's two probations.[26] JAG2 does not have the right to start an account on Wikipedia and four days later make the unilateral determination that Thor "did a poor job" and use that opinion to override the consensus arrived at through the discussion and agreement of a dozen or so editors (more than that if you go back and review the messy AfD of the article that was merged), no matter how little esteem JAG2 obviously holds for the "work" of these individuals. Yes, Wikipedia is not a static project, and improvements can and must be made to all articles, but the deletion of well-sourced and relevant content from articles simply because it hurts the feelings of one editor is most certainly not an improvement. As I've pointed out on the article Talk page, if JAG2 has additional sourced material to add to the "Danny Ford era" section of the article (or any other section), then those edits are welcomed (with honest edit summaries, hopefully), but JAG2 has provided no reason that would be supported by policy for ignoring existing consensus by significantly altering the material that was added as a result of what was in fact WP:COMPROMISE. Also, these continued excuses for why an obviously experienced Wiki editor is operating using a brand-new account are getting tiresome, especially for someone that is crying wolf about my supposed sock puppeting. Or perhaps JAG2 is unfamiliar with WP:SCRUTINY? Also, some reading of WP:NPOV would appear to be in order for this editor, as NPOV guidelines most certainly do not state "no negative facts allowed". In fact, an article that contains nothing but the positive aspects of a given subject (or mentions negative aspects in only the most cursory fashion) is decidedly POV. Wikipedia is not the place for this WP:NOT#FANSITE WP:NOTADVOCATE. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for supporting my RfA

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

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

Tushar patil

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

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

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

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

Clearly making an effort...

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

I see you recently closed the Arbitration Request for Enforcement on SageRad based on them understanding and agreeing not to edit articles related to their topic ban - "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." EdJohnson clearly explained to SageRad that "Pesticides are agricultural chemicals" and thus part of SageRad's topic ban.[27] SageRad's next edit after agreeing not to edit articles covered by their topic ban was to edit the article Larvicide [28] , even though the article topic is clearly identified in the opening sentence as an insecticide. Clearly either I or SageRad are not understanding their topic ban. Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, Edward321 andSageRad, it wouldn't be clear to me that was covered. I would have thought not. Pinging EdJohnston. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A larvicide kills insect larva, so it's an insecticide, which is explained in the lead of our larvicide article. This is one of the articles that User:SageRad is excluded from editing by his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This should definitely be reported to WP:AE, where it can be properly left to sit with no action for a few weeks and closed as "stale." :-p Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, it seems odd that he accepted your terms at 23:59, 11 February, [29] and 18 minutes later edited Larvicide. SageRad, can you comment, please? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad indicated in December that he knew not to edit any pesticides. [30] Pinging MarkBernstein, who was unclear about what "agricultural chemical" would include. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Responding to SlimVirgin, we again have a situation here where things look bad if one pays no attention to the science, and much less dire if one does. ArbCom’s intended interpretation of "agricultural chemical" was "substances that selectively interfere with plant growth". I pointed out the ambiguity that's raised here at ARCA, observing that the phrase could reasonably interpreted as "substances used in agriculture" or "stuff sold to farmers," and would therefore cover things like water and ammonium nitrate. The latter interpretation was promptly rejected by arbitrators. (Last year's ArbCom liked to indulge in this sort of vague topic description: who can forget how Gamergate's extension to "gender-related controversy" grew to include Campus Rape, performance art, and Lena Dunham’s sister? But even there, controversies about biological and medical topics like sexual dimorphism were specifically excluded at ARCA, lest much of medicine fall under Gamergate sanctions!)

The scope of the topic ban was meant to be broad, but it could obviously have been broader. It could have included all chemicals, or all biologically active chemicals, or all environmental controversies. Arbcom didn't do that. Arbcom wanted SageRad to stay away from chemicals manufactured and sold for their effects plant growth and metabolism, such as systemic herbicides.

I don't see anything obviously problematic, pointy, or contentious about the edit in question [31]. It takes a bad sentence -- vague, unsourced, and ill-written -- and improves it by making it clearer, more specific, and adding what appears to be a solid source. This certainly appears to improve the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agricultural chemicals are those for use in agriculture. This chemical as far as i know is used for mosquito control. I did not know this chemical as an agricultural chemical. I heard of it because of its use in mosquito control and that's all i knew of it when i came to the article on larvicide which i was learning about, and then i saw this reference to the chemical and i Googled it to see whether the statement on effects on aquatic life was accurate and it turned out to be rather inaccurate, and i updated the article as a good editor does right? And was the edit good or not? Was it accurate? Did it improve a previously inaccurate statement? Why does someone even care? What does someone have it out for me? Why do we allow people to continually dog and hound on other editors like this? is that congenial and alright? SageRad (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No it's not alright and I for one am getting pretty goddamn sick of it. Once again, thanks to Slim for her soundness of mind in times when it may seem to be a rare thing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue may be moot, as SageRad has gone on wikibreak. [32] The edit seemed a little pointy, but perhaps someone needs to go back to the ArbCom and clarify the scope of "agricultural chemicals." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Our article on methoprene contains the sentence " Methoprene is used in the production of a number of foods, including meat, milk, mushrooms, peanuts, rice, and cereals.". (The sentence seems to be lifted from the first paragraph of this EPA fact sheet [33] .) That sounds like an agricultural chemical to me. Cardamon (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I raised this precise point at ARCA, though for clarity my example chemical was hydrogen oxide rather than methoprene. The point is that organic chemistry involves organic chemicals, and nearly any organic chemical (and most inorganic chemicals for that matter) can, if broadly construed, have some tangential impact on agriculture. Thus methoprene, which (as far as I can see) has no particular effect on plants, is construed as agricultural chemical because it does have an impact on animals who like to eat plants. Similarly, methyl isocyanate become an agricultural chemical because it's a useful (if hazardous) reagent, and one of its numerous uses is as a precursor to chemicals that have an impact on animals that like to eat plants. Arbcom specifically considered this, and explicitly and specifically rejected it. That guidance has, apparently, scant weight with some admins.

Let's go back to ARCA and settle this. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Here, [34], as a result of a Request for Clarification in which you argued about water, is a record of Arbcom passing a motion. The motion is:

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

If this is what you are referring to, it in no way rejects the idea that pesticides applied to crops for the purpose of increasing yield are agricultural chemicals. If this is not what you are referring to, then what are you referring to? Cardamon (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Break

Ok here's the deal.

1. The title and opening line of this section is accusatory and snide, both. Sarcasm with a mean overtone and then an accusation that i am "blatantly ignoring the topic ban at this point" -- instead of checking with me, or notifying me, that editor comes here to tattle to SarahSV and makes assumptions and has a snide sarcastic tone as well.

2. I was not "blatantly ignoring the topic ban"... the page i edited made no mention of any subjects in the topic ban and i didn't know that methoprene could be used agriculturally. So that original attribution of my motives is a false accusation. I can see how you'd jump to that conclusion if you're primed with bias against me and a serious chip on your shoulder, but it's not true and it's an accusation that most definitely doesn't assume good faith.

3. It wasn't a pointy edit at all. It's just what happened when i got interested in what larvicides are in the course of reading about mosquito control. I found this article and i doubted that methoprene really had so little effect on aquatic life, and i Googled it and found the NPIC website, a good source, and made an edit to improve the article.

Now i know it's an "agricultural chemical" and i won't touch it again but you know this is still complete bullshit.

How does this help the encyclopedia? How does it help humans? How does it do anything except enable petty tyrants who need something to do with their time?

Have you noticed that the whole GMOs area is still roiled? Have you noticed that i hardly ever edited any GMO article in the first place? Have you noticed that i was not the problem in the first place? Have you noticed that the fucking topic ban has done no good for Wikipedia? Have you all any backbone? Don't you recognize bullshit when you see it?

Yeah, i declared a Wikibreak cause i'm fed up with this bullshit. I'm fed up with pettiness and hounding and dogging, fed up with tiny internet bullies swinging their egos around. This place is like quicksand with chiggers. And i feel like i've been wrongly convicted of a felony, and then while trying to get my life back on track i have to go to job interviews with an ankle bracelet. Seriously what's the purpose of the ArbCom in the first place? What's the purpose of this drama here? This is fucking gossip and drama central. Can't we keep the fucking mission on what matters, which i thought was making a good encyclopedia for humanity through cooperation?

SageRad (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr? Summary: tempest in a teapot, chill out, this stuff drives away good editors. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Broader point? McCarthyist atmosphere. Orwellian bullshit taking over Wikipedia. No integrity. So much i could comment on if i really cared anymore, and if anyone would really actually listen with an open mind. But this place. It's worse that "the inmates running the asylum" because that presupposes a fair bit of innocence. It's apathy, amorality, cowering, bullying, lying, and witch hunts & McCarthyism. That's why i'm leaving this place that i used to hold with such a potential esteem. Some really good people here, but they're outnumbered and out agressioned by people who have no scruples or respect or integrity. When someone is obsessed and has no integrity, they can do a lot. Sometimes that's all it takes. Not pretty but true. SageRad (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There is sooooooo much else that needs attention in Wikipedia. There is large-scale consistent POV railroading. There is abusive treatment of editors left and right. There are people misrepresenting sources left and right to push agendas. There are people just doing outrageous things all over the place with impunity. And then i make one solid edit with a good source, and accurate, that actually improves the article (or do you disagree? do you think it was better when it was less accurate?) and this editor who posted this goes off on me with accusations and insinuations of ill intent, etc.... don't you think your energy could go to making the encyclopedia more accurate? How about the agenda-pushing people you like to consort with and support? What's the deal? What is your purpose here in Wikipedia? What's your MO? Do you love knowledge and improving the human knowledge base, or do you enjoy petty attempts at controlling? SageRad (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to revert the edit i made, here it is [35] go right ahead. It was done "illegally" even though i didn't know that methoprene may be used agriculturally when i made the edit. If you think it's a bad edit, go right ahead and revert it. And if someone else thinks it was a good edit that improved the article, go right ahead and reinstate it, or make the same edit in your own name. I'm tired of this. I want good and accurate articles, and civility, and integrity. That would be just wonderful, if i could contribute to a collective project about humanity's knowledge with collegiality and a good feeling. And if we have disagreements on content, we could talk about it with congeniality, and figure it out through dialogue. That's what i thought this place was, not this drama-filled reality TV show that it seems to actually be. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, the context is that at AE at 23:59, 11 February, you wrote:

I will continue to obey the topic ban as i have been, and not edit any pages that are about GMOs or agrochemicals and not edit any parts of other pages that may be about GMOs or agrochemicals.

Eighteen minutes later, you edited Larvicide.

You wrote above: "... i got interested in what larvicides are in the course of reading about mosquito control. I found this article and i doubted that methoprene really had so little effect on aquatic life, and i Googled it and found the NPIC website, a good source, and made an edit to improve the article."

The first item on google.com for methoprene is an NPIC factsheet. It says methoprene is available in over 500 pesticide products. You seemed to indicate in December that you knew to stay away from pesticides. The factsheet continues that methoprene is found in "flea treatments for dogs and cats, in cattle feed to control flies, and in mosquito control products" (emphasis added). Other items near the top of a Google search confirm that methoprene is, among other things, a chemical used in agriculture.

If you want to avoid these situations, it seems that you have three alternatives. You can retire. Or go back to ArbCom to ask them to clarify, perhaps by adding something about chemicals that inhibit plant growth or that are primarily used in agriculture. Or respect the topic ban, despite its rough edges, and ask that it be lifted after 12 months, which it almost certainly will be if you can show you haven't spent that 12 months engaged in breaching experiments. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No I don't have to stay away from pesticides. I do have to stay away from agricultural pesticides. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I continued to obey the unjust topic ban to the best of my current knowledge. And still have. Even though it's unjust and the product of a bad arbitration with little to no integrity. SageRad (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does nobody actually care about the intent and the spirit of this place, instead of just nitpicking in a bureaucratic fashion all around the edges of every little goddamn thing anybody can think of? SageRad (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the ArbCom decision was fair, but that's a separate issue. Now that it's in place, you have to abide by it as currently written, have it clarified or have it overturned. Perhaps to keep yourself safe, you could find a textbook about agricultural chemicals and make sure whatever you're editing doesn't have an entry. There is Sittig's Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals. Perhaps that's too broad, but it would seem to fulfill "agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." SarahSV ^(talk) 23:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, can you acknowledge that you've seen this suggestion? Finding a good textbook to consult before you make an edit about a substance that could be an agricultural chemical will resolve the confusion, so long as it's reasonably comprehensive. It will also give you something to point to in borderline cases if a future edit is challenged. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a good suggestion. I have already looked up "polystyrene" to see if there is any potential hang-up due to its being used as an "agricultural chemical" and not found any yet. I appreciate the suggestion, and i also appreciate your acknowledgement that following the topic ban is not the same question as whether the ArbCom decision was right or wrong. With methoprene, it was an oversight, and very strange coincidental timing as you know. I made an edit within an article where every single reference to it was solely as a mosquito control chemical, and then later came to learn it was also used sometimes in agriculture. I made a mistake but not one of intent due to not knowing. More of negligence which can be corrected in the way that you suggest. And my edit was a good one if it weren't for the topic ban. Such is life. Thanks for hosting this discussion and sorry for any snippiness. I have a hard time personally dealing with overly technical applications of things, and misattributions of motives, but i have to abide by the topic ban of course. SageRad (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I regard this as settled in that case. A suggestion for future ArbCom topic bans could be: don't edit anything that appears in such-and-such a handbook. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding...

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

---

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

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

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

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

Combined edits

SlimVirgin, here is the new edit I made where I combined the more succinct, compromised version and the older, edit-warred one. I just took the list of sanctions and added them in after the opening exposition, and removed some of the unnecessary filler and rehash of dates 1982-1984, which are noted twice. I even added the "list of allegations" source. The middle sources could probably be re-typed into a simpler format. The "1990 section" will go back in the bottom of the paragraph where it was taken from. This should solve the WP:WEIGHT, possible WP:BLP, and non-neutrality issues. Take a look when you get a chance:

On November 21, 1982, the football program was placed on probation for a 2-year period to include the 1983 and 1984 seasons for recruiting violations that began during the Charlie Pell era. Pell and some of his coaching staff were also sanctioned again in 1984 for similar recruiting practices at the University of Florida. Since the violations involved players who never enrolled, and were recruits also being courted by other programs, no games were subject to forfeit. As a result, the football program was barred from participating in bowl games and barred from appearing on live television. Also, the number of scholarships that the university could allocate to football players was restricted to 20 (from the normal limit of 30). The Atlantic Coast Conference imposed a third year of conference penalty.

In January of 1990, Clemson once again found their football program accused of recruiting violations, but not significant enough to receive any post-season or television bans. This chain of events, in addition to political conflicts between the academic and athletic departments, contributed, in part, to the forced resignation of popular head coach Danny Ford. It should be noted that Ford was cleared in the final NCAA report.

Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JustAGal, this should be posted on article talk instead so that others there can comment. Or you can add it to the article if appropriate. I can't get involved in the content issues, unless there's a clear BLP violation, but there doesn't seem to be. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there are definitely "some" BLP issues if the way something is worded is made to sound if a subject or living person was directly involved or "guilty" of something, or to what degree. And the other issues pertaining to weight, non-neutrality, bias, plus the EW and SP, etc. I need someone less antagonistic on that talk page to bounce ideas off of. I am trying to do this constructively but it gets very time consuming. I thought admins were editors before they became admins. Is there an admin or experienced editor who will discuss content with me? It might be helpful. I just posted because I wanted you or someone to take a look at it. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You can ask for a third opinion; see that page for details. Or you can post a request for comment. If you do either of those things, you will have to make clear (succinctly) what the issues are; otherwise it's difficult for outsiders to follow. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GHOST

Remember your essay on PR firms drafting articles? Note [36]. Surprise surprise, the company-drafted article omits a major, well-sourced controversy. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there would be any point in attempting to deal with this issue in WP:PAYTALK. Given the volunteer nature of this enterprise, paid editors I think should be discouraged from engaging in that kind of article behavior. Obviously a guideline can't ban them from doing so, but it can advise them that drafting entire articles and then putting editors in the position of "vetting" their work is dickish and inconsiderate. I don't know if this has been attempted before, however. I don't want to waste time on it if it is a nonstarter. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. If you're interested in drafting something, you could propose it on WT:COI. I would restrict it to PR and corporate rewrites, because I can think of examples where it might be helpful (e.g. a medical editor hired by the WHO to rewrite a health issue). But for PR it's very time-consuming and often means something is being hidden. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if I propose something, it will result in a posse being formed and my being hung from a tall juniper tree. I'd be happy to do something, but I think you might have more impact. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to think of something. I would probably phrase it as advice: "Corporate and PR representatives are asked to consider the effect of," but I'm not sure. Perhaps we should also say that, if these rewrites are happening, paid editors must list on talk anything they have removed or added that could be seen as contentious. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. See? I wouldn't have thought of that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's often why these rewrites take place, but it can be hard to spot what has gone, especially when headings are changed to become less informative, which I see a lot. So "Class-action suit" becomes "Recent history," including when it happened last week. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I added a sentence that sort of encapsulates this discussion, but hopefully I haven't gone too far and caused a ruckus, God forbid. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: It's good. Conservative enough, so should be fine. Thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Still

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

---

I want to apologize in advance for bringing more "dramuh" to your talk page, but think you should be aware of how the editor you asked to stop seeking me out and creating more drama, JilllyJo, has absolutely not heeded your advice. From the way this editor has been hounding/following me everywhere and bringing me up on the talk pages of others, I think it's easy to see they really have no intention of leaving me alone or to stop making me an "issue". I won't go into detail, I'll just make you aware of the instances through links here. You are smart enough to draw your own conclusions and do what you feel is necessary, if you deem any action necessary at all. One last thought that I think bears mentioning: I'm not the only editor who thinks this is a sock account - one former administrator noted as much publicly [37] and I have received communications from others who believe it to be the case as well. Links to this user's disruptive activity (related to me) are as follows: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] Thank you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SV, Just so you know the real story of what happened just today, I just had left this note at Ritchie333's page.

I will quote the post of the truth, "Hi Ritchie, I am writing to ask for your help and opinion. Sadly today the second GA nomination Billy the Kid was failed. I can see that winkelvi might be upset about that but she went to the talk page for the article and archived every post on there except for on today she put there. We need the most recent posts there for the notes as some of the editors want to work together to try for #3. When I saw the entire talk page posts gone but one, I replaced the latest ones from 13 down so we may refer to the notes. In the kindest way possible without reverting winkelvi's edit I restored the latest posts to the talk page, and updated archive 3 to denoted the restoral, explaining it will be easier to have the latest notes at hand. Subsequently she reverted my two edits within a few minutes. [3] Usually older posts are archived, no? These 2 RRs are causing a disruption to us working on the article easily. Is she allowed 2 RR already? Or is it just in an article? Can you look at the talk page and archive and restore it. She threatened me with edit warring so I thought I should get an admin opinion. Thank you for listening." As far as all the lies and baseless allegation in the post above I will make no comment because it is mostly all nonsense. I am taking your advice and getting back to my work here. Thank you. deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And my response is found here. As I expected, JJ followed me here, too. Will this ever end? Unless you ping me, I won't respond any further as I don't want to clog your talk page up with more of this, Sarah. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong again winkelvi, I have SV.s page watchlisted. No following. I have the right to defend myself from your lies and baseless allegations and I will. I will not be rail roaded by you or anyone. Stop harassing me and typing lies about me all over. You need to cut out all that junk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilllyjo (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, I can see what's happening there, but others (yourself included) are inadvertently making it worse, so it becomes harder to deal with. Archiving so much of the talk page is an example of that. Please try not to respond to any provocation. If you archive and someone reverts, it's best to let it stand. I've added the archive bot to settle that particular issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"others (yourself included) are inadvertently making it worse, so it becomes harder to deal with". Understood. "Please try not to respond to any provocation". Will do. Thanks for everything. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help SarahSV. deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Slim Virhi,

After typing up above that winklevi would follow your advice, she has now filed a bogus SPI investigation against me and two other editors together. Just dispel this notion that I am not a new user, I have edited before at another site for children's articles that uses this same wiki software. This is just the next step in her campaign of harassment and hounding against me. Last night she tried to get you to block me, and now she is blaming me to be a sock at another venue. Can no one stop her harassment and disruption? Please help! also deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You weren't notified of the SPI filing, so you have to be following my edits again (or is it still?). The evidence seems pretty compelling to me [51]; I wouldn't have filed the report if it didn't. -- WV ● ✉

✓ 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Again you are wrong and are assuming bad faith. Since you have been harassing me and telling lies all over Wikipedia aboit me, I search my own name. No following. Like I told you I am going to defend myself and not be railroaded by you. If I get hits on my name, I go check them out. You need to stop. I may be new here, But now there will be further action against you for you campaign of harassment, hound, and causing disruption. deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the SPI page. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Feedback requested

Sarah,

I'm finishing up an investigation into "what's actually in Wikipedia?" and related matters at User:Smallbones/1000 random results. This is not an academic study, it's just about some things that I've always wanted to know, but couldn't find. Since this is Wikipedia, "do it yourself" is always one possible answer.

It's still a draft, but I must say that some of the results look pretty disheartening.

Any feedback you'd like to give would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Smallbones, I'll have a look at it shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Antony Bek (bishop of Durham)

Back to having someone come in and change a consistent reference style of short cites with titles to harvard refs .... and this is getting kinda old. I've asked them to stop on the article talk page but ... its apparant that they don't want to reply. My understanding of CITEVAR is that it's not a good thing to just jump in and change, especially when the change was objected to back in early January. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Meat in society

A kind editor just unhid some material on Psychology of eating meat which you had astutely observed was not actually within the article's legitimate scope. I cut it, but was reminded of your plan to create a suitable parent article for such material at some point. If that's still in the cards, I wanted to suggest this extensive review as a starting point, or at least helpful reading; there are several dogmas, from "meat helped us grow brains" to meat's cross-cultural association with masculinity, which turn out to be unexpectedly nuanced or complicated. In any case, hope you're well—FourViolas (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Addictive behaviors

Good evening. I read your recent comments about addictive behaviors with some interest on the mailing list and wondered if you were familiar with the work of Sherry Turkle and other authors on the subject. If not, I think you would enjoy this brief introductory review.[52] I hope you find something useful in that article. 166.176.58.214 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Mediator Barnstar
		message I saw you didn't already have this one. Given your moderate and well-reasoned comments at my and Sagerad's AE threads early this year, I cannot tell why not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

boundary between this and that

Hi. Hows the Innerland Empire? Signed. Secret Mouse Service. Stevertigo. -70.88.128.113 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)