User:Martin Hogbin/Veganism

Arbcom
There is a longstanding and ongoing campaign by a group of editors to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for an extreme brand of veganism and animal rights activism. This culminated in my being banned from the talk page for allegedly disrupting it, although I have always used it according to WP policy for its primary purpose to try improve the article.

The content and style of the Veganism article promotes veganism by, giving undue weight to minor medical benefits of veganism and ignoring medical problems caused by veganism; using the language of veganism and animal right activism without attribution; and including only pictures which present a positive image of veganism or a negative image of meat production. The lead also presents an extreme form of veganism as veganism in general. In order to support their cause the page regulars created satellite pages of dubious notability and merit. The page is indeed supported by many reliable sources but, as has been pointed out by many editors, these are heavily biased towards extreme vegan and animal rights sources.

Since 2005 there have been attempts by 21 other editors to make the article more neutral but these have been fought off by a small group of editors who seem to have claimed ownership of the page and have made, by far, the greatest number of edits to the page. They have fought off all dissenting editors with personal attacks, threats, accusations and reporting on AN pages. On the article page, since I first posted here in October 2012, I have made a total of only 21 edits, 4 uncontrovertial and 17 related to this dispute. Of these 10 were immediately reverted.

In order to to to resolve an intractible dispute over the use if the vegan language 'commodity status of animals' I started an RfC. As of 21 February, when the RfC expired, 15 agreed with me that these words should not be used and and 12 disgreed with me.

Then,at this AN, which was more of a witch hunt, where for some for some reason editors from other pages with whom I have disagreed seemed to magically appear, Sammy1339,Rose, SarahSV,  IjonTichy, Guy, Viriditas, FourViolas supported sanctions and  GoodDay,Mr. Magoo and McBarker, Collect opposed them. No evidence of any editing contrary to WP policy was identified, simply evidence that I disagreed with the page regulars. my total of 3 allegedly disruptive edits identified in the AN actually resulted in a consensus improvement in the article.

On the bizarre basis that 'Martin's edits there outnumber his edits to the actual article by almost a factor 10' Drmies handed me a year long topic ban. It is my understanding that disputes on WP should be resolved by civil discussion rather than edit warring. Given that 21 other editors have tried to address the same POV problems that I have identified, and that all attempts to edit the article to fix the problem are quickly reverted, I think that continued discussion of the subject to try and reach a consensus of more than just the page regulars is justified. Something needs to be done. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement
Since before I started editing the article in October 2012, two users, Viriditas and SlimVirgin (later joined by Sammy1339) have been dominating the page. Their edits were well sourced but came almost exclusively from extreme vegan or animal rights authors. Back in 2007 it was delisted as a GA because of pro-vegan concerns. These have never been properly addressed since. Anyone who argued against them was treated harshly and told that they are only giving their personal opinion or that their sources are unreliable. SlimVirgin has often asserted that most other editors are pushing their own POV. Throughout the history of the page at least 12 editors have specifically raised the question of pro-vegan bias and the lack of criticism, and some have pointed out that dissenting editors were being driven away by the atmosphere on the talk page and that one regular editor was showing signs of page ownership.

After I arrived and tried to present a less pro-vegan POV I was greeted with personal attacks, threats , spurious accusations and finally a claim on ANI that my editing (of the talk page) was disruptive. In fact, the only difference between myself and most other 20 editors who have tried to make the same point as me is that I was more persistent in trying to get the page to present a more mainstream view of the subject. Rather than edit warring I have consistently tried to resolve disputes by civil discussion and by using the standard dispute resolution methods such as an RfC. The result of the ANI was that, on the bizarre basis that 'Martin's edits there [on the talk page] outnumber his edits to the actual article by almost a factor 10', Drmies, acting I suggest somewhat in haste, handed me a year long topic ban.

Recently an editor who presented sources criticising veganism had their sources summarally dismissed.

Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism

Replies to Drmies
Please tell me what exactly my 'disruption' consisted of. There is no evidence in the ANI page, only people saying that I was disruptive. What exactly have I disrupted? I have tried to stop a small group of editors from using the page to promote a particular extreme brand of veganism, along with these other 12 editors. If that is disruption then I plead guilty.

Why is it OK for the pro-vegans to persistently engage in personal attacks against me and others?

Why is it OK for the page regulars to be able to edit the article page freely and write as much as they want on the talk page? Since I first edited the article in October 2012 I have made a only 21 edits, 4 uncontrovertial and 17 related to this dispute. Of these 10 were immediately reverted.

Why because, I chose civil discussion and the standard WP dispute resolution methods rather than edit warring, am I banned? My feeling is that you believed the word of editors that you maybe knew rather than looking at the facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Replies to Sammy1339
You seem to believe that everything in the article must be supported by your preferred academic extreme vegan sources. That is not the case, as these other 12 editors have pointed out. Of course, vegan sources are useful in defining how vegans see themelves but you have even dismissed mainstream vegan sources, such as national vegan organisations. We also need to include material supported by neautral and anti-vegan sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Replies to Only in Death
I am not the one pushing a POV as these other 12 editors and those on this page that have bothered to look at the article and talk history have found. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Replies to GorillaWarfare
The issue is not the article content but the tactics that a small group of editors have been using to control it, right from the start of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Replies to MarkBernstein
I do not think my editing of the veganism talk page can be fairly characterised as, 'endlessly repetitive talk page filibustering'. My aim has always been to understand the opposing POV and attempt to explain mine by civil discussion. This has not alweays been easy as some of the issues are quite subtle. If there has been any filibustering it has been by the page regulars. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)