User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 3

the reason why
So, I finally wrote down why I backed out of our discussion, over at ANI. You made guesses above, which you seem to believe are accurate but are simply your fantasies. You continued in that line in your response at ANI, where you mischaracterized what I wrote about why I did what I did.

"I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out.   I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling."
 * here is what I wrote:

"Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised."
 * you characterized this as follows:

You are not dealing with what I wrote. Please actually read it. Your behavior freaked me out. I also acknowledged that I see your perspective on new editors (which is different from agreeing with it - I do see it)  I sought the ANI to give you a warning to stop harassing/stalking me and to teach you that canvassing/campaigning is not OK in WP. I am hopeful you will get that warning and the lesson. In any case, if you continue the behavior, you will build up yet more evidence and it will end up being enough to have action taken against you. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, i have listened to what you have had to say, and said that i see how you could be concerned with the way i interact with new editors and acknowledged your concerns about OWN, and asked for community feedback on that. At ANI you acknowledged that I posted the note above, but you haven't responded and I have no sense that you have tried to understand my objection to your behavior. Would you, please? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op mentor
Hi David! I'm Jethro, a coordinator at The Co-op. Thanks for making your profile. I wanted to introduce you to your mentor,, who should be coming around shortly to get things started. I noticed you're involved in some disputes over GMO-related articles, which I know can be fairly contentious. I think one thing to help get both of you started is discussing a little about what you want to accomplish through mentorship. You wrote on your profile that you want to deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles, which seems to be focused on how the neutral point of view works in practice, but maybe you can provide a little more guidance on where we can help you best. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Let me see where things are at the ANI discussion and I will get back to you. David Tornheim (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, please stop contributing to the ANI thread and let us close it. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ^Yes, I would like that to happen too. Unfortunately, I had to address a reasonable request.  The closing of the ANI is not within my control, and new additions by others may require my response.  However, I would like a neutral 3rd party to help address conflict between two main parties.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * David, the thread can't close if you keep contributing to it. Nothing requires your response.  Sometimes the best thing to do is to let the other person have the last word.  If you keep contributing to the thread, you could conceivably hang yourself with your own rope, leading to a block.  It's best to say little to nothing than to indict yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the mentoring, I may need to wait until the ANI closes.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a really bad idea. Start mentoring now and avoid ANI at all costs. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!


Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!


ANI
There is a discussion you are mentioned in at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you'll want to know about. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for giving notice, . I apologize to David for not having done that. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note about canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Bayer. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Question
David - do you think there are any safe examples we can use to demonstrate some of the points made in the essay without including names, only passages for comparison? What I've done is much different from what it was before and I think some examples would serve a good purpose. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Examples of banned and punished editors might work. David Tornheim (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please include your suggestions on the Talk Page of WP:COIducks and let's see how it works in. Other shortcuts to the essay are WP:Advocacy duck or  WP:ADVODUCK

Personal attacks
David, if you have an issue with my edits, please take them up on the article talk page. If you have an issue with my behavior, ANI is the appropriate venue. If you think there is an undisclosed COI, COIN is your destination of choice.

Personal attacks have no place on Jimbos Talk page, on article Talk pages, or in other content focused venues. I'm frankly just as uncomfortable with your editing style as you are with mine. The absence of a reciprocal flow of invective should not be taken as ceding the moral high ground. It merely reflects respect for Wikipedias behavioral guidelines and good manners. Respectfully, Formerly 98 talk 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No "personal attack". That was Witness impeachment. -David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So david, let me try again to explain my concerns here. In general, "witness impeachment" really doesn't accomplish anything here. What you did was to
 * Post a series of edits that you disagreed with and present that as evidence that I'm some sort of dishonest shill. This is ineffective because your tone makes it clear to outsiders that you would likely regard anyone who disagreed with you as a shill or otherwise dishonest.
 * Accuse me of edit-warring for a single edit, which doesn't fit anybody's definition of that behavior here, and
 * Attacked Jytdog for criticizing your behavior, which clearly fit the definition of canvassing that can be found here.


 * The problem with this approach is twofold. One it does not accomplish your goal of discrediting me, because people see this sort of hot-headed, accusatory and personal remark as evidence of someone who is not viewing the issues dispassionately and logically. We have lots of aggressive, insulting, partisans here, and you just make yourself look like one of them with these sorts of remarks. Secondly, it tends to piss people off, though I personally am willing to cut some slack given that you are in many ways a new editor, having not spent much time here before early this year.


 * What would have worked better?
 * you could have responded directly to my rhetorical questions by providing examples of people who were the subject of reprisal even though they followed the rules


 * You could have offered examples from your own experience to back up your own opinion


 * What makes it a "personal attack" is that rather than addressing the issues I raised, you questioned my character. Its not just rude, its also politically ineffective here because it makes you look bad.  WP:GF and WP:NPA are good rules to follow. Its not just good manners, its also effective politics.


 * Formerly 98 talk 21:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

canvassing yet more?
we have this meat-puppeting,.and now this? what is wrong with you, man? Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and now this? that is not a teahouse question. you just will not refrain from campaigning, will you? Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it not a TeaHouse question? I was referred to ask questions there (here and here) to deal with behavior of people like you if I wasn't sure what to do because of the AN/I *you* raised against me.  That's what I did both times.  You recently complained to me that I didn't spend enough time with mentoring to your liking, which is what the TeaHouse is for.  Now you complain when I do.    Are you accusing  for WP:Canvassing here and  for WP:Canvassing here and for campaigning for bringing attention to the COI Duck in new forums likely to bring votes to delete the article? Sorry you don't see the problem and double-standards with your own behavior and endless accusations and criticism.  I would appreciate it if you stopped stalking and hounding me, in this section of my talk page and here and here.  Consider this is your first warning. David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the response you got there from Bfpage? Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * yet more. you just will not stop, will you. You find someone opposing me, and you try to reel them in.Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. How is this cavassing?  Please stop with these frivolous accusations, harassment and assumption of "bad faith". David Tornheim (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * let's see, after you see someone argue with me in an ugly way ("I saw you post at COI"), you try to pull him into several conversations where other people are disagreeing with me. at some point i hope you heed the advice several people have given you, and just start working on articles.  the more and more time you spend on this dramah, the more you show you are not not here to build an encyclopedia.  I (and others) keep warning you, and you keep blowing it off. your choice. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
I appreciate your arguments on Slim's page, but in total, I'm noticing a preference for throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are conflicts and disputes between skeptics and believers, doesn't mean we should toss out skepticism. On the other hand, if certain beliefs can't withstand scrutiny, we should toss them out. How many of us are honest enough to do just that? Not many. Most people cling to bad beliefs like a security blanket. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between healthy skepticism (such as "buyer beware", "don't take any wooden nickels", avoiding snake-oil salesmen, questioning politicians' vague and grandiose promises, etc.) and skepticism (sometimes called scientific skepticism), prevalent on Wikipedia, which is actually more like a WP:FRINGE religious extremism or cult ideology that too often unreasonably requires knowledge to be of a scientific nature (similar to Pythagoreanism's math cult). Most of academia knows how ridiculous it would be to use science as the one and only metric for knowledge:  consider philosophy, history, film, literature, art, ethics, etc. Science and math are very useful tools, but there are limits to such utility and skeptics have trouble looking outside of the box--they are really a lot more like the fundamentalist Christians and other religious zealots and extremists they spend so much time attacking than ordinary people who have a more balanced view of life and knowledge and various forms of epistemology. David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give a single, concrete example of this problem? Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please read the section where my second accuser speaks: here.  The NB where I spoke was filled with it. David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of issues at work there, but I don't see any that have to do with skepticism. Let me put it another way: if a flood destroys your house, it doesn't mean water is bad. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the accusations about Reiki and my defense, or have you seen the various discussions that go on about Eastern Healing practices? Skeptic participants often have no idea what they are talking about in these subjects when they put on their (Western) science as the only form of truth glasses.  If they did that with literature or Eastern Philosophy, they would be laughed out of the room.  They treat someone like David Gorski as a God or prophet who knows all and is an "expert" in things he obviously knows little about. David Tornheim (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I predict that if you look closer at the MEDRS discussions on this and other topics related to complementary and alternative medicine you will find some disagreement.  While it is certainly true the so-called "skeptics" will balk at any practice that makes medical or scientific claims when there is little evidence, I think you'll also find many medical practitioners who use them or offer them to their patients.  Whether we are dealing with the placebo effect or something else, I can't really say.  The best thing you can do is find the best sources and use them to write articles.  At my age, I've pretty much found that nobody has any idea what they are talking about, we just go with the best information we have. And that's where the problem starts and ends. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Exactly!!! With one exception: I think a number of studies and reports from Western medical practitioners looking at alternative healing practices have shown more than placebo effect, many of the skeptics I have encountered here really are not okay with that and will do anything to manipulate the rules to get that possibility out of the article(s), since they are certain a priori that such "pseudo-science" can not possibly work.  In their minds, if it is not based on science and pure materialism and materialist explanations, theory, scientific formulas, etc., it is rubbish and worthless.  So much for their skepticism of their own deeply felt negative biases and narrow-mindedness! LOL. David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask, why you assume that because we cannot explain something, it must not be based on science or materialism? Surely, you will admit, that the scientific framework can be used to understand reality, and that simply because we don't understand one part of that reality doesn't mean science is incapable of explaining it? In fact, there are many things science can't explain, but that doesn't mean they automatically fall under a different paradigm. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Occam's razor comes to mind on this. Science is a terrible way to explain, answer or investigate moral questions (or the other subjects I identified above), agreed? So, then one cannot say that Science is or will be the "best" or "simplest" paradigm in the future to explain what it cannot explain today any more that any other subject will be able to do this and become more dominant:  That's all pure speculation.  It's possible that some day in the future scientists might be able to apply a kind of Reductionism as has been done with Physics and Chemistry to something like the Mind–body problem, but I wouldn't bank on it, because of so many problems with pure materialism when you study philosophy.  It is indeed possible that another field of inquiry will become the dominant method of explanation of all reality and science will be a subset of that:  In fact, science of today previously was a subset of Philosophy, and it has taken on a new unjustified religious zeal and it should more properly be returned to a subset of Philosophy because its explaining power is indeed quite limited, but often scientist are not trained in Philosophy and they waste time with that ridiculous movie [] that mostly interviewed scientists and no Philosophers.  What they were articulating as "new" was nothing more than a re-articulation of German Idealism or the kind of material that is covered in depth in a class covering Continental philosophy.  I would say Postmodernism is actually a far better way to explain all reality of human experience than pure materialist science is.  In that sense, Anthropology seems to have the upper hand right now in explaining power, although this will cause a number of skeptics, Modernists, British Analytic philosophers and New Critics  to bristle because they do not want to admit that science (or these other related fields) are a cultural construct, just like, say, democracy, language, etc.  So to conclude, I think the skeptics should spend some time studying philosophy and other liberal arts, and they might learn the limitations of their close-minded, tunnel vision, science-math color glasses approach to explaining all reality.  As a trained engineer in the sciences, I know just how hard that can be for a science oriented person to do!  That's why they are called science geeks by normal people!   David Tornheim (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're getting seriously off track here. Reiki isn't necessarily a moral philosophy. If it is a form of medicine as its proponents claim, then it should be viewed through scientific methodology.  At the end of the day, science is the simplest explanation for the world.  That doesn't mean it is always correct. In any case, scientific challenges aren't threats to science, they are questions for how we do science.  I'm very curious how anthropology has the "upper hand" on anything, so I find your statement most perplexing. Postmodernism is interesting when it comes to art and design, but claiming that it is a "far better way to explain all reality" is so far from the facts, I wonder if you are feeling OK. Perhaps you should lie down and think a bit more about this. Postmodernism has almost zero explanatory capability. Here's an exercise for you:  please use postmodernism to explain something, anything for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your analogy of water makes no sense to me. I don't know anyone who is saying water is categorically unsafe, because of floods or because industries dump toxic sh*t into our water supply.  But most people I know think drinking clean water is a good thing and sadly many people buy bottled tap water, which they get from drought stricken California!  I wish people were a little more skeptical about what the bottled water companies are telling them. David Tornheim (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Water in the analogy is "skepticism". If skeptics destroy your article/argument/belief system, it doesn't mean that skepticism is bad.  It means you need to work on your article/argument/belief system. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like when a fundamentalist Christian "destroy[s] your article/argument/belief system" by saying that all Truth [capital T] is in the Bible and everything outside the Bible, including science, is not to be trusted? And when they do, does that mean one needs to "to work on your article/argument/belief system" and become a "good Christian"?  I'll bet they think so. LOL.  By the way, what was that quote(s) from Friedrich Nietzsche you were going to hit me up with?  Nietzsche talks much about what I say here about Truth [with capital T] in On the Genealogy of Morality / spark Notes version (full translation by Ian Johnston found  here).  I know the Walter Kauffman translation titled "On the Genealogy of Morals". David Tornheim (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

GM Food RFC
Note about this RfC where you !voted or commented. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A note about pings
Hi there, David. I think when you mention other editors' arguments in a thread such as the recent Epoch Times discussion, where the editors don't really need to respond to your comments, and where they are already actively engaged, pings aren't necessary. Normally when mentioning another editor in a thread where they aren't present, a ping is appreciated so that they're aware of the conversation. Best,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

DuBose
Hello. I have given the IP two template warnings for disruptive editing in the past 24 hours. He is being too aggressive and not collaborating enough, and he's flirting with an edit warring complaint that could result in a block. I have asked him twice to slow down. It's not helping that you're doing much the same kind of thing, the difference being that you're reasonable in talk and don't violate WP:AGF. I don't see any reason why the article can't be left stable on these questions until we have a stronger consensus in talk. There is no urgency to make the article right, TODAY. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the two edits to the article where I deleted material that I truly believed was unsourced. I messed up there and regret I didn't just talk about it on the talk page first.  I'll be more careful next time.  David Tornheim (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi, there is currently a discussion at OR noticeboard related to a discussion you attributed to, here. prokaryotes (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice! Keep up the good work! David Tornheim (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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, -Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
You may want to read about the Arbitration Committee to see how it works. Arbcom doesn't rule on content, only on conduct. As such, you may want to consider amending your complaint, as it focuses solely on a content dispute which is outside Arbcom's remit. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. David Tornheim (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Does this require closing?
Hi David. I am an editor closer. I see a straw poll you started here Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose is listed at WP:ANRFC. Does it require closing? I am only asking as I cant find legobot removing an RFC header in the history. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to close it. Thanks.  David Tornheim (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just looked at it again. It was a straw poll and not an WP:RfC, so it does not have requirements of a formal close.  However, I think having a neutral third party review the responses and making a summary would be beneficial to readers, especially if the summary is somewhere near the top and you don't mind spending the time on it.  Again, thanks for your interest. David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem to close, just making sure it was needed. I have done polls before that didnt need closing. AlbinoFerret  20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Was my talk page response useful....
...or does it need more fleshing-out? Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Immediate attention please
David - you have added FOFs at ArbCom under MY section. I think we are only allowed to present FOFs in our own section. I am going to move yours as I am very concerned they will be dismissed if raised in the inappropriate place. I hope this is ok with you - it is usually very bad manners to edit another editors edits - I hope in this instance you will understand me. DrChrissy (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes - I can not find the correct section to move them to. Please move them out of my section or I fear Arbcom might simply put a red-line through all your good work! DrChrissy (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded on your talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi David Tornheim. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.


 * For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Thanks
Happy new year, and thanks for encouraging my involvement with some of the GMO articles. Time does not permit me to do much editing, but I will keep an eye on what goes on. Hope you will keep up your good work... happy editing... Johnfos (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Happy New Year to you as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, David Tornheim. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw it.  I am disappointed that the first time you raised the issue so few took notice.  I hope more people see it this time and see the problem you (and others like me) have raised about WP:OR.  I will wait to comment since you have already made the case effectively. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology
I went back through the edit history again and realised I made a mistake. When I went to change your edit back to scientific consensus I accidentally changed the lead sentence. I should have been more careful and apologise to you for any confusion that might have caused. AIR corn (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No need to strike on my behalf. I was more suggesting that it is easy to make small remarks that could be taken the wrong way. I have been editing GMOs on and off for over four years now and that is a long way down the list of offensive comments I have received. Thanks for acknowledging it though. AIR corn (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. You are much easier to work with than some other editors I have encountered who have a different take on some of the most contentious material.  I do think things are slightly better after ArbCom.    When I wrote that, I had not had as much time working with you and I was a bit frustrated.  --David Tornheim (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
You are welcome! I also voted for you for ArbCom as one of my top choices. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hej
Hi, well thanks for your input on the discussion at the other article. But i think it is better to just ignore editors who make wild claims. From past experience here, i know that accusations are hard to defend against, no matter of wrong or right. Remember, when fighting with a pig you and the pig get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Cheers :) prokaryotes (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I probably shouldn't have gone there.  But I felt I needed to stand up against the frivolous accusations against you.  I'll try not to get too involved there.  I wanted that editor to understand I do not appreciate frivolous accusations.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You have to wait until there is clear breach of important guidelines or a pattern of abuse over longer periods. Then you can try a pitch at the noticeboards.But even then it depends on who is online at the right time, or the mood of people there, the amount of requests .... so the best way in my opinion is to make any errors clear and visible, and then move on. I only replied to the guy there a few more times, since i thought he misunderstood something. Have a nice weekend, it getting very spring like here, over 10C. prokaryotes (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but even then, you saw what happened with your AN/I. I am amazed what abuse and bullying and even lying are permitted at Wikipedia.  I think certain editors want it that way so they can force their POV in the articles unopposed by NPOV editors. Quite troubling. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unless Wikipedia changes the way how enforcement works, it will stay that way. And POV of Wikipedia is basically POV of the mainstream media. I remember i had huge issues with climate articles, editors sabotaged these pages over years. But then suddenly it stopped. Today climate articles are only edited by a tiny group of editors, and they mostly agree, since they follow the science. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. So are saying that the Republican (American) version of climate change was presented at Wikipedia?  I assume you must not be in the U.S. since you talked temps in °C.  Of course Wiki does go beyond mainstream media now with use of 2ndary sources from the relevant field.  I can't remember if that was the case when I joined and the guidlines were slowly being developed.  Fringe hardly even existed back then if I remember correctly.  Fringe has slowly expanded so that editors regularly use it to dismiss any view that is minority--very problematic.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pages in regards to the science were sabotaged, you can go back and look at many of these articles, often not famous articles, then numbers got changed, undue weight to studies, old stuff, confusing sections, long paragraphs, external link section filled with unrelated links, even confusing addition of references, to make it harder to edit the page. Basically everything one could come up to make article quality bad, or to piss off other editors. Another related topic was in regards to the scientists involved, and the controversies (Hockeystick or Email hacking), though i wasn't much involved with those edits, but if you look at those page histories you get the idea :) And today all that changed, like someone snipped a finger ... at least for climate science, at last. prokaryotes (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is such an example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrumental_temperature_record&oldid=656396552 prokaryotes (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Or look at these archives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy :) Its ridiculous. prokaryotes (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Google books
When you are at the page you want, left click the link icon to the left of the "Add to my library" button and copy "Paste link in email or IM." It works best if there is no search for keywords showing, otherwise they show up in the link too. TFD (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC) left

Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

''Since you contributed to the discussion over at Articles for deletion/Climate action, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint.'' J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing word
I fixed it. Thanks. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI
have a look here, at the last bullet. clearly a brainstorming document, not a definitive plan. the whole thing is interesting to read. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what that sentence means. I also can't tell who was speaking and whether those who were listening agreed with it or not.  Not the best meeting notes I have read.  I think you and I might agree that it would be nice if their meeting were public, even televised, except for those matters that need secrecy, as is the case with governments.  Then we might have some idea what that sentence is really all about.  To me it just sounds like marketing hype.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like a) the sorely lack leadership from the ED -- there is no way a key team should be drifting like this. b) they see WMF as under a serious threat from third parties re-using content and making them irrelevant, and they are thinking mighty hard about ways to try to stay relevant.  It is really interesting.  And yes as a technology provider, they could do way, way, WAY cooler tech stuff if they didn't have to deal with us - all that stuff you have been writing about.   Forking and setting up their knowledge engine thing at wikipedia.com would let them be a tech company pure and simple. It's just an idea discussed at a brainstorming meeting, but it is the kind of thing that comes out of a very different world than the one content creators live in.  Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!
test--David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hello, you will note in the instructions for filing at WP:AE that your request should not exceed 500 words without permission from a reviewing administrator. Your recent section alone is almost 500 words. Please scale back your responses as appropriate—the limit is there to prevent the page from becoming excessively ponderous and difficult to deal with, which it is already. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was afraid someone might complain. I think the proposal to TB all the editors should have a separate action or discussion page.  That's one of the reasons I did not respond previously.  Now that it has gained traction, I am addressing it rather than my complaint.  Any possibility of moving the discussion?    I don't have time to edit it down right now.   Will try later tonight.  If you want to revert my last edit, you have my blessing, just cite this discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I collapsed it with this edit. Is that acceptable to you?  In the last big GMO dispute at WP:AE here, many of the same editors testified  and some, including me, went well over 500 words and used collapse boxes.  I don't remember anyone complaining then.  The stakes are much higher with the "nuclear option".  You might notice until today, I didn't propose TBing anyone:  unlike my accusers who are at the ready to TB anyone who disagrees with them on content.  I just want them to follow the rules and not be permitted to insist on double-standards on content, sources and behavior. David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That will have to do for now, as it's certainly not my intention to stifle discussion or discourage those who stand to be topic-banned from speaking up about the proposal. In my view, the AE page is about concise discussion of behavior that may require sanctions. Involved editors should post diffs with brief context as needed. Admins should discuss what should be done. Extended arguments, if warranted, should be in another venue. Prokaryotes is not an exemplar for concise discussion, and I would have had the same request if I had been involved in handling that filing. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Casting aspersions
Your recent remarks that the admins closing the GMO RFC might have COI are not compatible with one of the closing principles of the GMO case here. As stated there, it is inappropriate to make accusations, however indirect, without evidence. Such statements have a chilling effect on editors around you who may want to participate in the RFC in good faith without having their motivations questioned. I urge you to strike your recent request as an act of good will. If you make any other remarks suggesting that editors have a COI without accompanying evidence, in any venue, I will apply discretionary sanctions to you as appropriate. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 8
Regarding your proposal, did you mean to add it to WT:GMORFC? Having it on an Article Talkpage might be a bit confusing. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I want to work with another editor to develop a proposal 8 and not have to be limited by 800 words and be unable to have a threaded discussion, edits to the proposal, etc. It's more like a draft, not a real proposal at this time.  If we can come up with something, then it might become Proposal 8, or 9, or 10, or whatever the next number is.  First I have to see if the other editor will even take me up on the idea. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. The RFC talkpage might still be a good idea so as to centralize discussion, but it is your prerogative. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * oh. I was afraid to do any talk there, because of all the complaints about editors going over 800 words, threaded discussion, 0RR and the like.  Can you and  confirm for me that it is okay to do all the things I am proposing to do here on the talk page of the RfC?  That is:  to be able have a threaded discussion, use more than 800 words when discussing with other editors, not be restricted by 0RR or 1RR on the content that me and the other editor are working to develop on the talk page.


 * I agree with you it makes more sense on the RfC talk page. However, I am concerned about additional explicit or implied restrictions on discussion there that might not exist at GMO crops' talk page, where I have been freely able to discuss sourcing and content without any of the RfC restrictions.  As I did say at ARCA, I was quite shocked my complaint about serious sourcing problems with the late entry Proposal 6  was met with this response saying my comments about the Proposal were unwelcome.  I was shocked especially because all the other proposals, including mine, had months of opportunity for discussion and comment about sourcing, etc., before being incorporated into the RfC, and this late entry had/has very serious problems, and yet, I couldn't say anything about it?


 * Anyway, I want to avoid a repeat of that experience at the RfC talk page. If you can assure me that the RfC talk page has no special restrictions that are not present on the GMO crops talk page, I would feel comfortable moving the discussion to the RfC talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your opinion? The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a great workaround would be to create a Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms/Proposal workshop which has different rules than the main RFC. I'm open to any ruleset you create for it too. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That works for me and sounds even better. It should allow more that one proposal to be discussed.  If we could have something at the top that says that the rules of RfC do not apply to the Workshop that would solve my concern.  --David Tornheim (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope it's OK for me to point out here that I'm pretty sure that the wording of the RfC rules is that the RfC talk page allows threaded discussion and has no word limits, so that is also an option. The rules about word limits only apply to the RfC page itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward
I know the result didn't go your way, but I hope you stick around the GMO area. I think you have a lot to contribute still, especially as you have shown an interest in adding and updating content. I do believe wikipedia articles benefit from differing opinions on content, even if the end results don't go the way we want. If you do decide to move to other parts of the project I understand and wish you all the best. AIR corn (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I have already continued editing on the GMO controversy article.  The result of the RfC was no surprise.  I was glad that a number of editors read the RS that I provided (in Proposal 4 and Proposal 20) that shows the variety of significant opinions on GMOs by scientists, and scientific organizations, and other scholarly RS.  It is not as cut and dry as the AAAS tried to make it in their POV statement, and I think many people who are avid science readers have probably seen the AAAS statement and articles derived from it (or from GMO proponents) in magazines like Popular Science or Scientific American, but those readers probably had not seen the other relevant and reliable RS that shows something else.


 * On the whole, Proposal 1 is an improvement over the language that preceded it, even if I disagree that weight to opposing views is lacking. The language that preceded it gave zero weight to alternative views (only suggesting it by calling it agreement rather than consensus), so at least readers can find it in the RS of footnote 4.  Sentence 3 explaining that regulations vary by country is also a big improvement.  A number of people were upset with the second sentence.  I can see taking out the word "Nonetheless," but the rest is true in the U.S.  (The recent Polish study of public views, it was not quite as true.)  And I am very glad that the proposed 3 year lock-in of content got nowhere.  Again, thanks for the support.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing that IP editor showing up and reverting you, and it's certainly becoming rather confusing. It would probably be a good idea to just let this content stay as it is, with or without correction, because we won't really know what the correct approach will be until things get sorted out at Coffee's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:Coffee
about the IP accusing you of going against consensus. I've replied in the new arbitrary break section. IP hopper, disruptive editing, thinks they are part of an Afghan royal family descended from Saul and with ties to Israel, etc. I almost blocked them but held off. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was wondering if I should report the IP.  I wondered how the IP who had only ~20 edits would know about an RfC.  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And this makes me wonder if the person behind this has an account which is blocked or banned. Only behavioral evidence could uncover that though, CU won't do it. Doug Weller  talk 09:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked over at the article you described. Wow!  This edit isn't exactly friendly is it?  This is the first real example I have seen of a violent threat on Wiki.  Now I see why some editors might desire anonymity.  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, some similar attacks on my talk page by the same editor using various IPs (all deleted mainly by talk page stalkers). All pathetic.  Doug Weller  talk 09:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Are the stalkers pathetic, or the IPs? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)