User talk:Jusdafax/Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again? Jus  da  fax   02:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Woodstock
Since you !voted in a similar discussion that recently closed, I thought you should be made aware that a similar move proposal is occurring at Talk:Woodstock, in case you want to weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears I already have, thanks. Jus  da  fax   18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops. It looks like in the first discussion your signature had a space in it (Jus dafax), while the second didn't, which is probably why I mixed it up. My bad, sorry.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All good, thanks for the heads up. Jus  da  fax   01:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review
There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal remarks
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Formerly 98 talk 16:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I hereby ask you to stay off my talk page permanently. Thank you. Jus  da  fax   17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for over reacting and will abide by your request. Formerly 98 talk 00:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

MfD
I think you may have accidentally linked the wrong user as the one who templated you following comments on MfD. I have not seen IP98 participate in that MfD. Did you mean to link Formerly 98? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

proposed iban, please comment
given your involvement, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggested_Limited_Interaction_Ban_between_Users_Alansohn_and_Magnolia677. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bare URLs?!?
Oy! Fix that! Res Mar 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Am hamstrung for time of late, and reason that a bare ref is better than none. Jus  da  fax   03:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, fix it. This is what FA decay looks like. Res Mar 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's get a few things straight, my lad. I professionally covered Kilauea Volcano nationwide when you were shitting your diapers. Clearly those parents of yours failed utterly to teach decent manners. The article is in flux, and you don't own it, nor are you entitled to give me orders. I will edit as possible, and how I see fit. This is my talk page and I now ask you to stay off it, permanently. Jus  da  fax   21:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. I think the both of you are correct. Jusdafax, if something like this happens again, feel free to contact me for help.  A simple note such as, "I don't have time for this, can you take a look" will work.  That way, everyone wins.  Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Viriditas. My patience for being ordered by children is wearing quite thin. The article needs updating and expanding. I'd like to get back to it once the dust settles below. Thanks again. Jus da  fax   04:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that there are tools that can help you automatically format the bare URLs? Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look into that, thanks. Jus  da  fax   06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my non-admin closure at ANI
This section is for those, if any, who wish to comment. As the section just above shows, as I age I am increasingly impatient with what I perceive as rudeness on my talk page, and have banned people for such. However, I am aware I have previously asked parties involved in said ANI report to stay off this page, so in fairness, if you wish to comment directly here, you may do so, but I request that scrupulous civility and respect towards me be maintained. Thank you. Jus da  fax   22:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jusdafax. While I appreciate you taking the time to close, I ask you to reconsider.  You have expressed strong interest in COI issues in Wikipedia.  I call your attention to the Wifione case at Arbom, which was actually conducted as a long-term POV pushing case.   I also point you to the TimidGuy Ban appeal, where an editor went full force after an another editor for paid editing, and was himself banned.  To take care of long-term paid editors, is the same path as taking care of long-term POV pushers.  The case I presented was a slam dunk for long-term POV pushing (a mission statement of single-issue advocacy and a record of having done nothing but that)  and - while I very much wanted to take care of issues with Doors specifically, the larger issues were very much at play here.  We need to establish a path - we need to encourage editors to bring cases  just like this one, instead of flailing around like the community did with Wifione. (all the evidence presented there was 2013 and before - the NPOV case could have been brought two years ago but the path was not clear).  I recognize that I am controversial, and that distracted from the the case of Doors.  If you cannot see the very clear evidence and the consensus for the topic ban, I ask you to simply self-revert your close.  I am OK with waiting for a close that considers the evidence that was brought.  We can do this at ANI; we don't need to go Arbcom for these things. Thank you Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered the evidence, and the Doors22 expression of regret and understanding. You asked repeatedly for closure at ANI and AN for the thread to be closed, as did Doors. 72 hours passed. I took that into deep consideration as well. I am asking you to extend the hand of collegial understanding to Doors. If you work together, neither of you might be happy, but the encyclopedia will be a better place. You of course have the option of reopening this lengthy thread yourself, though I don't think that very wise. The alternatives are to ask others to reopen it, to go to ArbCom, or again, to be a good sport about what you saw as a "slam dunk," but that not one admin here felt was worth closing with the results you wanted. And about your use of that phrase "slam dunk," Wikipedia is not a game, and you give me the impression that's how you see it, instead of a source of information that that you sometimes may disagree with. You also refer to yourself as "controversial." I suggest you strive to become less so, because the alternative is ArbCom. Jus  da  fax   02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that I thought your reasoning for closing the ANI was solid. And that I agree 100% with your rebuke to the admins who refused to do anything about it. Well done in my opinion.Vyselink (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found this close among the toughest words I have ever written for Wikipedia, and appreciate your kindness. Jus  da  fax   02:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jusdafax, thank you for closing the ANI report. It had been opened quite and while and didn't seem like it was going anywhere. I already mentioned I don't want discussions escalate to this point again, if only to avoid another episode like this, and will play my part accordingly., now that this discussion has been settled I hope you will work with me to make constructive edits to improve the body of knowledge on the encyclopedia. To be fair, I don't think there was a consensus, and the two other editors on this talk page agree. Many of the supporters have to be excluded for being involved (they were pinged by you or had edited the article). I hope we will be able to move past this and put this behind us. If you feel I am incorporating a certain POV into my edits, please discuss civilly. But you should know that adding new objective facts and evidence to support a claim is neither advocacy nor POV. Doors22 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What made me decide to step in and close was your statement, the one I linked, at AN. But dude, get a clue. If you want to be taken seriously around here, you can't keep being a WP:SPA. Step back a pace or two and find other topics that interest you, and that you can add to. Try to stay away from those who are demonstrably hostile. You have made some big mistakes, and if you can learn from them, you will be a strong addition to our editing corps. I'm hoping you will heed this warning, and that years from now we can look back at this ANI thread and nod thoughtfully.  Jus  da  fax   02:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see my request for a review of your close, here. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the notification here and have offered my reasoning. I will offer no further advice. Jus  da  fax   05:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Now JYT's friend Formerly98 is trying to reopen the case. It's been quite a challenge to work with these two. I can see why several retired users said they've stopped editing because of them. Doors22 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that. I also noticed that it was quickly removed, which I thought of interest. My advice to you being unheeded, I also make no further statements. Jus  da  fax   05:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jusdafax, based on your continued effort at AN to distract from the actual case and further attacks on me (even throwing my acknowledgement that I am controversial in my face), i "went there" and made the claim that you are not neutral and should not have closed. This is what I thought when I saw that you had closed it, but i didn't go there in my initial request to overturn your close. Only after you upped the ante. I'll ask you to please reflect on your POV on me, and I ask you again to simply self-revert your close.  In my view, you should not have done it. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jusdafax May I also join in the "thanks" for having the courage to rebuke the admins for doing nothing about this.  I recently suffered a major boomerang which ocurred, in my opinion, because suitably non-involved admins would not step in.  Keep up the good work. DrChrissy (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the merits of this closure, but I just wanted to commend you for doing it. This is not the first time serious issues have come up on admin boards and admins have just shrugged. "Too much trouble." "Too much of a morass." "Too long, didn't read." Etc. Yet another reason why I'm less than enthused about naming still more people to super-editor positions that are subject to abuse and often not used at all. Coretheapple (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me too, for keeping an eye on things. As a side note, I made comments similar to yours here.  (From my recollection, the very fresh thread was closed shortly after.)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The whole thread has been restored to ANI from the archives, by an admin, who did at least add my closing comment to the already lengthy mass. I have briefly noted my objection to the reopening at the bottom of the thread. I suspect further discussion will now ensue. My thanks to my thankers and those commenting here in support of my now-reverted close. Under the circumstances, I now resume asking Jytdog to stay off my talkpage, thanks.   Jus  da  fax   19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the final result... Nothing. Archived without a closing statement. Jus  da  fax   04:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I just stumbled upon this and thought I'd add my own 2 cents. I appreciated the wise words in your closing statement; however I came away with a different take on what happened. I really blame Jytdog for posting what I see as a god-awful ANI complaint -- not in substance, but in presentation. Way way way too long and missing the forest for the trees. And the first sentence gives the whole complaint an "axe-grinding" flavor. It was no surprise to me at all that admins would roll their eyes and TLDR the whole discussion. An editor with as much experience in hot areas as Jytdog should have known better. It's especially unfortunate because they obviously put so much work into putting that together. No offense intended to Jytdog, whom I have worked well with on occasion in the past and I usually agree with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I largely agree. Since I have banned that editor from my page, it seems unfair for me to comment in detail since he can't reply directly. I do think his statements above, and my banning, speak for themselves, however. I did what I did, and I appreciate the term "wise" quite a bit. Good fortunes to us all. Jus  da  fax   08:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another remarkable thread! Jusdafax (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Case
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Jus  da  fax   19:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC

A brownie for you!

 * Thank YOU, I appreciate the snack! Jus  da  fax   21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode) 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/The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode) 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. Fuddle (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
Your poposal here is really interesting. Agree we need a group of editors to help enforce the TOU. Have proposed something similar here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your heads up, and I find your proposal for a small, dedicated group of "Functionaries" most interesting, and somewhat similar in scope to mine for "Auditors." However, I don't believe either can gain serious traction inside the community. As your link shows, my proposal to Jimmy and the WMF board was designed to go past our divided "caste system" where we are now, where any such proposals for a group of investigators will be shouted down. Of course, I'm not saying that those doing the shouting, or even a significant proportion of them, are conflicted or corrupt.


 * That discussion on Jimmy's page did in fact draw various types of "heat'" which to my mind merely proved my point: that community cannot enact such a proposal from within, for a number of reasons. To my knowledge, Jimmy and the WMF board took no notice, or if they did, they are keeping it under the radar. Since that discussion, to my knowledge at least two conflicted admins have lost the flag. Both had to do a lot to lose it, one quite high-ranking and generating considerable additional bad press, as did the Wifione case. But perhaps even more insidious are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned.  Jus  da  fax   22:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes; however, I was just elected to the board of the WMF so someone from the board did take notice, me. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I had not known that when writing the above, as I failed to keep track of the recent election results. First off, my hearty congratulations! Your accomplishment is notable, indeed.
 * So then, I stand corrected. A WMF member, albeit a brand new one, has taken note of my proposal! I am flattered and pleased, and thank you.
 * As stated at the time I wrote my proposal on Jimmy's page, I believe I occupy a fairly unique niche in the ranks of Wikipedia editors. A WMF volunteer in the San Francisco office in the period 2009-2010, I have somewhat of an insider's perspective while remaining very much in the realm of the rank and file editors. Last year I was welcomed back, given a tour, and deeply gratified that many of the suggestions regarding the physical setup I hoped to be implemented have since been.
 * I will take a further intensive look at your proposal. I have already glanced at your exchange regarding "rapid change," and see how I can contribute to the discussion. Thanks very much for your post and interest, which, again, I take as a great complement. Also, again, my profound congratulations to being elected to what I believe to be the only body that can effectuate real changes in the project. Jus  da  fax   05:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bringing about change will still require support from the wider community. With the WMF and the community working together to address undisclosed paid advocacy editing I believe we will have a chance of improving the situation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Lyle Alzado
Hello. The reason I did the edit, was mainly because I assumed that since a good majority of the athlete article use just "Career NFL statistics", I thought it should be used for Alzado's. I don't have a problem with your edit, I just wanted to explain my original edit. Wikidude10000 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks for doing so! Jus  da  fax   03:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Drive by to say "hi"....
I was reading through some old debates just trying to learn the various methods used in handling content disputes while also trying to get a grasp on composing succinct closes when, lo and behold, I ended up here. I truly do admire your writing ability. Verbosity was once a close friend of mine during a career that paid by the word but editing WP has forced me to end the friendship. I have always known that brevity is an art form and while it may come natural to some, I really have to work at it. For example, it took me an hour to summarize WP:AVDUCK for the tag "In a nutshell...". After being deleted 2ce, the essay finally made it into mainspace and survived yet a 3rd MfD challenge. We addressed most of the issues but of course we couldn't possibly resolve all the criticism. At least it's stable and, so far, we haven't seen any of the alleged "damage" it was supposed to cause per the delete arguments. In retrospect, me thinks the lady doth protest too much. I recently stumbled across the following statement on an editor's user page, and it really hit home: "Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles." What do you think? Atsme 📞📧 04:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, and allow me to return the complement; I enjoy your essay and determined statements. Some random thoughts:
 * One of the ongoing struggles here regards the nature of the encyclopedia. It's both fortunate and unfortunate that the sprawling mass makes it quasi-ungovernable. The big ticket struggle at present is paid corporate, religious and governmental/military editors versus the rank-and-file types that originally built the place. In the past six years of my serious involvement, I've seen a lot of editors come and go. The most important lesson I've learned is to know when to walk away from a dispute. Time often sorts matters out, though not always. Still, I've never been blocked.
 * Your essay touched various nerves, obviously. Had I known it was at MfD I would have gone there. Congrats on surviving that gauntlet.
 * Most people can't read. Brevity, as you have noticed, is often the only tactic that works.
 * Thanks again. Most of us crave recognition and validation. I'm no exception. I'll drop by your page sometime. Jus  da  fax   06:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, now I find myself regretting having passed up numerous opportunities to let you know how much I appreciate your presence and words, JusDaFax. You've been one of my favorite Wikipedians since I first read you, and that just continues to be the case with each post. The section above is no exception:
 * "But perhaps even more insidious are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned."
 * You've so eloquently summarized my observation over the past 3 years. I'm glad that someone from the WMF has taken note.
 * JusDa, thank you for being here.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a ton, Petra, and likewise. To put it a bit differently, Wikipedia has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable. Maybe even both at once. I'll give you one example, from myriads available... glyphosate, which I edited about two years ago to take out what seemed to me to be a remarkably biased statement in the lede. The result: my edit stood. I recently made a couple edits to the article and talkpage, but aside from that, I stand clear, for reasons you note above, and for others I won't go into. "Money doesn't talk, it swears," as Bob Dylan famously sings. Until we have a fearless and uncorruptable group of investigators at work to counter well-paid parties with a purpose, matters will remain dicey in Wikiland, in my view. Bless you, I truly admire your courage and fortitude, so thanks again back atcha. Jus  da  fax   01:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You just did it again: "Wikipedia has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable." That's it! But word has it we've already veered heavily towards the propaganda side of things, and so blatantly (to all but those in industry or the PR world) that people are staying away from this site as an information source for all but a few uncontroversial topics - in much the same way that cable news is loosing viewers. People know when they're being lied to or manipulated.
 * What's going on at WP is very clear and predictable. You're right to take a back seat whilst the fox guards the hen house. It's also true that sometimes a tiny achievement in the midst of it all is possible.
 * While I'm here, would you mind if I were to copy a few of your statements from this conversation to my talk page sometime? I like to leave words of wisdom there.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Petrarchan47, I am taken aback by your kind statements and willingly give you permission to use my statements as you see fit. I am quite obliged for your good opinion. Jus  da  fax   04:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I so appreciate your permission, and for your kind words about me. You've never been one to hold back kindness or words of support. Blessings,  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WT:ITN
Your audience awaits your "further question(s)"! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since your appearance on my Talk page appears to me to be less than collegial, I'm going to ask you to refrain from posting here, thanks. Jus  da  fax   21:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 18:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

User:TryBanMeAgain
You reported User:TryBanMeAgain at WP:UAA suggesting a block for a disruptive useername. I have declined the speedy on this user's user page as not within the WP:CSD, and I see no reason to block the user. This user has contributed constructively for over a year, with no significant problems reported. DES (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do however notice the user changed their name shortly after I brought the subject to the noticeboard, so it's a win-win. That name was disruptive in my view, and others saw it that way as well. Jus  da  fax   20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on bureaucrat discussion
In the back-and-forth on the 'crat-chat talkpage for Liz's RfA, you indicated you were offended by some of my comments to you. Rereading my words a day later, I agree that I was indeed too harsh, and I am sorry for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks. Hopefully my growing misgivings about the candidate will be proven wrong. Jus  da  fax   20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Accountability
I thoroughly agree, JusDaFax. I have to be honest, the fact that this remains a (growing) problem has disgusted me to the point that I become nauseous thinking about logging in, or in any way participating in this project. I am sickened mainly by the culture that surrounds and upholds the behaviour (see any ANI thread where lone editors have tried to address it), not by the fact that some individual might not be the best fit for WP. I wanted to leave you a note to say thank you for not being one who supports or ignores this. Hope you've got some ant-acids handy, mon ami.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47 คุ  ก   15:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem, feeling sick at heart. It's time to lance the boil. Jus  da  fax   16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GM Foods moved to Pharma
FYI, the discussion in GM Foods about IP for Pharma has been moved to the Pharma Talk page. Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was Pharming (genetics), not Pharma. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. And there is no way this can be considered canvassing, as I have indicated an interest and am involved. Thanks again! Jus  da  fax   02:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OR ping
You have been mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kingofaces43_reported_by_User:Prokaryotes_.28Result:_.29 prokaryotes (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wil monitor the situation, and thank you again for your hard work on the articles in question. Jus  da  fax   21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Stox
I updated 2015 stock market selloff with Monday's gloomy numbers. Perhaps you'd like to renominate? Sca (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me to the article status. I'll look into updating to the article a bit further, but my experiences at ITN last time were unpleasant, and in any case I neither nominated it for ITN nor created the article (the original title, "2015 stock market crash" was a term of the original article creator.) I believe you were the only one at ITN trying to do anything positive with the article and I thank you for that, but I feel I should not be the one to renominate it. I will add that the topic obviously is huge international news, and not having it on the ITN feature not only makes the feature look pretty silly, but speaks to the current state of ITN's dysfunction. Jus  da  fax   21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't really wanna renominate it either, for somewhat similar reasons. ('Twas I who changed "crash" to "selloff.")
 * I agree that ITN can be dysfunctional on some topics, but then the same is true, in different ways, at WP:FPC, where ignorant or unexplained comments are rife.
 * I posted the same 'Stox' note on the talk page of the orginal nominator, Smurrayinchester. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note. I have withdrawn the ANI about you, in light of 's comment here Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nearly five years later, I am still shaking my head at this. Jusdafax (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note...
...That I have readded you as a party to the GMO case, after Jytdog remove your name and formally asked for your addition. As I told you on the talk page, once the case has been opened and the drafters have been selected, the scope of the case will be determined and the list of parties will be updated. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding my name as a party minutes after I posted my statement was transparent retaliaton by the now-banned editor, and the section just above shows that he had only days previously attempted and failed to have me sanctioned at AN/I. Jusdafax (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robertson Panel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Alvarez. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 26 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)


 * I was in fact already aware, but thanks. Jus  da  fax   21:01, 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

AGF?
I notice you didn't come out with any scathing criticsm at this comment so obviously your remark at RfA Thine Antique Pen was a deliberate hit below the belt at me, which was not a particularly good example of AGF, especially where I can't recall having trodden on your toes and generally support most of your actions. Perhaps instead you could consider using you admin influence to help rid the RfA system of regular voters who go there with dubious intent (or at least convince them to be reasonable) and those of little knowledge of our processes, and make the place more of an inviting prospect for candidates of the right calibre. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your comment. For one thing... My "admin influence?" I am not an admin. Jus  da  fax   02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps in fact, you should be, but you'd need to leave off shooting messengers. I remember you as once supporting the need for RfA reform - what happened? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As you see, dozens of editors agreed with me and the other early opposers in that Rfa. And as for Rfa reform, it doesn't mean attacking all early opposers as if it were a life and death matter. Not to me, anyway. And as for running for admin myself, I don't have it under consideration at this time. Jus  da  fax   05:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sol Feldthouse
I could find no obituaries online, but Sol did die on Jul. 24. https://celluloidblonde.wordpress.com/tag/sol-feldthouse/ https://www.facebook.com/events/519441864875453/

Peter Mork (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * But Sol the younger, not his father who was in Kaleidoscope in the 60s? Jus  da  fax   05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC

Wise stock investment
Rogaine. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much
Jusdafax,

Thank you, very much, for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, and your trust.

I sincerely value greatly your comments.

They mean a great deal to me.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I felt you got a raw deal four years back. Now, as you may have noticed, my name is currently included a Party in an ArbCom case, though I don't seem to have been a major player. I didn't understand what happened back then to you, and my experience currently has been awkward and mind-boggling, so I'm getting the idea of what you experienced. My best wishes, as always! Jus  da  fax   00:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've asked about it at User_talk:Courcelles, but unfortunately, nothing has happened so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks, I'm most grateful. I was just reflecting on the fact that in earlier years I wrote a fair amount of content, but lately I've become a more of a curmudgeon, waving my arms in outrage over editor and even admin actions much of the time. After this ArbCom case is resolved (sadly, not until next month at the earliest) I'd like to get back to creating and improving articles. There have been a number of startling developments during the course of this case, but the one that indeed stands out is what was termed "the boil comment" which I made to you above. It was actually cited as a reason to include me as a Party in the case, yet never mentioned again by anyone once the case was opened. Still, as a result I was forced to pay more attention than I usually do, and was able to weigh in a bit, though not as effectively as I would have liked. And still again, I appreciate the humorous intent behind the Barnstar. My amused and humble gratitude, and best wishes!  Jus  da  fax   23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the good wishes, and I'm delighted to hear you're planning a return to content creation! Yeah, looking at the list of official parties reveals a curious pattern (though I'd rather not discuss the case much until it has closed). It's interesting to note that the addition of parties only served to help shed more light on the issue.


 * I doubt many actually enjoy the curmudgeon role, however it becomes a prerequisite to editing if one encounters... a boil. In joy,  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking WP:Environment members
Hi Judasfax, I have a paid COI regarding Efficient energy use, and I'm looking for editors interested in helping me improve it. I suggested some changes on the talk page a few months ago, but page activity has been rather slow since then. If you have the time, would you be up for collaborating on it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Jusdafax. 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)

Thank you. I have taken issue on the Talk page there. Jus da  fax   20:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Swill milk scandal
Have you read this article? It's amazing to me that the same issues have been in play since 1858! Read about how the politicians defended the companies responsible for killing thousands of children, and even infiltrated the scientific societies setup to protect public health and mercilessly attacked the critics who criticized the dairy companies. It looks like we haven't come very far as a society. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A hideous read, but thanks, I appreciate the note. I find I am constantly amazed by how little I know on numerous topics, including this one. Jus  da  fax   20:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me understand...
From what I've gleaned from editors weighing in at ArbCom, there appears to be a dichotomy in that one side considers themselves pro-science because they support the industry's findings (mainstream?) that GMOs are safe, and they are considered GF editors who are doing a good job for WP but sometimes their human emotions show through which causes them to become nothing short of asshats (the devil made me do it), and then there are those editors who oppose or question the industry studies based on independent studies who believe long term affects are unknown, short term affects are questionable at best and there should be mention of that in the articles - and because of that, they are being labeled anti-mainstream science POV pushers. Do I have the gist of it? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I think you have the gist of it exactly. But the irony is that in my case (and I suspect others), I believe I am as mainstream as a mainstream scientist can be, yet whatever I post in some areas is slapped with a POV accusation and other provocations...even when I write that glyphosate poisons frogs!   And now it appears I am to receive a topic ban for edit warring after these provocations.  I am beginning to wonder if my time would not be better spent elsewhere.  By the way - the show you have linked to below is one of my very favourites! DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I am beginning to wonder if my time would not be better spent elsewhere" - Dr Chrissy, I've always wondered this about you. I'm flabbergasted WP can keep someone like you around whilst kicking you at every turn. I have never felt WP deserves you. All I've seen (since we don't work on similar articles) is you at ANI being used as a punching bag by the usual suspects. I cannot imagine why a scientist (or any self respecting human) would put himself through this.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those kind words Petra. I think to fully explain my motivation for sticking around and creating articles like Pain in amphibians, I might violate my topic ban in the eyes of some, so I will deliberately be a little vague here.  I have a great sense of general fairness and presenting a balanced, evidence-based view.  My main topic area of animal behaviour has taught me to be highly analytical of scientific findings, both mainstream and alternative POVs.  I believe that as scientists, we are then duty-bound to present findings representing all points of view, provided these are not debunked beyond question.  There are many WP articles in my own area (and others) that do not present a balanced view and I like to redress this. I also have a great sense of fairness when it comes to bullying - enough said I think. DrChrissy (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

- I was going to post this link to exemplify the diffs ArbCom is using against  as well as in other areas to decide the case. 🙃 <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of anything right now. My statement, and my demand for an explanation, are being ignored, it appears, as you have noted. However, I have my email disabled, as it has been for years, and ArbCom operates on emails, it seems. The experience of being a Named Party in this case has been an education, certainly. That a diff being held against Petra originated right here on my page indicates a policy at work which I feel bears community scrutiny and discussion. Jus  da  fax   16:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, if you are suggesting that you feel out of the loop because your email is not open, please don't. My email is open and has been for months, but I have not been contacted by Arbcom that way or any other private way.  I share deeply your frustration with the lack of feedback we are getting.  Unfortunately, I am also getting the feeling that unless this situation is not dealt with now, it will only result in a series of AN/I cases which will ultimately probably get back to ArbCom in a series of appeals! DrChrissy (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will disavow the word "frustration" as a descriptor of my feelings, lest it be held against me. "Deeply concerned" is perhaps more appropriate here. I have advocated WMF top-down reforms in the past, and that, and community discussion, may be the direction this matter is headed, once the dust has settled. Jus  da  fax   16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked if adding new diffs was acceptable procedure since that's exactly what is happening now. If it is, then the whole PD needs to be scrapped and we start over from scratch.  I also questioned the newly added diffs because if our opinions during consensus gathering at the WS are going to be used against us for a TB, then I want to know.  I also want to know why the aspersions cast against Petra are not being addressed by ArbCom.  Instead, diffs were added to support FoF against Petra in the PD.  I question if the new diffs support the claims any better than the other diffs.  I think not.  Why does it remind me of a detective adding evidence to a crime scene after the police taped it off?  Shall we call Mark Fuhrman for advice?  👀 😀 <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 06:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can still take any of this seriously enough to make rational suggestions. Clearly only a few are taking this seriously, and they are persons like you and I who don't matter. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed that I ever had faith in or endeavored to help better this website. I feel like a schmuck for believing the PAGs mattered. I had assumed everyone was laughing at all of this along with me, but it now appears very few see how funny this is. Oh, Jimmy, it was a nice idea, but the good ole boy's club doesn't result in an encyclopedia, now matter what your logo says.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thanks Atsme, for calling attention to this important point. I'm aghast... Talk about a chilling effect! So now Petra you have to shut up, or else! I feel strongly this PD is flawed and tainted, and agree that it should be tossed out. Also, there is still no attempt by ArbCom to address a number of serious questions I raise in my section. ArbCom member AKG is stonewalling my direct demand for an explanation of why I can be added to this case with virtually no involvement and subsequently zero evidence presented against me, while AKG blatantly votes questions why JzG is even considered for desysopping, effectively lobbying to clear admin JzG/Guy, yep, involved Sage Rad hounder and eventually warned and interaction banned admin JzG/Guy - on the grounds JzG is not a named party in this case, when it was AKG who, in the vote to take this case, voted to specifically exclude JzG from being named as a party! This stands out as further massive manipulation of process. It's morally wrong, if not literally a violation of the rules. I call foul. Jus  da  fax   07:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is morally wrong and foul. The fact that this particular admin is being held up as beyond reproach, after the things I've seen him say and do, tells me everything I need to know about this site and its true core. As for "community discussion", yes, you can have discussions, and weigh in a NBs, but the idea that you have any meaningful voice here, if it conflicts with WP's (pro establishment?) bias, is a complete facade.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My overall feeling is that it's a kangaroo court. I've never seen an ArbCom hearing in progress before, and i was hoping to see a reasonable and fair outcome. I know i'm a party to the case, but i seriously think there's an extreme bias in the outcome, with one editor (Jytdog) being "thrown to the dogs" as an appearance of doing something against the industry aligned people, while there's nearly uniform voting in regard to topic banning several who would be considered industry skeptics, i.e. those who keep a check on what seems to be industry promoters. I appreciate your expressions of reaction. I think it's important not be be silenced by the threat of blocking, and to remember that in the end, we're not going to jail, but rather only being denied the ability to help with an online encyclopedia. I had thought (wanted to believe) that Wikipedia was one place in this world where reason and evidence would usually win the day. I have pushed for integrity, not for a point of view. I have a point of view, and that's actually a good thing, but it seems that having a point of view at all is also a thoughtcrime here, if and only if that point of view doesn't line up with what appears to be a hidden core of industry supporting requirement. I don't think i'm being paranoid when i say that Wikipedia isn't what i thought it was. It's not easy to discuss with people who hold differing passionate views, but i've seen it happen here. I've been part of it. However, the superstructure seems not to be strongly enough on the side of principles, but able and maybe even willing to be gamed. Much appreciation to you both and to anyone who stands up and speaks rationally and observes what they see. There just seems to be so much "one hand washing the other" and favoritism of ideological allies, and demonization of ideological enemies going on. In other words, polarization. I've been often willing to take positions that are against what others perceive as my "POV" or better to say "agenda" as that's how they characterize it, and to stand up for what the evidence, sources, and guidelines say. I wish Wikipedia would defend its own principles evenly, and with integrity. What i've seen to be allowed to continue is disturbing, and the sort of biased witch hunt of a trial is equally disturbing. SageRad (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Jytdog is not being site banned. To me, that is synonymous with saying "Petra, you have no business being on Wikipedia." If the bar is so low that someone can not only spin doctor dozens of articles, but treat people like crap all the while, and still be welcomed to edit, then my suspicions were correct and I am satisfied to know for sure that our standards are too dissimilar to continue a relationship.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading the dialogue in this section, and everywhere, it's plain to see that there is a significant group of people who sees a dynamic of pushing by editors of one point of view that has gone beyond even pushing content into articles, to affect the very jurisprudence of Wikipedia itself. I would call that a serious issue that merits serious discussion. I just don't know where this serious discussion can be had within Wikipedia in a fair way, with integrity of dialogue and judgment. I wouldn't care, except that Wikipedia is a general arbiter of what is accepted as knowledge by humankind, and therefore occupation by one point of view is a serious distortion of the knowledge base of the human species, and can affect history going forward. People deserve to read unbiased articles about the world. The articles should be the outcome of fairly refereed discussions about evidence and sourcing. It should not be subject to power plays. SageRad (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My last comment at the PD talk page was "ArbCom was my one last hope". That was it, Sage. I've been trying to take this information to them for 3 years, and this was it.


 * "Wikipedia, um, it's possible you have a Monsanto problem"


 * "What?! How dare you!"


 * This was the highest court in the land, where the serious discussion you seek is supposed to take place, and this was the extent of it.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47 คุ  ก   07:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there's clearly a dichotomy among scientists. Mainstream (industry) claims one thing as would be expected, and mainstream (independent) claims the other's test results are not reliable.  Both views belong in WP in a manner that complies with NPOV.  I don't quite understand why there is even an issue.  It's not up to WP to make a final decision in WP voice as to which view is right or wrong.  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-website-has-been-taken-over-by-trolls-a6732171.html ?  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this added in. Thought you all and Would be interested. SageRad (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele are heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jus  da  fax   13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded on my talk. I will say the assertion that everything is an all caps Big Monsanto Conspiracy doesn't help your argument. Let's assume there is a giant monsanto conspiracy. This would be truly terrible, but we are not here to right great wrongs. I tried to look at the case through a conduct point of view. Jytdog exhibited remarkably poor conduct in the area, as did many other editors. I see nothing to indicate he could not be constructive elsewhere. Likewise, I saw no editor I thought could be productive nowhere. Furthermore the assertion that everyone who disagrees on sourcing is a shill is remarkably harmful. I'm concerned about the invocation of WP:FRINGE when it comes to other editors, but for the most part those in the 'other camp' limited such characterizations to sources, which were then debated or brought to RSN etc. This is what I have seen in the evidence. I'm not sure whether this source characterization should be happening, but on the other hand the conduct not content that I can see and deal with largely revolves around the wholesale characterization of those who disagree as paid shills or part of some sort of conspiracy, which to me is clearly not productive. NativeForeigner Talk 14:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unclear if you mean that I am making the assertion in your first sentence, or you are referring to others. I do not believe I have ever asserted such. Still no answer regarding the non-inclusion of Administrator JzG, aside from the mild excuse that it was an oversight, with is very difficult to accept given the number of times I requested his inclusion, his high-profile interaction ban and direct warning, all documented carefully on your Talk page, and his unexplained vanishing act. Even Jytdog had made the excuse of a new job. JzG was acting as an intimidating enforcer, and got away with it until I put my foot down after I was included in this case out-of-process by, yep, Jytdog. This matter now looks really ugly, and a number of onlookers have already agreed that something is wrong. ArbCom members cannot, and will not, be permitted to excuse abusive Administrators from being included in a case and then use their non-inclusion as a rationale to allow them to get off the hook. Jus  da  fax   14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am personally not saying there is a "Big M Monsanto" conspiracy. I am personally looking for application of policy and guidelines fairly and without bias. That in itself would be enough to enforce editing based in civil discourse, rationality, integrity of dialogue, and reliance on sources evaluated evenly.


 * Looking without bias, is it really possible to say that i, for instance, had behavior on par with Jytdog? Or was it moreso that as a new editor, i came into conflict with Jytdog, KofA, Pete/Skyring and a few others who continued to bend dialogue, such as constant use of strawman, changing of subject, lack of follow-up, and general lack of integrity, and at some points i became inevitably frustrated with the huge level of bullshit, where i was expecting to find rationale discourse? I say this in all seriousness.


 * I've seen and tried to ameliorate behaviors of Wuerzele's, for instance here where i gently try to get them to not make comments on supposed motivations of other editors when not necessary. This sort of thing is learnable, and Wuerzele has done a lot of good work, as well. I think it would be a loss to see them topic banned, as i think it's a loss to the encyclopedia that i may be topic-banned as well. I wish that i could work on the 2,4-D article to help untangle that conflict. There, both Wuerzele and RockyMtnGuy need to slow down, back off, and need help untangling the conflict. I could do that if i weren't under topic ban regarding agrochemicals. You can see my work there already, helping to boil conflicts down to principles, and gently trying to get both Wuerzele and RockyMtnGuy to edit not from ideology or assertions of pushing, but from sourcing and guidelines.


 * I'm not satisfied that topic banning Jytdog is enough to reign in the industry-aligned people in regard to their abuses of integrity of the encyclopedia. For one thing, Jytdog has already stopped editing, it seems, and for another, it seems symbolic, sort of a sacrificial lamb on the industry-aligned side. There's been horrible behavior by many but only this one emblematic editor who's already seemed to stop editing anyway, gets topic banned? And i think Jytdog could possible learn, as well, if willing, to work with others. On the other hand, several other industry-aligned editors with really bad behavior continue to edit, and people like myself and a few others who are industry skeptics, are topic-banned. It's so extremely lopsided that it feels like there was a perceived need to "solve a problem" and it was done.


 * I'd like to point out work like this that i've done, for the good of the article, not pushing a point of view.


 * There is so much to this discussion, and to really see what is what, you need to get into the weeds, follow individual discussions, and this takes a lot of time. In the end, i'm not satisfied that the ArbCom decision was based on careful investigation and even application of guidelines. I know it's a lot of work and arbitrators are unpaid people who have other things to do. I'd rather see it take longer than to be done in an arbitrary way, though. I just wish people could work together. Integrity of dialogue has always been my pet peeve. If we could really talk with integrity, then we could work out nearly all conflicts in a civil way. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * SageRad, per Native Foreigner's statement, we need to present solid diffs regarding KingofAces on the active GMO case Talk page. Please grab a couple of your strongest ones. I agree that you appear to continue to be treated with astonishing unfairness, but this is the current focus. Jus  da  fax   15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not a litigious person, and i wish that we could resolve issues when they come up. I would like to see topic bans relaxed, not try to get people from the "other side" topic banned. That said, i will trust your judgment and perhaps help out a bit. This looking backward is informative about my own behavior as well as others.


 * I guess i might point out a basic obstinacy such as shown in this dialogue in the glyphosate article, after i removed a sentence from the article that just seemed out of place, for flow reasons. I was not pushing any point of view. The content was pretty neutral, it was just out of place and extraneous. You can see in this short dialogue a sort of obstinacy on Kingofaces43's part, refusing to respond to my questions, using condescending tones toward me, and not hearing the actual question i was asking: is this content good for the reader, in the article?


 * On the Norman Borlaug article, Kingofaces43 had this tussle with me, in which he told me to "please refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS, especially since your behavior is being discussed at ArbCom" when i did not cast any aspersions. He also removed an old "citation needed" tag which in that context seemed contentious and pushy, without noting it. I brought that up in the talk page too. When i asked "What aspersions do you refer to? Please be specific." he didn't respond. Then he posted the issue on the RD noticeboard in which he misrepresented the conflict. I had to correct the misrepresentation. Through an IP user's participation, we seemed to figure it out. Kingofaces43 finally acceded that the edit made sense, but it just took so much angst to get there and there was unnecessary contention.


 * It's this sort of thing -- unnecessary contention, not responding to dialogue in a whole and honest way -- that are subtle and yet really get in the way of good editing. It's hard to really see, but it feels like obstruction of solid editing. I'm in it for the articles to be right and the article contained a falsehood that i was trying to correct -- the false story of a more widespread famine than actually existed (at Norman Borlaug) -- and therefore i was actually trying to remove a POV bending of facts that was already in the article. I got that level of contention and obstruction from Kingofaces43. It worked out in the end, but why should it take hours of back and forth to get the article right. It felt like Kingofaces43 just assumed that i was pushing a POV in both of these instances, whereas i was seriously trying to improve the articles.


 * I'm not perfect. People could point out similar instances where i was in the wrong. What i would like to see is more forgiveness, more honesty, more acknowledging that everyone makes mistakes, and a learning process whereby all editors could get more aligned with the real purpose here -- representing reality through good sourcing and good dialogue. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting, and heartfelt, but since ArbCom member Native Foreigner earlier used a statement by Petrachan47, here on my talk page, against her in the PD, I strongly suggest you concentrate and come up with specific diffs... Not whole sections, but diffs and put them on your section in the current Talk page of the GMO case page. We are told by Native Foreigner that late evidence is acceptable. Jus  da  fax   16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there are diffs available there to be had. It's hard to boil things down to diffs. It's not like the problems are that someone uses "bad language" or swears. It's more subtle, it's an obstructionism and a pushing that is very subtle. It takes real concern, and time, and thought, to look at a single episode and see what really went down.


 * Ironically, i feel like i'm being topic-banned because of a few instances where Jytdog really got my goat and i used a little bit of angry language. Is that really the best ArbCom can do? Doesn't a conception of justice in regard to article writing really need to look at the deeper underlying issues? Isn't it reasonable that i'd get frustrated with obstructionism and occasionally let off a little steam, and not be a problem editor for that? Maybe even a better editor because it shows i care about integrity. SageRad (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Norman Borlaug article is quite notable, i think, because his biography is a locus where the industry has invested a whole lot of effort to push a particular story. That is why it's notable that Kingofaces43 had this particular tussle with me trying to simply get the article to follow the source... and to reflect reality. It went against the industry's preferred narrative regarding Borlaug. SageRad (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless. Diffs. Jus  da  fax   16:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * awesome,, thanks! and you welcome to the language of WP. you  are ....i am at a loss of words... unbelievable... the walls of words which only retired or unemployed or paid editors have the leisure to read, the blowing of your own horn (your work) - this isnt a confession booth, man- and you, the pot calling me, the kettle black, your attempts at "gently ameliorating my behavior"! LOL!  And before I forget it: I found it highly inopportune to attempt to educate  on the arbcom page for his comment while at the same time saying nothing to jytdog's pile of s...t ! you are not scoring any points here, sorry to say, and you know well I have sympathies for you - and for all to know, that this is no ad hominem attack or whatever wikiproject medicine calls this.


 * Last not least: FYI the fricking arbcom decision talk page is no discussion page, SageRad, though you certainly treated it as such, so your education attempts were not only contentwise but also formally completely out of line.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It is what it is, Wuerzele. There are important points to be made, but we can do so in a civil way. The ArbCom page is a good a place as any. It's a ditch attempt at reason and sense ruling the day. Showing that you can be against the cabal of pseudoskeptics and seem the most sane person there, concerned about the encyclopedia and not out to demonize any individual is the best one can do. I honestly thought Semitransgenic's rant was out of place and would like to hear their thoughts in more collected language so it's taken seriously. I'm calling the whole damn trial a sham. That doesn't mean that I or you or anyone is perfect. Call me out, too,  Wuerzele, on my mistakes of content or manner. Please do. But don't tell me not to speak in my turn whatever I need to say. Join me, don't fire at me. SageRad (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A call to action
NOTE: I have the following reply from Native Foreigner. It basically gives a go-ahead to re-present diffs regarding Kingofaces. I will ping all parties involved. Jus da  fax   14:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In terms of Kingofaces, if someone can actually present evidence which shows policy violations, and not waving of hands "We don't like these edits", I'll propose a remedy to match. There is relatively little evidence submitted against him that doesn't rely on there being some sort of cabal, for which little evidence is presented. I suppose we could add JzG at this point in the case, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. It was an oversight. I thought Guerillero had (an error on my part, undoubtedly). I could present a siteban for Jytdog, but I wouldn't be in support and it almost certainly wouldn't pass. Also, Guerillero had included Wuerzele in his rough draft at a PD. Going back through evidence I agreed with him that there was adequate evidence. I'd also note that I spent several hours earlier today going through literally all of the diffs presented against Kingofaces. I saw the concern, hence went back through to make sure I wasn't making a grave error. My conclusion was that there is very little good evidence against him, as I stated previously. Perhaps has an opinion on this, but I do not believe he saw the evidence for a sanction against Kingsofaces either. Even at this late stage you're more than welcome to outline which specific evidence you find damning and why. NativeForeigner Talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, on PD talk only, no threaded conversation, in section. I've limited diffs I've looked at to stuff in the Evidence or workshop phase for the purposes of presenting evidence on other parties. I'd appreciate if my attention could be drawn to anything I have missed. (I've literally read through all the diffs, so do more explaining of why these diffs are harmful than necessarily that they exist). Do not cast aspersions, and try to get it all done ASAP. I have read all of the comments on the PD talk, for those who are curious. NativeForeigner Talk 14:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor4th's FOFs had the following "(Examples of SQS/edit warring:,, (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: , , ; revert history on Glyphosate: ; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section ; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: , see talk discussion here)"
 * Please note the accusations of edit warring do not rely on an arguement that there is a cabal. Please also note that it appears I am about to receive a substantial topic ban...for edit warring. DrChrissy (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Noted, but we have to present this on the GMO case Talk page, per Native Foreigner's statement above. Jus  da  fax   15:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I have included it in my section on the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, we have:

Involved parties
Jus da  fax   14:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , filing party
 * , filing party

Pings:, , , , , ,  ,  ,  , , ,  , , , ,   Jus  da  fax   15:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of this list and all the pings? Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The section above explains the sequence pretty well, I believe. Jus  da  fax   15:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of reading all that. If there is anything I should respond to, I hope somebody will point me to it. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That the primary filing party of an ArbCom case can't be troubled to read a few pages of current material is of interest. Jus  da  fax   18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, thank you for pinging me. And I assure you that I have been doing my best to read all of the material in the case, as best as I can, even if the Arbitrators appear incapable of doing so (or even reading their own Guide to Arbitration, for that matter). If anyone has any questions for me, my user talk page is always open (except for two editors who are banned, and will remain so). I'd prefer, however, not to relitigate the ArbCom case here on your talk page, but I will watchlist and follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should also ping SlimVirgin, whom I suspect is aware that arbcom has broken down. The problem as described up above is pretty simple.  Arbcom is voting on a case where they have failed to review the evidence.  That's pretty serious, no matter what side you are on.  SlimVirgin, in another forum, has pointed to the possibility of a mistrial occurring in a case that does not resolve within a satisfactory time period and in a case where arbs can't review the evidence in an appropriate manner.  Based on these facts, I recommend taking a very drastic step.  I propose that all of the above parties work together to petition the community to change how arbcom functions, and do so now using the momentum of this case for initiative. I suggest that SlimVirgin should help lead this effort because she has expressed an organized way of thinking about arbcom reform that I have not seen anywhere else. But it's time to act. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, given that this isn't a court of law, and given the general concept of so-fix-it, my preference would not be to demand that everything be thrown out, but rather to try to correct everything that has been botched so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not both? Please review SV's preliminary proposal here.  There is momentum for change, and timing is everything. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (multiple edit conflicts) Tryptofish, we may have disagreed pretty sharply at the start, but we appear to be a bit closer now. There may be some further developments before its done. As you note, there are still major irregularities to hash out. Seems we both feel that issues remain to be explained by ArbCom members. I thought NYB had an interesting comment on your situation. Viriditas, noted, and thanks. Fascinating and progressive proposals! The situation is indeed quite fluid today. Jus  da  fax   20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like Viritidas' suggestion and I would be willing to join forces with other involved parties to bring about ArbCom reform. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the idea here:
 * Arbcom is voting on a case where they have failed to review the evidence. That's pretty serious, no matter what side you are on. , in another forum, has pointed to the possibility of a mistrial occurring in a case that does not resolve within a satisfactory time period and in a case where arbs can't review the evidence in an appropriate manner.
 * With regard to the present case, given what is unfolding, this is the best idea I've heard. I would support serious moves to start over from scratch (perhaps with a few weeks break for everyone before beginning again).  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm sure there's a procedure to petition the arbcom to "reset" the case.  I think I recall seeing it happen before in various forms.  I think you would have to get Tryptofish on board, however, and he's pretty committed to going forward so that could be a problem (and he's stubborn as a mule, kidding dude, kidding). On the other hand, I think Atsme and DrChrissy are knowledgable about arbcom procedures so maybe they could twist Tryptofish's fins and work together on this. Also, I hope everyone comments on the Village Pump discussion and helps SV get the ball rolling.  I want to see more women working on these issues and it looks like we've got several in this thread alone. Men are great at destroying stuff and tearing shit apart, but women have insight into creating things and reforming institutions that men often have trouble seeing because we are too focused on a task.  I really think women should lead the effort to reform Wikipedia and help turn it into a place they can be proud of and safe enough to feel at home.  Let's invoke the spirit of Sophia.  Just don't mess with my mancave. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I'm afraid you have it completely wrong regarding my knowledge of Arbcom procedures. This is the very first time I have been involved in a case, and I feel like I am in a complete vacuum as to understanding this process.  Regarding reseting the case, I would say for the vast majority of those named in the PD, this would be beneficial.  In my own case, however, I feel it would not.  The singularly different way in which my proposed FoFs were presented has, I believe, poisoned the well.  Having said this, if it were reset, it would mean that my present topic ban (which I will appeal at AN/I on November 20th) may not need its own section in this case (if it should be there in the first place).  As for twisting Trypto's fins, I suspect he is more of a Lateral line organism. ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I got Viriditas' ping, thanks. (And no problem about the latest zoological comparison. At this point, I have become a one-editor zoo.) I will follow those discussions, but I'll tell you right now that I am unlikely to support them. As I see it, there are two kinds of possible approaches. One is to tear the house down and construct a new one. It's a legitimate choice, but it's not what I feel like at this time. The alternative is to, instead, eradicate the cockroaches (another zoological) without demolishing the house – and that's my chosen path. Now folks, I cringe when I say what I'm about to say, and I feel bad about saying this to some of my friends. But. The section below, with a blocked user's comments about swinging anatomy, and the gleeful mockery that accompanies it, is a bad idea. ArbCom has rules about conduct during cases, and another editor has already drawn attention to it on the PD talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's leave sexism out of it. Women can be great at destroying things too, dude ;)  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not sexism at all. If you study the major problems in the world, you will realize that women are the key to solving them. The education of women, as an example, can lead to the reduction of population pressures, which is responsible for many problems, including terrorism. In fact, the education and improvement of social conditions for women is the leading indicator for preventing terrorism and for improving the environment. That's only a few examples, but if you do the research, you will learn that women are the key. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, it's true that nearly all pseudoskeptics are male:

"There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion...I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type."
 * SageRad (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's a mistrial. My first experience ever with this sort of process, and it's totally secretive and unaccountable. Where is the reasoning? Where is the transparency? Non-existant. I declare it bankrupt, personally. SageRad (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See this post and the discussion following it re: mistrial. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What's going on?
Here's my best analysis of what's gone on. There seems to be a group of people who have taken their brand of skepticism to a level (which i would call pseudoskepticism and essentially have waged a war on Wikipedia for that. I think this is the nature of much of the battleground mentality here. By stating this, i am not engaging in the battleground mentality, but trying to call it out, to name it, to expose it for what it is. That's a valid position, but one that people easily mistake as me being in the battleground mentality.

Pseudoskepticism is a form of dogmatism that silences real skepticism, and that's part of the dynamic that seems to have been going on.

There are many valid points about sourcing and due weight, and such things. We can't write entire articles based on primary sources. Wikipedia is not a coatrack or a soapbox. We must be civil in dialogue. I've not been a saint. Nobody has. But i'm really WP:HERE and not pushing a point of view. The only thing i am pushing is integrity. That's when i push back, when anyone violates basic guidelines of integrity.

I know a few of you think i'm speechifying, and don't like it when i disagree with behaviors of anyone, whatever side they're on, but i think that is important. To stand for integrity, whoever it is. Even Kingofaces43 has done many good things on Wikipedia. Even Jytdog, if you can believe it, has done good work. But the ratio of Jytdog's bad actions and incivility to his good actions is just way too bad for him to remain an editor without serious personal reform. However, i think everyone else can learn to work better, if willing.

But in the meantime, we have to recognize why this place has become a battlefield. There has been pushing by "anti-GMO" people and there has been pushing by "industry aligned" people. Pushing is not ok. However, i see the pushing by the industry aligned people as generally having more support within Wikipedia due to having gained a foothold on the power structure of Wikipedia. WikiProject Skepticism seems to have conflated with the agrochemical and biotech industry to impose a falsely tight notion of scientific consensus, and to engage in a battle against other points of view in related articles.

There is a clash of worldviews here in Wikipedia. The behavior issues are small in comparison. The better we can act toward each other, the better we'll be here. I understand feelings of anger. I have them myself. Let's show what's going on. That is not to engage in battleground behavior, but to show how and why Wikipedia has become a battleground in some topic areas, and why this is not beneficial to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge for the human species.

End speech. SageRad (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been following this from afar, mainly because editors I hold in high esteem (among them Jusdafax and Petra) have been involved in various ways. Personally I'm not sold on the whole anti-GMO line, but on the other hand I'm not an expert and, as a reader, I want to see all points of view fairly presented. You can't have that when editors are behaving as I've seen in that subject area. I think it's fair to say that the skeptical editors sometimes go too far, and this is what we see in this subject area. As for arbcom, it bothers me how it has handled this case, in bringing in people who weren't named as parties, in bringing in Jusdafax because one party wanted it. Arbcom needs to be more sparing in bringing in relevant parties, and excluding irrelevant ones, lest they waste time for people unnecessarily as they did for Jusdafax. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be sold on any "anti-GMO" line to want to see actual integrity and justice. I'm for integrity and following the guidelines, and yet i'm being nailed to the wall because i push for integrity, and for representing sources correctly, and following discussions to their logical ends, to work out what the actual conflict may be and then decide on content based on principles. There is not even a semblance of justice here. There is no integrity in the decisions. The "arbitrators" are lining up and voting on party lines. This is a pogrom or a kangaroo court, plain and simple. I say we all vote no confidence. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I came to say essentially the same thing to, this truly isn't about "anti-GMO". It is unsurprising, however, that this meme continues to live, regardless of the fact that no evidence has been presented to support the claim, because it is repeated often, loudly, and from on high, by tenured untouchables. But the cold hard facts are that the GM foods article has been the host of a fabricated claim (that 'the science is settled on GMO safety'), a claim that twisted the words of the WHO, a claim that was called out as misrepresenting science (in a paper dismissed by WP admins as fringe); there is a complete and utter lack of NPOV in this suite after years of disallowing any dissenting view. All that I have tried to add to the GM foods page (but was reverted by the KingDog team) are two things: the percentage of Americans in favor on GMO labels, and the fact that the USDA started a GMO labeling program. Does this make me anti-GMO? I'm seen that way.


 * If you have a few moments, read/watch these (in order of importance):
 * http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Illusory%20Consensus%20GMOs.PDF
 * http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/10/31/the_gmo_deception_sheldon_krimsky_on
 * http://now.tufts.edu/articles/questioning-gmos
 * http://patch.com/new-jersey/montclair/scientist-challenges-monsanto-10-million-if-you-can-prove-me-wrong-0


 * This isn't to be seen as anti-GMO, but to give those who haven't been studying both sides of this issue an idea of how wildly biased and inaccurate our GMO articles have become. Though I don't expect RS to have any impact in this case, as WP has taken a position: It's the Guerrilla Skeptics' world, we're all just living in it.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Viriditas speaks to this bias here in a comment worth reading.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not even particularly anti-GMO. I've never read or seen any of those links above. I'm generally a skeptic of the science that says that any particular trait is surely safe because of the track record of the industry, but i'm not inherently anti-GMO. I'm concerned that articles must contain a balance of points of view. One of my interests has been the chemical industry, seeing as rivers near my place of birth were polluted by industries through the centuries, and so it's been an interest of mine through the years. SageRad (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, just saw this. Yes, your points re "anti-GMO" are well taken. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an update on the $10 million "Monsanto challenge" by the inventor of email.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am simply seeking integrity, both in terms of content and process. Integrity of representation of sources, integrity in terms of balance in selection of sources, integrity in representation of reality in the articles, and integrity in the processes by which we work out the end result. Unbiased application of principles and guidelines would result in good articles. Abusiveness in dialogue and gaming of the system result in bad articles with POV content pushed into them. I've called out people many times who were adding something that, if i were just interested in making the chemical industry look bad, i would have said nothing about. I think it's important to admit when i'm wrong, and to admit and point out when someone on my supposed "team" or "side" seems wrong to me. I want the articles to represent reality as best we can achieve. People can then work from there. If there are issues with specific chemicals or specific GMO traits, then let's include that in the articles. This is a public service, not a PR tool for the industry. Similarly, it's not a PR tool for anti-GMO activists to push unreliable content or rhetoric into the articles. I must be stupid, but i believe that people of various perspectives can work together. However, 95% of what i've seen in Wikipedia shows me how far we are from that place. SageRad (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I am sharing 'the other side' with Core in a way that I believe can swiftly bring him up to date on the issue with regard to substantial equivalence, Codex Alimentarius, etc. There is a lot of information in the short clip, and since he's pretty busy, I thought he'd appreciate the brevity. A person can look at these few links, and then view any of the articles in the GMO suite with a better understanding in order to gauge their neutrality. My interest has only been neutrality, and adhering to PAGs. I reject use of the term "anti-GMO" if referring to me, vehemently (this is a general statement, Sage, not directed at you). Editors should be able to engage in any topic without fear of being automatically subjected to harmful rhetoric and derogatory labels (like the various forms of "advocate") based on evidence-free assumptions.


 * Ideally there should be no information when building an encyclopedia that, if well-sourced, an editor should feel ashamed to add or discuss. I'm afraid that the rhetoric surrounding the GMO issue in particular has a silencing effect on anyone interested in adding, or even discussing, 'the other side'. In case you're one of the many who've been told RT is not WP:RS, is "fringe", or in this case, would be unreliable for the words of the scientist, you've been lied to. I've read all of the archives at the RS noticeboard pertaining to this source.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Stade de France evacuation picture
Can we get an image like this one? -- <font style="text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"> Dandv 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It has to be uploaded properly to Commons. I'll look but it's pretty early. More likely in the next couple days. Jus  da  fax   02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste of Semitransgenic's reply to Jytog's GMO ArbCom statement

 * dude, seriously? you think it's acceptable to roll in here, after the fact, and start swinging your dick? wtf were you doing when it was an appropriate time for you to defend yourself? sfa. You have utterly invalidated your position by scurrying under a rock, only to return when you think it's safe to crawl out. Disgusting, cowardly display. Semitransgenic  talk. 21:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Semitransgenic. My heartiest laugh of the case! Jus da  fax   21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I laughed out loud as well :) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "swinging your dick" is my new favourite phrase.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...what is sfa though? Sounds serious. Jus  da  fax   02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * sfa = "sweet fuck all". YW.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn. I've gotta get out more. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   03:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * www . urban dictionary ;)  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did too! --David Tornheim (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

if it only was 'swinging his dick'- to me it looked more like his nose getting brown....--Wuerzele (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you may be interested in
An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.


 * User:SNUGGUMS  Closing editor
 * User:Robsinden Proposing editor
 * User:TonyTheTiger
 * User:Betty Logan
 * User:MarnetteD
 * User:Lady Lotus
 * User:NinjaRobotPirate
 * User:Lugnuts
 * User:TonyTheTiger
 * User:BattleshipMan
 * User:Dimadick
 * User:Rlendog
 * User:Frietjes
 * User:Debresser
 * User:Wikipedical
 * User:Jusdafax
 * User:Mamyles

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 08:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for integrity
Hey, I just want to say it's been great editing with you. I appreciate that you have integrity and really stand up for others in dialogues. You look to see who is right and don't usually just react to superficial things. I hope I'll still get to edit in areas where you're active even though it currently looks like I'll be banned from the agrochemical and GMO topics which had been a part of my main interests and I still really don't see how that could have happened in a fair world so I guess even here the world is not fair. Anyway, I appreciate you for standing up for me when you have done so in cases where others were being abusive or misleading. SageRad (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and back atcha. It's clear to me why you were targeted, and it wasn't the mistakes you made at the start of your editing. No, you are simply brilliant. There's a chance this case may be started over or be tossed out, and if not, and if you are actually topic-banned (which I find utterly shocking) I encourage to appeal to the next version of ArbCom, which per the current election is likely to have a different view. Wikipedia needs you badly, and I encourage you to edit elsewhere, hang in here, and persevere. I'm sure we will continue to communicate here, on your page, and on Talk pages. Blessings! Jus  da  fax   20:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Jus <font color="C1118C">da <font color="#0000FF">fax for ARBCOM! <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * +1,000  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ..... Hahahah, nah. Being named a Party gave me a real jolt, as far as realizing how little I know, not only about how ArbCom works, but how Wikipedia works. This case featured numerous twists I wasn't expecting, today's block of Jyrdog being the latest. In brief, I have a lot to digest here. But thanks for your nice thoughts! Jus  da  fax   04:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * JusDaFax, I'm sure you'd catch on fast. On a related note, and I may be way off track here, but didn't you have a proposal once suggesting paid positions for ArbCom, or something like that? (See my comments at SarahSV's) If so, I think we may have similar ideas.  <font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably putting this in the wrong place, but... Jusdafax, I just saw your question to the admin who blocked Jytdog. I have the misfortune of knowing exactly what the block was about, and it definitely had nothing to do with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Noted, and thanks! Jus  da  fax   12:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC

Wow
Curious about your reaction to this comment from an Arb in response to a question of accountability:   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, I came here independently after seeing the same thing. I am supposedly on the other "side" of that case, but what I saw there made me feel ashamed to be a Wikipedian. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me, as I had not noticed. Yeah, I'm now being called names by ArbCom member AGK who adamantly refuses my demands that he answer questions regarding his, AGK's, previous statement, at the very start of this case in the votes to accept it, regarding Admin JzG/Guy being specifically exempted from being included as a Party. I and SageRad repeatedly requested JzG be made a Named Party to the case, especially if I was going to be included as a Party by Jytdog within minutes after I posted my statement.


 * I continue to profess that JzG used his Admin powers to block, and subsequently harass SageRad on SR's Talk page and even directly on the ArbCom case Talk page, causing me to squawk in protest. This act may or may not have wound up finally resulting in JzG's being handed an Arb warning and interaction ban regarding SageRad. Whereupon JzG blanked his own Talk page warnings and stopped editing cold. Since Jytdog also stopped editing, citing real-life pressures, and has since been blocked for unmentionable other matters, I find that the withdrawal of these two editors from the discussion, and the Arb reaction that you two reference, leaves me with reduced options to get answers.


 * As Trypto notes, you two are supposed to be at opposite poles in this Case, yet have come here to discuss the Arb non-comment and ask my reaction to the refusal and insult. It floors me, actually, and leaves me with a sense of having been chilled. This is a serious matter, and I welcome further comment from you two, and any other lurkers. Thanks again to you both, Jus  da  fax   12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you had gotten the email that I got a few days ago from another Arb, you would feel not only chilled, but refrigerated. It's bad, and the worst that I have seen in a very long time. What is particularly bad about your situation is that the same Arb who said that to you is the one who summarily opposed adding the administrator as a party, when parties could have been added. However, on the positive side, the Arb who sent me that email and the Arb who said that to you are both stepping down at the end of this year, not seeking reelection. So a significant part of what one might do next is to wait until after the election and after the new Committee is formed. There is a procedure for requesting that a decision be amended, and that could include a request that someone who was not admitted as a party be examined now. That approach could be an option after the new year. (I've even made recommendations about which Arb candidates to vote for and against, linked from my talk page, and I hope everyone votes, whether you agree with me or not.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax - just wanted to add to your statement that I also made a "formal" request on Guerillero's talk page to add JzG as a party. It was at the beginning of the case. Guerillero hatted off the section of his talk page with a closing note that he was looking into it. Then we heard no more, despite several follow up inquiries. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * undefined Yep, a few others did, too. Well...following is what I've gleaned per Euryalus, .  The arbs apparently don't see anything unfair about making an uninvolved editor a party to the case.  They choose who they want to include and there's nothing anyone can do about it.  That sends a message that speaks loudly to double standards and favoritism.  It also indicates that WP has no system of checks and balances.  Going back a few weeks in time, you formally requested that other editors be added,, and further stated: I also formally protest my inclusion in the case as patent retaliation by User:Jytdog. Note that I had not once been mentioned prior to my statement, and Jytdog's addition of me came within minutes of said statement. If allowed to stand, my inclusion sets a precedent that effectively creates a "chilling effect" - speak up, and you become a target forced to spend time as a party to a case. I submit this is gaming the system. If there is a more appropriate place to file these motions, please let me know. Thanks. Jusdafax 4:46 pm, 28 September 2015, Monday (1 month, 25 days ago) (UTC−5).  A drafting arb responded to your formal request nearly a week later, : I didn't see this until I was pinged. This page is low traffic so I don't check it very often. I have already said that I am not going to remove anyone as a party and I am not going to make an exemption. Being a party does not mean that you will be sanctioned. As for adding parties, we are already discussing JzG and I will consider Skydog. --Guerillero.  Try to find peace knowing that It will all soon be over and we now have a chance to vote for new arbs.  It probably won't change anything.  Unfortunately, it probably won't change the way WP operates.  To do that we need arbs like you, Jusdafax. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, i hadn't seen that it was a foregone conclusion upon accepting the case that JzG/Guy would not be included in the case, as shown here stated by AGK and then agreed to by Courcelles and Guerillero. That seems like an issue to me. To accept a case but to have a predetermined outcome in regard to one particular editor seems wrong to me. SageRad (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, i have started a discussion at the Village Pump ideas incubator about anti-bullying -- how to recognize and fight bullying within Wikipedia. I've been thinking about all the issues i've encountered in this topic area, as i go back through the various diffs provided as evidence, and i see a huge amount if interactions that i would now call bullying -- and in the rear-view, with more experience here, i can see how a few editors act like heavies, and take advantage of the naivete of new editors, and try to get their way through bullying tactics instead of rational and good dialogue. Please add your comments if you like. SageRad (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Did an arb on this case just say that they put a lot of the evidence from the case directly into their recycle bin? It appears so. How can anyone feel confident in the outcome of this case?

Also, another arb on the case said that i forced their hand? What is meant by this? How did i force anyone's hand to have to ban me? That arb cited a diff from June 9th as apparently the evidence as to how i "forced hands". That diff is my response in a situation where Jytdog appeared to be following me around to pick on my edits, and i was indeed copyediting noncontroversial (so i thought) material and therefore accusations by Jytdog about unsourced material were off base. There are reasons for such things, and in the light of how i had been consistently treated by Jytdog just prior to that moment, my tone there (mainly calling him "dude") would be understandable to many people, though the arb isolating and highlighting it there making it seem like i'm unreasonable and mean or something. Strange things. And. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 30 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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting
I was initially turned-on to the Daily Dot as one of the sites some WMF members follow, and a few minutes ago, I stumbled across the following article,. Ok, so if Sony is involved in COI editing and their May 2015 Market Cap is $34.2 Billion (per Forbes WMV Brands), why would anyone think Monsanto isn't doing it with a $55.7 Billion MC? The article states, "It would be difficult right now for hired editors to sneak in changes or whitewash unwanted details without being noticed. But since all scandals eventually die down, there will come a time when such edits may receive less scrutiny." Interesting, isn't it? And what exactly is/was WP's response regarding the whitewashing of the Monsanto suite of articles; i.e., the GMO case at ArbCom? Nevermind - it's a rhetorical question that doesn't need answering. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have gone from quizzical to profoundly concerned regarding this entire matter. That corporate involvement is likely is, as you note, backed up by documentation. The holiday festivities have greatly reduced my free time but further action is clearly required. The retirement of Petra, which I just now read about in your commentary on the ArbCom case Talk page, comes as a deeply unpleasant shock. Jus  da  fax   23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I read you loud and clear. In a turn-the-other-cheek attempt, I've created two more fun banners - diversions, you might say - one of which was inspired by your post on my TP re: my block. User:Atsme/Banners <---all in fun and somewhat therapeutic, although I doubt you'll find a systematic review about it at PUBMED. It's too FRINGe-Y. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You have never been blocked, so.....

 * Hah, thanks. I appreciate a bit of levity at this juncture. Jus  da  fax   11:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you....
Sorry, i forgot to ping you here -- no offense meant. SageRad (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

 * Ooops - I would rather this greeting follow the Arb decision because after that one, we all need some cheering up. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:04, 14 December 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  20:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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

JzG and DrChrissy
You recently mentioned an interaction ban between them, can you point me to the related discussion? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I mentioned SageRad in relation to an interaction ban with JzG, not the Doc. Here was the final stage of JzG's harassment, at an ArbCom Talk page. Note my comments, leading to admin action, by scrolling down. Check JzG's talk page history, which he wiped clean before taking a Wikibreak, for his actual official notification of an interaction ban. It should be noted that he has subsequently apologized to Sage Rad on Sage's Talk page, and that I and others have taken issue with said apology, a masterful bit of writing that scares me silly. This is no ordinary apology, in my view.  Jus  da  fax   16:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, there is currently no interaction ban between JzG and I, other than we have banned each other from our respective Talk pages. Rather ironically, I am considering requesting an interaction ban as JzG does not seem able to resist the slightest temptation to malign me to almost anyone that will listen, e.g. here DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah i meant SageRad, confused you since you too had problems with this admin. prokaryotes (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears the admin has breached the 1RR today. DrChrissy (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Its questionable, take a look here. Some would say removing whole sections is reverting, and there is one clear revert. AlbinoFerret  20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely say he's gone beyond 1RR, but I'm not ready to to bring an AE case yet. Noting the behavior though. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Reverts states "The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text." DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of very recent/current discussions were also 'one click' archived on the Glyphosate talk page without explanation by the editor under discussion.Dialectric (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And oddly, not the oldest one, which is still "Cancer? Not so much" -- would appear to be selectively done... odd. Wonder why. If one is going to archive just to clean up a talk page then wouldn't they start with the oldest one that is inactive for a long time? SageRad (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is actionable and must be dealt with. A rogue admin is up to his old tricks. Jus  da  fax   21:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For those following this thread, you might be interested in a question I raised at WP:AN DrChrissy (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Jusdafax: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Wishing you all the best . ..
JDF, may all your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ed Sheeran
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ed Sheeran. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Alexa Brown
I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)