User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 18

June, 2012 – July, 2012

Personal Question
It says you have a Doctorate of Philosophy in Biochemistry. Did I read that right? How do philosophy and biochemistry intersect? It sounds like a subject matter I'd be very interested in.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't. A Doctor of Philosophy or Ph.D. degree (which see) simply means that it's a doctoral degree in what I guess one could call basic studies, as opposed to a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Law, or other "professional" doctorates. It doesn't mean study of philosophy at all. My field of study was biochemistry, cell biology, and molecular biology. In my later academic career, I've specialized in neuroscience. If you are interested, I know that there are various programs in the history of science, and one can also study philosophy of science, which focuses on how it applies to science, though not necessarily to biochemistry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that might be the case. It's good to know a good neuroscientist.  I used to read Scientific Mind on a regular basis, but I'd forgotten about it lately.  I'll have to check it out again.  Any other good sites for layman-esque-level articles on neuroscience?Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One that comes to mind is this: Brainfacts.org. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool site. I'll check it out.  thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me adding to this, but IIRC the origin of the term "Doctor of Philosophy" as applied to a science dates to the medieval name for the natural sciences in general, "natural philosophy." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no I don't mind at all. That's a good point. I only just noticed this now, amid all that was going on below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I have mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fæ (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your question
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence, and User talk:Lord Roem. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's two angles I'd point you to; first, that people on WR/Wikipediocracy have been carrying out a campaign to get Wikimedia UK stripped of its charitable status. Fae is, of course, a big cheese in WMUK. The other angle that seems relevant to me is the one alluded to by Tarc; WR/Wikipediocracy seems to have become a hub for anti-sex campaigners like our very own Jayen466. Fae has become a target for the anti-sex mob due some of his previous editing and his defence of sexual content on Wikipedia. Are you aware that Jayen has teamed up with a banned user to lobby Parliament in person against WMUK and Fae in particular? Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this information, and no, I wasn't aware of all of it. But I'm really not asking merely for my personal interest, but because I think that the Arbs need to see the answers, including but not limited to what you are telling me here. And that is why I am very unhappy with the clerk having pre-empted the discussion where it ought to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop me an email, Trypto, and I'll give you some links. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but I never do e-mail here, if for no other reason than I don't want to become the target of people who want to know who I am in real life. My position continues as I said it just above. I'm not interested in taking a "side" in this case (nor in criticizing other users), so I won't be of any use to you with respect to those links. What I want is for the Arbitrators to see the facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone kindly mentioned to me that I was being mentioned here. Perhaps I can be of help? The link you are looking for, I imagine, is here. As for Fæ, he and I have since worked out our differences on adult content, and have realised that, as Fæ put it on the evidence page, we are not on opposite sides of this debate. Even the "banned user" Prioryman is referring to above has since had a productive and amicable meeting with Jon Davies, the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. -- J N  466  01:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayen, you are of course welcome here, and I assume that you understand that it was Prioryman, not me, who mentioned you. Your link nearly made my computer crash, and displays as gibberish for me, but no matter. I think it's excellent that you and Fae have worked things out, and that's really all that matters to me. I wish that more editors would do as you did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry the doc (nearly) crashed your computer. The link is http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=483 and should lead you to page 483 of a pdf document on the UK parliament website. It works for me.  J N  466  02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the same thing happened again, doubtless something about the PDF software running with Firefox for me, although I'm pretty sure it's updated. No matter, I actually don't care that much! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let me clarify that what I just struck above was not meant disrespectfully, but rather in the spirit of no big deal. I struck it because I realize that it could be construed differently. Second, now I've been able to read the link, by leaving out the part that points to the page, and then going manually to page 483. What I see there is testimony from some people who feel very strongly that Wikipedia is full of all sorts of objectionable stuff, much of it completely unrelated to this case. The related part comes at page 491. It seems to me that it pretty much just repeats what has already been presented as evidence in the Arb case, and the fact that these people writing the testimony say it just means to me that it is their opinion. They may be partly right and partly wrong, but the impression given, if I place their words in the context of our discussion here, is simply that they are shocked, just shocked, by sexual material online, not that they are really shedding new light on disruptive conduct at Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat here my question that got cut off, for all comers to answer if they wish. It appears that the anger at Fae comes from the so-called "Commons porn problem". As I said in the hatted discussion, I can understand why people would disagree about sexually-explicit material on Wikimedia sites, but why get permanently angry over it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even in my real-world social circles (which are fairly polite and well-manners) no one would bat an eye if something nasty is said about Sally Kern. If my church friends were also my friends on Wikipedia and the topic of conversation turned to something Kern had said, comments entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia could easily slip into the conversation because the external atmosphere could easily be imported. The environment was entirely more toxic at WR (I can't speak to Wikipediocracy, since I have not ventured over there) driven not only by online culture, but also by the personalities the site attracted - people who were both disenchanted with Wikipedia and (especially among banned users) people who felt disenfranchised. Given the baseline culture, once someone picks and promotes and enemy, the demonisation creates a positive feedback loop. Since many of those people are active over here and are interacting on this issue, there's no surprise in seeing a part of that atmosphere imported over here. And with enough people repeating the slur, it ceases to be a slur and instead becomes part of the conversational norm, even over here. Or that's (definitely not unbiased) read on the situation. Guettarda (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense. But I question how Fae/Ash's conduct on-Wiki really resembles that of Sally Kern in real life, although I also make note of Hullabaloo's observation at the other page, which may also make sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Guettarda's explanation of the social dynamics does indeed make sense but there is also a political dynamic at work. The background to all of this does indeed seem to be the sexual content issue. From my reading, it seems that various people on WR/Wikipediocracy have identified sexual content as the Achilles heel of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK. Some of the banned users appear to have harboured fantasies that they could overthrow the WMF and WMUK by "exposing" the sexual content. The strategy seems to have evolved since then. There was an exchange on WR back in March that's worth noting:


 * Cla68: I think this is a good strategy. Instead of advocating revision of their charity status, instead use their charity status to obtain government oversight and control over the WMF's operations and force them to start exercising some responsibility and accountability.
 * Fusion: But this is about the UK and WMF UK. Surely WMF UK has no control whatsoever over Wikipedia, or at least no more control than any other group of editors might have.
 * SB Johnny: Hopefully the some of the tactics of the UK front can be modified for use on the American front in the future. Thanks largely to the hard work of Friar Kohs, there's plenty of ammo to go after the heart of the organization on a "family values" slate, and if even the soccer-hooligan-loving Brits find the organization morally corrupt, there are sure to be senators or congressmen looking for a cause (particularly during midterm elections) that will jump right on something like the Beta M situation.


 * Fae has, of course, been involved with writing or uploading sexuality-related content to Wikipedia or Commons, and has been a leading figure in WMUK. The focus on Fae in the off-wiki campaign seems to have been inextricably linked with the bid to undermine or overthrow WKUK. Cla68 called the briefing against Fae "great stuff. Peter's submission exposes Fae as a charlatan." Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal, really, but I hatted (irony duly noted!) the dialog from an external website. I'm not looking to cast aspersions on other users here. I think we've gone far enough down this branch of the road. So let me ask, then, what about the observations by Hullaballoo W. at the other page? They, also, seem reasonable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And that's how trouble gets started...there's an obvious (in-group) joke to make in response to that question which would, in Wikipedia, get me in serious trouble. But the more serious answer, I think, is that there doesn't need to be any similarity. I could speculate, of course...starting with the way that heterosexual-identifying males tend to react to gay porn...but that would add very little to what has been said already. Being a gay man is a strike against you. Interests in bondage and gay porn are additional strikes. Now that doesn't mean that Fae is blameless, simply that these act as modifiers or intensifiers for many people. Couple it with the "men's locker room" atmosphere of a place like WR, and you very quickly end up with the sort of reaction you observed. While what I'm saying is, in my mind, a plausible explanation, that doesn't mean that it's the correct explanation. The outcome may have been the same without any of these intensifiers. I have no way to test my hypothesis. Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and sorry about those edit conflicts – this is the busiest my talk has been in ages! That leads me back again to what I just re-asked above: what about the observations by Hullaballoo W. at the other page? They, also, seem reasonable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any doubt that Fae hasn't helped his cause with some of his comments. HW's comments do have some basis in fact. But if you look at where all this started, chronologically, first there was a controversy over Ash's editing of gay porn BLPs following which there was a long period of quiet while Fae gained a very solid reputation as an outstanding editor and real-world evangelist for Wikipedia. He got his adminship with an overwhelming majority (something like 87% of votes in favour). But what kicked off the current controversy? A post by Delicious carbuncle on WR that highlighted Fae's election to a position at Wikimedia UK. Politics again. Prioryman (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, this is starting to make sense to me. After all, HW cited Jimbo as someone who was bothered by Fae, so there clearly seems to be a two-way street here. But it also seems to me that this street probably had its start when Fae/Ash found himself as the target of anger directed at sex, if not specifically homophobia. That, then, descended into both "sides" being hostile to each other. I do not think that two wrongs make a right, of course, so that doesn't excuse Fae from being difficult and probably wrong on some of the editing, but I do get the feeling that the genesis of this whole thing began with some people who just didn't like sexual content and were willing to make a big fight about it. I hope someone from the other "side" will comment here if I have misunderstood the situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have been lead astray by someone. Often in discussions about Commons, someone will make the accusation that complaints about sexual images are anti-porn (or "anti-sex"). This is almost always untrue, but it is an easy way for the accuser to polarize the argument, reframe it to their advantage, and define the complainant as unreasonable. Having fallen for this tactic, it is easy to read discussions on WR or Wikipediocracy wrongly believing this to be the motivation of the participants. Having been involved in many discussions on WR, I can tell you that most of the people who have concerns about Commons or overuse of sexual images on WP are not prudes or in any way "anti-sex". For my part, I can recall encouraging Ash to create properly-sourced BLPs stubs of gay porn performers to mitigate the issue of having links in lists pointing to the wrong person. This seems like an odd thing for a homophobe or prude to do, doesn't it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose this reminds me of User:Deeceevoice. She was never one to acquiesce easily, she was never one to walk away from a fight. As an Afrocentrist, the positions she advanced weren't (usually) fringe, but it wasn't mainstream either. She ended up under arbcomm restrictions, and continued to run afoul of various admins for her "offensive" user page posts. At first glance, a troublesome editor who rebuffed a number of admins who offered to work with her. But the narrative you find in the arbcomm proceedings is a lengthy history of harassment - not just being called "nigger", but even having pictures of lynchings posted to her user page. It's easy to say that this was all just her fault, but the reality was that she was faced with a relentlessly hostile environment. So sure - she was sharp-tongued, she was rude, but would she have been any of these things without the harassment? Although I disagreed with her on content, often quite strongly, and although our first interactions were rather pointed arguments, she went on to be a good friend. We - the community - in our tolerance for harassment drive people to be the worst they can be. And then we sanction them for their behaviour. The transition from trusted editor to banned editor doesn't happen overnight, but I've seen it happen over and over. But the more pressure that it brought to bear on an editor, the less fun they are to work with. Which means, the more limited their support system on-project. As you lose your sense of connection to the community, you stop caring about the approval of the community. A former trusted member of the community flames out after using sockpuppets after he is banned. Why? Not (generally) because of some defect of character or mental health issue, but rather, because we fail to do anything about the smaller indignities visited upon editors, and instead sanction people who reach their wits end and lash out. Guettarda (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delicious carbuncle and Guettarda, thank you both. As for me being led astray, I suspect that happens often! But anyway, it's interesting to me that both of your comments, as I read them together, sound very reasonable to me. I feel very strongly that Wikipedia needs to provide a welcoming environment for all users, from all backgrounds. And we obviously have a very polarized view of whether Ash/Fae was met by an unwelcoming environment and reacted to it, or whether he was met by a welcoming one, and reacted inappropriately. I'll be interested to see what the facts end up showing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It really goes beyond the Commons issue, bleeding into conduct on Wikipedia, and touches on one of those long-standing factional disputes for Wikipedians. Basically, there are those who want to put provocative material on Wikipedia or Commons just because they can and others basically want to censor Wikipedia "for the children" or some other moralistic objection. Fæ with his current and prior account often added material (not just images) that seemed to exemplify the former mentality and that not only put him in conflict with people of the latter mentality, but also exposed him to some opposition from the people in between who think WP:NOTCENSORED is too often abused by people who really just want to fill the Internet with even more porn. What Guettarda describes is more of an already-heated dispute being amplified by bringing on people with intersecting causes. Underlying the dispute over how to deal with material some people consider offensive is a dispute over the very nature of Wikipedia that itself ties into the approach we take to developing human knowledge and the structure of society in the wider world. At the core of all this arguing about censorship is a battle for Wikipedia's soul, if you will, and people tend to hold very long grudges over such fanciful notions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. So then, if I look at it from the other side of the argument than what I've been hearing so far, would it be accurate to say that the Ash account actually "started it"? Was it simply a matter of content that pushed boundaries, or also of conduct that was unilaterally disruptive in defense of that content? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the hatting of your question on the page either. I have several concerns which is why I'm involved.  RfC's take a lot of time to put together.  If an editor does a clean start in the middle of one, then isn't completely forthcoming about it when they do an RfA, it appears that they aren't honoring WP's dispute resolution process.  The rules should apply the same way to everyone.  Also, I, like many WR and WPCY participants have a short fuse when it comes to editors who may have abused BLPs in Wikipedia.  Other editors active in this case besides Fae have been criticized at WR and WPCY for their activities with certain BLP articles in Wikipedia, and it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't very happy about it, and that may be reflected in some of the comments you have received in this thread here on your talk page.  In fact, it has been my experience that editors who have been caught abusing BLPs in Wikipedia by WR and WPCY will later express great anger towards those two sites.  Also, it appears that the WMUK has tried to help cover up this situation on behalf of Fae, or at least overlook it.  In addition, it is my opinion that WMUK's representatives were not completely accurate in their presentation to the UK government when they requested charity status.  Furthermore, the WMF and WMUK have consistently failed and refused to provide any effective leadership over the WM projects.  They try to use the work of the volunteers to further their own agendas, but decline to take any responsibility for content issues, such as BLP defamation and the adult content present in Commons.  Finally, many editors who have tried to provide Fae with feedback on his editing behavior, including with his prior accounts, have been rebuffed, either by Fae or his supporters, and in some cases were accused of "harassment" and "homophobia." Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cla, and I appreciate what you said about the hatting thing. I'm not really looking here for a rehashing of everything that has gone on over time, so much as trying to get at the origins. I think that there's an emerging picture here that the origins lie with early editing under the Ash account that may or may not have been incorrect in terms of BLP policy, and may or may not have been disruptive in terms of the NotCensored policy. What sounds very Roshomon-like to me, with different people seeing it from different "sides", is what happened in those early days. Did good faith Wikipedians find themselves accused of harassment or homophobia simply for politely pointing out errors in, for example, BLP sourcing? Or did Fae/Ash find himself being targeted for having contributed content in good faith? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I intend to demonstrate in the RFAR that the former is true, as I believe that thinly-veiled accusations of homophobia were used to discourage me (and other editors) from questioning the editing of Benjiboi and Ash. I also believe that these allegations, coupled with the subject matter, discouraged editors from getting involved in the ANI threads regarding BLPs of gay porn performers, since most people do not wish to be labelled as homophobic. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that Ash and Benjiboi did not believe the allegations they made of homophobia and harassment, but my feeling has always been that it was a disingenuous tactic to avoid scrutiny. The transition from Ash to Fæ during the RFC/U would seem to support this belief. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking with interest at what you plan to demonstrate. If there are diffs, that will be very informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read very carefully all of your evidence as of the time of my comment here, and I'm not (yet) seeing what you said above. I do see what I think are personal attacks against you by Ash (and more so by others, which are beside the point here), but your diffs so far all go to discussions that started after things had already long-since become a matter of dispute. I'm missing diffs of you originally making helpful comments to Ash, and then getting inappropriate responses to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the hard line against Fae generally comes down to his rather nasty way of playing political games, which lately have included characterizing people like me as part of a "traveling circus", some sort of lackey for Gregory Kohs, a radical conservative (I'm not, btw), a homophobic activist, and/or an apologist for homophobic activists. He doesn't do that exclusively to the WR/WY people, but he does it rather relentlessly to us. I certainly don't speak for all of the "circus members", but my particular beef is that I became quite alienated from a community and project I love after being subjected to some completely unjustified ill treatment I received from one of Wikipedia's cabals, because I didn't do what one of their "leaders" wanted me to do on a smaller WMF project. Fae and his followers seem to be doing that to other people, and I don't like to see that happen. As for Prioryman's out of context quote from me above: I absolutely support the people who contribute to Wikipedia and projects like it. I absolutely don't support people who take advantage of the contributors and use their donated money to throw parties and live the life of the jet set. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I hatted that quote because I don't want you or anyone else to feel like I'm hosting anything that's hostile to anyone. But, again, do you feel like that nastiness began with Fae, or was Fae responding in kind to what was directed at him? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By "nastiness" do you mean rancor? I think what occurred is that a few editors (I wasn't one of them) criticized one or more of Fae's earlier accounts for certain actions, and Fae and co-editor Benjiboi (who is now community banned) responded extremely defensively.  I think this story has been laid out in the evidence section.  I think when editors take the time to provide constructive feedback or criticism to someone, and are harshly rebuffed, they react by increasing the scrutiny on the editor in question.  There has been some "nasty" comments on all sides. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (after e/c) Honestly I think it's a chicken and egg sort of thing when it comes to how it all started (though Cla probably knows about the beginning of it better than I). I think the only person who could bring it to an end is Fae: really just a matter of saying "ok, my bad, I won't do xyz anymore", and then not doing it anymore which would satisfy the actual critics (the actual trolls would keep at it, but that's what trolls do). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By "nastiness", I was quoting SB Johnny's use of the word "nasty". As for who can bring it to an end, it takes two to, um, tango, so I don't really accept that it all falls on one "side's" shoulders. And as for the chicken/egg, that's what I'm trying to sort out. What starts to emerge in what I see is that, whenever we get close to answering it, either a "chicken" or an "egg" steps back from looking too closely, and instead starts to rehash more recent arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment above was more or less trying to say, in the immortal words of Billy Joel, we didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning. I do not think Ash was "targeted" in that he did do things that brought on the reaction he got and it was not malicious discrimination. It is basically a philosophical difference about what should or should not be on Wikipedia and everyone running to their respective sides of the battlefield. That difference existed before Ash started editing and is rooted in philosophical differences in society that predate Wikipedia itself. Fæ, perhaps due to his own personal experiences, has not dealt with the criticism of his actions well and this has fueled hostility towards him. At the same time, people on the other side have pursued the matter so relentlessly as to give basis for those feelings of persecution and it becomes self-affirming. That there are very real comments harassing or offensive in nature directed at him does not help the situation regardless of where those comments originate. Having experienced harassment myself in real-life and online, including here on Wikipedia, it is pretty easy to lose sight of who is part of the group harassing and who is just innocently being drawn into the dispute on the side of the majority who are inherently presumed to be right.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was very well-said, really. What has stood out to me, as someone who was not here from the early days of this dispute, is that Fae and his defenders seem to be pretty consistently civil in the RFAR (although, as I've noted in my own evidence, I've seen Fae complain elsewhere of homophobia where there was none), whereas there have been several of his detractors who have come across as consistently mean-spirited. It seems to me, as someone who has, myself, been involved in quite a few heated disagreements on Wikipedia, that it does no good to demonize those with whom one disagrees. I think that the vehemence of some of the comments about Fae does no service to those making those comments. I don't see Fae as someone who has any kind of entrenched support that would give him an "upper hand" here. Instead, I think that some (not all!) of the accusers come across as just too angry for what the situation actually is. It's one thing to present evidence of bad conduct in editing; it's another to present it in a manner that shows barely-concealed fury. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You know the phrase, "it takes two to Tango" is usually used to refer to someone becoming pregnant? Anyway, my experience with Fae's RfC was one of the most unpleasant experiences with an RfC I have ever had.  The ad hominem attacks by Fae's supporters (but not by Fae, at least, in that venue) of "harassment" and "homophobia" towards the majority who were expressing concerns with Fae's behavior, were among the worst I have ever seen in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * About the tango, yes, I was using the phrase with deliberate humor, but beyond that, I'm not going to touch that! And, in the weird universe of watching discussions on the Internet, thank you Cla for what I saw you say on another website. As for RfC/U, I'm convinced that it's a process that never works. And it was held after there had been a lot of history. But it's noteworthy, I think, that you point out that Fae himself wasn't an attacker there (although I guess it could be replied that he didn't really participate). I'm making the case that bad experiences aren't a good reason to keep on being angry. (It's only a website!) I said above to DC that I look forward to seeing diffs from early on, but I get the feeling that there has been too much personalization of the objections to the edits that Ash had made. And I'm going to log out very soon, so good night to those who are commenting on my talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This link amuses me quite a bit! . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the subject of the dynamics of WR and Wikipediocracy, I've noticed that there seem to be three distinct groups of users over there:


 * Perfectly normal Wikipedians who don't have an axe to grind and use the forums in a sincere attempt at outreach and discussion;
 * Disgruntled Wikipedians who have some issue of major disagreement with Wikipedia;
 * Banned or indefinitely blocked users.


 * It's notable that both forums were founded by people in the latter group and it's always seemed to me that their most basic function has been to serve as a kind of support group for banned users. The banned and disgruntled users certainly seem to dominate in many threads.


 * The positions towards Wikipedia taken by the banned and disgruntled seem to fall into a number of overlapping categories:


 * Opposition to Wikipedia in its entirety (the "Wikipedia must die" viewpoint)
 * Opposition to some of Wikipedia's current policies (e.g. BLP, treatment of sensitive images)
 * Opposition to Wikipedia's corporate management (e.g. the WMF, associated groups such as Wikimedia UK)
 * Opposition to specific individuals on Wikipedia (e.g. Jimbo Wales, the admins who banned them)


 * People have a right to express reasoned disagreement, but my problem with both forums is that a lot of the commentary is nutty, malicious or both. I'll give you a personal example. When the British Library organised a six-month "Wikipedian in residence" programme earlier this year, a WR contributor claimed that it was some kind of sweetheart deal arranged for me by Fae . In another post - as part of an entire thread started about me - there was a claim that there had been some kind of impropriety about me requesting a couple of microgrants from Wikimedia UK. Over on Wikipediocracy, the currently blocked User:Bali ultimate is claiming that Fae was linked to the microgrants and that Fae was responsible for supposedly awarding a grant to Lord Roem, who's co-clerking the current arbitration case, to enable the latter to travel to the US. (Considering that Lord Roem is a resident of the US this would be somewhat redundant.) Right on this page, SB Johnny puts forward another popular WR/Wikipediocracy conspiracy theory - "I absolutely don't support people who take advantage of the contributors and use their donated money to throw parties and live the life of the jet set".


 * Put bluntly, this is fucking nuts. What I find really striking is that nobody ever seems to call these people out on how whacko their ideas are. Nobody ever seems to challenge them and say, "look, you're making really serious claims of corruption, but where is your evidence?" It's all supposition and conspiracy theories, the truth of which just seems to get taken for granted. It looks to me like a classic case of episystemic closure, where individuals operate in an ideological echo chamber and reinforce each others' crazy ideas without any correction or connection with reality. Prioryman (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I remind Prioryman that the interaction ban with Delicious Carbuncle has NOT been lifted (taking the opportunity to remind DC also, but so far I'm not seeing problems from him). Prioryman, your several references to DC in this thread are problematic in respect of the ban. I believe desisting now from further discussing matters relating to DC is going to be your best option, before someone lists the matter elsewhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're quite right. I've amended my post accordingly. Prioryman (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, Elen, and I will hope that I will be treated as leniently should I slip up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever calls these people out? Bali ultimate was called out on it. Moreover, he realised he was wrong, and publicly apologised for his unwarranted assumption, two days ago. -- J  N  466  15:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but that doesn't address why Bali ultimate came up with that conspiracy theory in the first place. One would think that someone who claims to be a reporter would know about the importance of sourcing his claims. Prioryman (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem appears to be that a Wikipedia user, makes out a rather involved conspiracy scenario implicating another Wikipedia user, apparently in connection with an ongoing arbitration matter and their volunteer functioning there. So, that allegation didn't work out, does one just move on to the next one, and say, oh well, sorry? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good Lord, it's not as though Wikipedia were free of this sort of thing. I've demonstrated that Bali was called out, retracted his claim, and apologised. -- J N  466  18:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to put down a few ground rules about the discussion I've started here. I'd rather it not become a discussion of external websites, regardless of whether those websites are discussing the discussion here (yes, I know that they are, and it strikes me as coming dangerously close to canvassing). You could get me going about Something Awful, and believe me I'd have some awful things to say, but that's not going to accomplish anything here. And, I'm going to repeat that I don't want to hear back-and-forth blame about who did what to whom as the conflict continued. What I am asking about is how the conflict began. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, consider my posting above as background, in that case. The original controversy with Ash happened way back in, I think, early 2010. As Fae, he's edited very successfully - a fact recognised by the 128 editors who voted for him in his RFA - and subsequently performed very successfully as an admin. Off-wiki, he's certainly done a great deal for Wikimedia UK. The issues with his RFA do not seem to have been raised until November 2011, when the campaign I've documented in evidence kicked off on WR. The evidence cited against him concerning his conduct all seems to date to the period after his previous account was highlighted on WR. Since then we've had a huge amount of controversy on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, an RFC/U, and now the present arbitration case, which is likely to result in sanctions against a number of people.


 * My question is a simple one: what has actually been gained from all of this? Consider the position as of November 2011: on one hand, Fae was a highly regarded, highly effective Wikipedian doing really good work for the project. On the other hand, someone had found an issue with his RFA, even though there was no evidence that he'd abused his adminship. What would have been the better course of action at that point? - to be pragmatic and say, "OK, there was an issue here a long time ago, but it's harmless now and he's doing a lot of good", or to go all out to bring him down? Obviously the latter is what actually happened. But what possible benefit has any of this obtained? It seems to me, looking back at the situation last November, that some people took a decision that it simply didn't matter how much good he had done. Because there was some kind of a problem in the past, which wasn't causing anyone any present harm, that was enough reason to go in and blow everything up. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. But let's be precise about cause and effect. This is only background to some extent; it isn't really the origins. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if something might have been going on before this, but someone on WO has researched a bit of the early history. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 14:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll admit to having seen it yesterday when it was first posted there, and I read it with interest. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that this hasn't been presented on the Evidence page of the case here. For that matter, I'm disappointed that this discussion is taking place on my talk page, and not at the case talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean... I've had my talk pages be used for debates as well, and the "new messages" bar does get tiresome. I had thought about putting that post up on the evidence page, but I'm not sure if it's open for anybody to add to or just the "new parties". I also think she might be a "banned user" (though honestly I'm not sure), and you might have noticed that I have at least a couple sharks in the water looking in my direction ;-). I doubt she'd mind if you were to add it, assuming the page is still open for new stuff. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can put up with the new messages, but my concern has been that what we are discussing here really should be, instead, on one of the Arb case talk pages. That hatting was a severe error of judgment. I'm done with presenting my own evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've previously addressed most of this Requests_for_comment/Fæ; since that time Fae's behavior has been disruptive; which he pretty much admits Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence,Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Wikipedians are supposed to be adults and Fae (and everyone else) should be responsible for their own conduct regardless. Nobody Ent 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nobody Ent, but I think you are answering a different question than the one I have been asking. Yes, I know that this was what you said at the RfC/U, but how does it get to the origins of the anger against Fae (as opposed to the continuation of the perception that there has been an ongoing need for dispute resolution)? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was answering It's about the way that those users who feel negatively about Fae's conduct have come to feel the way that they do. I guess I'll expand that by saying that, in my opinion, he implies things about those oppose him without actually coming out and saying it, and when challenged, backs down. e.g. The WQA he was in where he struck out all his contributions. See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751. Notice the false implication I didn't have a problem with the terms liar or turd? I characterize DR into three categories; escalates, neutral or de-escalates. In my observation Fae is often in the former. Nobody Ent 21:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying; I guess I was a little slow the first time. Yes, that fills in a gap for me. So Fae has a style of reacting to disputes that tends to escalate the dispute, and that in turn gives rise to anger against him. Yes, that's consistent with things that I have seen myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits at WP Notability
Hello, I started to write this on the talk page over at WP Notability. However, I just want to give you a quick response. In regards to your question (or concern) --- your edit is part of the proposals. If you go through the proposals you will see that "Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability..." is mentioned twice in the proposals and reccomended by at least one editor. If there are other edits that were missed please let us know. I think it is important that we are being fair to everyone involved. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this note. I appreciate it! Yes, I did realize that you were already aware that my edit got caught up in the revert, and that you had already posted on the talk page about whether or not there was consensus to put it back. I'm very satisfied with the discussion that is happening now. No worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dumb question
Hey there! I have a strange question to ask. I have been awarded a couple of barnstars. I would like to organize them in a nice way. The problem is that they are of different width. How can I make them of equal width? The awards are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nataev. Nataev (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * [talk page stalker] I've fixed them for you (I hope). Best, -- J  N  466  18:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayen, good work! I appreciate your taking care of it. Nataev, please feel free to ask me in the future about anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha! Awesome! Thanks guys! Nataev (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae workshop
FYI, got a couple of questions for you under your proposed remedies. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied. (And I'm logging off now for today.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little hurt
I'm a little hurt by this comment here, though I do acknowledge that you tried to be fair and even-handed. Fae never accused me of being insensitive to LGBT issues, and it was actually my defense of you after you used the term that drew Fae's ire.

I think you can make your point (that Fae is a positive contributor on the Clementi article) without trying to paint me as arguably insensitive to LGBT issues or people.LedRush (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was very worried that anything that I would say would end up with someone feeling hurt, and I'm sorry that you feel this way. I'm going to comment on it some more, there. But please understand that my intended meaning was not that you are insensitive to LGBT people. What I tried (successfully or not) to communicate was that someone thinking that you are insensitive is an error, but an error that someone could make without being entirely off the wall. You were arguing, for mostly good BLP reasons, against perspectives that were being widely promoted in the media by LGBT people and their sympathizers. That made it look as though you were arguing against the positions of the LGBT community, even though you weren't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I'd still prefer you make the argument that Fae can contribute effectively (or has) without referencing my views. After all, he went after me for explaining your use of term "homophobia", not for any views I espoused (at least, he hasn't made any such claim).LedRush (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That ship has sailed. . Oh well.  I really hoped my posting here would stop the posting of this stuff there.  I was even in the process of suggesting that you delete some of your comment and I delete all of mine, giving you the last word but taking out your statement that people can construe my edits as being against LGBT persons.  Again, oh well...LedRush (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope we will work together successfully in the future. In the mean time, please take a deep breath, and realize that I'm not saying anything so awful about you, just that other people have been construing your edits that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people have been. I don't believe such a view is justifiable based on my editing record, but I can't control what others' think.  I've not had an editor tell me they have been contruing my edits that way.  Maybe they have and they talk to you about it when I'm not around.   However, I don't know that Fae has ever made any such observation or accusation about me (he hasn't to me, anyway).  His accusation was based on your use of the term.
 * I'm sure that we will continue to work together successfully in the future. I'm not happy that this topic takes up so much space on the project page, but you're right that you're not saying horrible things about me, even if I disagree with what you're saying.LedRush (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Peace. Please. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not you :-)
I didn't have you in mind with that last comment and I appreciate the effort you and Moddoc both put in in responding to my posts. I'll take on board what you have both said and see if I can put together something useful in a month or so. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem, and I wasn't really worried that you meant me. Rather, I just thought I'd point out what I did. And let me add, very sincerely, that I, in turn, appreciate the work that you have been putting into the page, and especially your expertise on the historical aspects about which I know very little. I'm happy to see a capable new editor such as you on board. Do please feel free to drop me a note any time if you have any questions about anything around here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations
Hello again Tryptofish. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk
Hi Tryptofish, I'm struggling to understand your edit. The external link doesn't contain the interview (but does link to one), and I was close to adding the domain to the ban list anyhow making the point moot. The linked interview may be of interest, but you may want to check any copyright or any other issues with it before adding it. These deceptive spam links have been lurking in WP for years now, lets get over them?! Widefox (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's OK, please feel free to revert me if that's the case. I didn't look into it that deeply, and if that website is violating a copyright, then it's fine with me to delete it. I had just figured that it makes sense on a BLP page to include ELs to interviews with the BLP subject, and the fact that the link had been put there by someone who also happened to be a spammer didn't seem like a good enough reason to remove it, if it contained useful information. I appreciate that you went to the trouble of checking with me; that's very nice of you, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar from North8000
The Original Barnstar


 * Thanks! That's very nice of you. (As you know, we already had a parallel conversation at your talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in terms and articles
Hi. It has come to my attention that the articles on domestic animals are extremely variable in their content and structure, yet these are probably the animal species for which we have the most verifiable and encyclopaedic information. Looking at the 'Contents' lists of these articles gives an indication of this. There does not even seem to be consistency in the use of the titles 'Domestic (animal name)' or 'Domesticated (animal name)'. Is it worth trying to get consistency here in the articles and their titles? I would be willing to try this myself, so I am asking more for your opinion on whether this might be possible, or would I simply encounter a mass of differing points of view? DrChrissy (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being interested in my opinion, and my apologies for a rather delayed answer – my modem hit the dust, and it took me about a day to get back on line. I guess it depends on what kinds of edits you propose to make. I actually don't follow those pages (other than aquarium fish, which I doubt you are talking about), and I got interested in the list page where we've been talking lately because I follow animal rights and animal welfare pages. I have no doubt that there are lots of editors who have pretty strong feelings when it comes to how to write about their favorite pet species, so you might indeed get a strong reaction if you rub someone the wrong way. It's amazing how there can be editorial disagreements over things that one would think are non-controversial. One bit of advice I can think of is to look on the talk pages of those articles, and see if there is a link to a WikiProject near the top. I suspect that in most cases there will be. Then, you should go to the WikiProject project pages, and scope out what kinds of discussions about consistency and style they have already had. I'd also recommend looking through the article talk pages, including the talk page archives. I think that if you spend some time doing that first, you will come to have a feel for what will be accepted, and what will meet resistance. And, if you are unsure about how an edit will be received, it's always a good idea to raise it on the article (or WikiProject) talk page first, and see what other editors say. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I really didn't expect that! I'm glad what I did helped, although I still think that the page has a lot of problems. Actually, topics related to neural coding are a strong personal interest of mine, and I wish that I could find more time to improve the articles in that subject area. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure center
Gah, how did I manage to do that? Thanks for silently fixing my stupidity. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My, um, pleasure! Actually, no big deal at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and you are very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --KarlB (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to see that it has already yielded the right result while I was offline, which is always nice news. Thank you for following through on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I glad you are asking questions at ArbCom
The hypothetical scenario I'm wondering about is this--What if a journalist for a major news outlet were hanging out with people who have caused distress to other users here in the past? What if a number of people off of Wikipedia had been looking at everything Fae has ever done and telling the journalist? What if there's nothing criminal in Fae's past, would Fae still possibly have a privacy concern? I think that's possible. What if Fae re-used a username on Wikipedia in the past which Fae used long ago in some other context? Perhaps that context could have been viewing legal porn. In all seriousness I have NO reason to think that ever happened. Sticking with this hypothetical situation, what if Fae simply would not like to have an article focused on Fae in a major news outlet describing which porn images Fae once viewed from some very old non-Wikipedia account? In those circumstances, and others I imagine, I could understand Fae speaking to a WMF staffer Fae knows and whose job title has the word "advocate" in it. I could also understand Fae asking that staffer to advocate for Fae for privacy reasons to ArbCom so that some accounts in his Wikipedia past were not revealed to a journalist writing a story for a major news outlet. It's a bunch of guesswork on my part, but it is what I'm wondering about in my own head. NewtonGeek (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated. I guess I don't know what to say about your hypothetical scenario, because it is, indeed, very hypothetical. I'm still trying to understand what the real situation is, which is what my questions are directed towards. (By the way, please feel free to ask me a question here any time! Hopefully I can usually give a better answer than the one I just gave!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind offer. I probably will ask you questions about unrelated matters sometime in the future. I'm new and trying to learn to ropes. I'm hoping your questions get answered. Balancing a user's need for privacy and safety with understanding what has gone on does not lend itself to a perfect solution. Though I invented that scenario, I believe there is an actual reporter who is writing or has written an actual article. NewtonGeek (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

View 13
Thanks for catching this - it could have been awkward if people had started replying. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 13 could have been an unlucky number indeed. I felt a little awkward acting like I was taking charge, but I figured someone needed to WP:BEBOLD quickly. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RexRowan (talk • contribs) 19:48, July 20, 2012‎


 * Thank you. However, my name isn't even close to "Michael", so I hope that you really did mean this message for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a guess, I am trying to use my logic to guess about people as I lack of the theory of mind. I hope it didn't make you angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexRowan (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not at all angry! Please don't worry about that. (As it happens, I make a strong effort never to leave any clues on-Wiki as to my real life identity, and your mis-guess actually does quite a good job of throwing any self-appointed detectives off the track!) It was very nice of you to comment here, and the tea really hit the spot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted a message for NAO Robotics to gather interest from autistic children's parents in a Facebook group. My message got deleted because the group officer said I used a alias. I am very confused and a little sad, does it matter that much? I was only trying to help. I don't have concept of how social hierarchy is organized, I guess the group organizer wanted me to go through her instead of speak to the group directly. Anyhow, would you be my friend? I am interested in autism related topics, also I suspect I may be a savant but not sure. If you visit my website on my user page, you will see some paintings and stuff I've done. Have a great weekend! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexRowan (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel bad, but if I understand you correctly, this happened on Facebook, not Wikipedia. If that's the case, there's nothing I can do about it (and I'm an old fogie who never registered on Facebook). Enjoy your weekend, too! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Given your interests, you might want to get in touch with User:ThatPeskyCommoner, because she has similar interests and is a very nice person. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have made a contact. :D


 * Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Animal rights
Hi, I would like to have some of your opinions of adding science in animal rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZvH7N5n8 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (I've moved your comment down here, per the standard Wikipedia practice of keeping talk pages in chronological order, with the newest sections at the bottom.) I can give a long answer indeed to your short question! I, too, am a scientist by training, and I got interested in animal rights related pages here early in my editing history. I was originally drawn to them because I saw that there were WP:NPOV issues that needed to be corrected, in that there was what I consider to be an anti-science bias that I have long worked to correct. Specifically, I am referring here to a bias against scientific research using laboratory animals. It's a fact that animal right proponents oppose animal research, but it is bad editing to frame that perspective in Wikipedia's own voice. Anyway, my impression from the discussion at Talk:Animal rights is that you have a somewhat different concern, but please correct me if I misunderstand. It sounds to me like you are talking about scientific methods of describing where the animal rights movement comes from, or scientific methods of quantifying animal rights. Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't really get what that means. But if you have secondary sources, especially scholarly ones, that back this up, then that would be a good thing to include in the page. If, on the other hand, you are talking about criticism of animal rights, it's important to differentiate between criticism of the concept, which could be appropriate for the page, and criticism of the actions of its proponents, which would better fit at pages about the proponents (persons or organizations) themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just saw what you seem to be talking about, and I have problems with it, which I will explain there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just replied on the talk page, you are right, I mean using scientific methods (numbers)  describing things to do with animal rights with precision, pro or against it does not matter much. I noticed your science interests, that is why I drop the line. I was disapponted that this article is not up-to-date with scientific research methods. Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZvH7N5n8 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I added more secondary sources. If you need secondary source for more specific information. Please let me know. BTW, I think animal research is one of the major issue. But the anti animal research campaign of PETA is unscientific in many ways. SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded there. I realize that you are a new editor, and I also have the impression that English may not be your first language. I would very much encourage you to take it slow, and make sure that you understand Wikipedia's policies, especially with regard to sourcing and formatting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have respond your concern of Darwin. Do you have other concerns of the science section? Evolution is just one part of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZvH7N5n8 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not look OK to me. I'll explain there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And, please, sign your talk page comments, there and here. It gets very annoying to follow your comments when they are unsigned, and all that accomplishes is to make other editors take you less seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Good edits at "Animal Welfare" and "PETA". Better than my hamfisted approach. I had misread Shelter Animals as Animal Shelters. Glad you caught the mistake. Gulbenk (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the kind words! I'm glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Newbie trying to contribute
Hello Tryptofish, thank you very much for your welcome about my contribution to the Neurotransmission article and for your support offer. I would like to contribute to this section, as I am currently doing a PhD in animal behavior and welfare, so I am around these pages quite often, searching for links mainly. I am a veterinary surgeon currently working for the UK government, although my mother tongue is Spanish. I have noticed that there is no any in Spanish article for Neurotransmission, yet i.e. would be "Neurotransmision" and felt quite frustrated about it, as my champion in the subject, Santiago Ramon y Cajal was the creator of the Neuronal Theory. I would like to help making the translation of this page, but I don't really know how this works. Could you please give me some guidance? I am not even sure if this is the right way to ask about these things, if you are not happy with this comments here, please feel free to delete it. Thanks GabrielFreiria — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielFreiria (talk • contribs) 12:39, July 21, 2012‎
 * Hi, this is exactly the right place and the right way in which to ask me, and I welcome your question and am very happy to try to answer! I'm not much of an expert in translation here, but let me point you to where the instructions are for going about that: Translation and Translate us. I think the second one may be particularly what you are looking for. I hope that you can find the answers you are seeking there, but if you still have questions after reading those two pages, please feel free to come back here and ask me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks you are a gentleman. I saw those, buy was quite difficult to do it with it because I have got an English user, so my sand pit is for English articles. However I did it anyway in the old fashion way, just writing everything down again. I had some issues with spelling and special characters that a Spanish editor amended, because of my keyboard and other stuff. It was a good exercise because I know how to write an article from new and on top of that there is a Spanish link for Neurotransmission now. I may write you again, one of these days, as I've joined the Neurocience group that you suggested. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.172.170 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit taken aback
to see my "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message removed with an edit summary that bluelinked NPA. I can see absolutely no sense in which that message could possibly be misconstrued as a personal attack, nor can I see any way in which it's better or less BITE-y to use a SPA-tag instead. What gives?— S Marshall T/C 11:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you don't feel too badly about it, because it wasn't my intention to make you feel bad. I'll accept that it was a rather poor choice of edit summary on my part (although I guess I could wiki-lawyer that, technically, you were commenting on the editor, not the edit). But look at it this way. If you can, understandably, feel taken aback by my edit summary, then I think that other editor could likewise feel taken aback by what, in context, was clearly a sarcastic comment by you. You weren't really welcoming them, were you? Obviously, you were commenting sarcastically on their de novo appearance at the RfC, and you were drawing attention to it. And, because we already discussed this exact subject at the mediation page where the RfC is being organized, you should have known that the SPA-tag exists and is available for use. I have no opinion as to whether the tag is less bitey, more bitey, or equally bitey, but it has the advantage of being a consensus way to deal with such situations. And particularly importantly, you should also be aware that it is my opinion that the RfC must be conducted in a way that will give no openings to those who want to disrupt it. I can readily imagine the people who disrupted the last RfC looking at this one and crying crocodile tears about sarcastic comments directed as supposedly good faith respondents. And after all, you could have saved me a few minutes if you had simply put in the tags yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I'll defend that. I do use irony for humorous effect fairly often, but not with new users: I don't know them and can't trust that they'll detect the joke.  It's true that I was looking for a way to draw attention to the user's lack of track record.  I wanted to do so without making a judgment about the value of the user's contributions to this debate.  The SPA-tag is a bit of a blunt instrument, clearly meant to diminish the weight given to a particular user's opinion.  I wanted to use something less directly demeaning and more, well, welcoming, I suppose...— S Marshall  T/C 23:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I fully accept that that is what you intended, and that I misunderstood it. I really don't think this issue is worth discussing any longer. I really mean it when I say that I don't want you to feel bad about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, no problem. Drawing a line under it now. :-)— S Marshall  T/C 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time
... or perhaps: A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

Anyway I was a reader of Wikipedia literally for years before finally creating an account. And before I did, I did a bit of "research" into reading the "backroom" pages first and of course, after.

And I distinctly remember some mumbles about me when I commented in some discussion, and had (I thought, at least) a partial clue about policy.

I'm not saying that this applies to any current situation, I just was thinking back to then, and how I would have felt about having all my comments tagged.

Personally, I've long wished that there was a non-controversial way to deal with socking in discussions. Maybe have a Wikipedia-wide thing, similar to a filter. But instead of filtering out certain edits, doing an automatic checkuser of everyone in a particular discussion, and posting the "duplicates" (the socks) on some error report. No, it wouldn't help us deal with editors who use alternate accounts solely for expressing what they may consider "unpopular opinion" (presuming we even care to), but it, I think, would be a step forward. - jc37 22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment about it here. And I guess you can see an alternative take on the subject in the talk thread immediately above this one. And, for that matter, a couple of the threads above that show that I, too, am interested in being welcoming, and not bitey, to new editors (those threads come from new editors to whom I gave "welcome to Wikipedia" messages, never templates). As I recollect, my own first edit, or something close to first, was speedy deleted, but I learned from it. And early on, I definitely had a very bitey experience with a well-established administrator. But it's a complicated thing, about socking and canvassing (the latter actually the bigger potential issue in this RfC). I suspect that there's a lot of canvassing that happens via e-mail and the like, that no one ever finds out about. But there really was a lot of bad will following the previous RfC, over what was seen as an improper disruption of it (by the same person I had the bitey experience with, come to think of it!), so a lot of the editors I worked with in drafting this RfC have been hyper-vigilant about any whiff of it happening again. Anyway, please don't worry that I felt bad about what we discussed at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Note to self: Determine what things Tryptofish was in support of and make sure that it isn't in the final decision)
 * Chuckle : )
 * (For anyone else watching, the above was humour. As I know Tryptofish knows, I would never bias a discussion close like that.)
 * No, I don't feel bad. And I hope you don't either. I find I live a life of clarification when it comes to WP.
 * And nod, I'm not a regular welcomer either. In welcoming newcomers in the past, I've liked a few templates due to the extra helpful links in them, but some would seem to be a bit beyond the needs of a newbie. Personally, I think a link to explain exactly how to cite/reference something would be my number one request, even now I sometimes have to look up how-to : )
 * Anyway, thanks for clarifying. - jc37 23:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to lurk, but reinforcing what Tryptofish said, what happened in the previous RFC on this immensely affects all of our thoughts. As someone who has taken heat defending/helping newbies and their minor transgressions, the last thing we want to do is bite actual newbies.  I see what Tryptofish did as a graceful finger in the dike on the first instance of such things (probable non-newbies) at this RFC with the intent of avoiding being forced into less graceful things should such grow. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc37, fully understood. And North, thanks very much for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar : ) - jc37 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Suicide by bridge" and Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi
Hello, Tryptofish,

Today, you shortened the title of an article I posted in the External links section. Your edit summary reads: "The full title, including all-caps, seems unnecessarily gruesome and lengthy, so I've summarized what the EL is about." I get your drift.

At the same time, I respectfully request that you consider the fact that the title aptly supports the objective of the article (and of my posting it), namely: to communicate the grim fact that suicide by bridge IS gruesome! It's important to not sugarcoat that.

In deference to your editorial judgment, I will shorten the original, verbose article title to "Suicide by bridge is gruesome", parenthesize the series title, and write the latter in title case rather than caps. I hope this compromise will be mutually agreeable. Froid 01:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, again. I just read the little box at the top of your talk page. Would you please respond at MY talk page?  Thanks. Froid 01:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Let's keep everything in one place...I'll look for your response right here. Froid 01:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's fine. It's a good solution, and I'm entirely satisfied with that. Thanks for asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)