Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Colony Collapse Disorder

Where's the dispute?
Tim Vickers has enlisted the aid of a friend, Smartse, to erase a science study (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8436) that applies to Colony Collapse Disorder.

I do not know Tim Vickers. Please do not accuse me of acting on behalf of him.Smartse (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As the author states it is an essay not a study. I personally don't think it is a reliable source. For example in the conclusion it states "The proof is obvious that one of the major reasons of the bees’ decline is by the ingestion of GMO proteins". The essay provides no evidence for this however. Smartse (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Med Decision: The deletion of the http://www.globalresearch.ca source is merited. As stated at WP:RS (please read), the sources need to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Until that can be shown, the main dispute is closed, though it seems there are various side disputes ongoing.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this in reference to GlobalResearch or to the Universtity of Jena study dirested by Professor Katz?--KeepItEven (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Likewise - if i understand this correctly - then the article (citation 10) should also be erased as it doesn't recognize Colony Collapse Disorder at all.--KeepItEven (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the dispute?
Tim Vickers has enlisted the aid of a friend, Smartse, to erase a science study that applies to Colony Collapse Disorder.

"Tim Vickers has enlisted the aid of a friend, Smartse" This is not the case I have never heard of Tim Vickers Smartse (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I've never heard of you either, Smartse. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Smartse knows Tim Vickers, or Tim Vickers knows Smartse, or KeepitEven knows both is irrelevant to the main dispute.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a retaliation for a comment i made on his talk page - ironically - calling him on a conflict of interest he has.

I followed Smartse advice at first - but in trying to be reasonable with her/him - and asked her/him why he/she doesn't follow her/his own 'rules' - i recieved no response to my questions - and the erasure and edits continued with unreasonable admonishments.

Yes, i am new at this - simply answering my questions would have opened up the dialogue and could have resolved what is now a dispute.

I have followed Smartse advice - but that advice is not evenly applied in the entry to all contributors.

I understand that Tim Vickers is the co-ordinator for the Genetic wiki project.

Colony Collapse Disorder is under the Agriculture Project.

What amazes me is that a biochemist (Vickers) will not recognize the evidence presented by Professor Katz in the University of Jena study regarding GMO. I believe he has a conflict of interest - and should be removed as an (moderator?/editor?) of the Colony Collapse Disorder entry.

Thank You.

Issue#1 by KIE
This started when i made remarks (on his talk page) to Mr.Vicker about possible conflict of interest regarding his biography of Dr. Wan Ho... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

The article isn't balanced. I later tried to find the original comment i made to him on his talk page but couldn't. I was going to explain the intent of my original remarks - that he probably didn't like being admonished 'privately' and that his 'bio' of her was much worse - publicly persecuting her for her Ethics. He does not state this directly, but the intent is clear the way the article is written. He states that the Institute she helped create is a 'special interest' and i added one word - 'unethical' - that wasn't there before in his statement:

"Ho is the director of the The Institute of Science in Society, an interest group that campaigns against what it sees as unethical uses of biotechnology.[6]"

that one word i added changed meaning greatly and made it balanced about the Institute she helped create.

Seeing that he is a biochemist, this appears to be unethical to me - a conflict of interest - and i believe he has allowed his bias to get the best of him.

I clicked on the links in his bio of her over 'the controversy' about the 'bad science' she did. after reading the linked article, I discovered it wasn't a science paper itself - rather - it was a science journel op-ed review she had written citing other works.

Since then, Mr.Vickers (and his pals) have removed every edit i made on CCD being possibly linked to GMO as an original (source) cause - even when backed by scientific studies. Again, he appears to have a conflict of interest - or - this is his way of 'paying me back' for calling him on his lack of ethics.

Reply#1 by
What happened to AGF? I see Tim has been terribly evil by reverting one edit onColony Collapse Disorder because he felt it wasn't a reliable source. I agree with him. It's up to the editor adding it to show that it is a reliable source. As for being given a 3R warning, any editor might have given that as KeepItEven was at 3R. KeepItEven appears to be a newbie and I guess should be given some slack, but also needs to learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works before throwing around accusations.

Hi Doug,

I agree - and if you look at the CCD Talk - i did ask qustions of my fellow contibutors - and recieved no reponse to those questions. Thank you--KeepItEven (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue#2
The CCD entry was written in such a manner (before i added to it)that the cause could be anything EXCEPT for GMO. Again - as he is a biochemist and director of the Genetic Wiki Project - this seems to be a blatant case of conflict of interest.


 * Mediate: You said at top that "Tim" was the "co-ordinator for the Genetic wiki project." You should have sent to the noticeboard, but it's done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tim_Vickers

If i add additional articles to the GMO section of CCD - will they be erased?

If you look at the talk section of CCD - i can be blunt - but i'm not getting straight answers and the subterfuge of requiring me to link to science papers when he doesn't (nor his pals) don't - look at reference (10).

I get Mr.Vickers message: "Do as i say not as I do." [It needs to be linked]

-Not sure how to respond - i'll answer in both context of 'needs to linked'...

I understand that contributions need to be linked - and i have been doing that - so Mr.Vickers and Smartse ar beating a dead horse here - I have linked all my contributions - which they erased anyway. If your refering to linking Mr.Vickers message to me - i was using that as a figure of speech of how he appears to conduct himself when there is a conflict of interest (my experience with him here)--KeepItEven (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He has accused me of an edit war - i think he should look in the mirror.

Thank You--KeepItEven (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply#2 by Smartse
As I have stated above I do not know Tim Vickers. I posted an article last week from the BBC that I felt added balance to the article. I then visited the page again and found it had been deleted and replaced with a sentence regarding a GM study. One of the links provided was dead and I did not feel that the other agreed with the sentence posted. (It had been quoted but with the end of the sentence, which placed doubt on the whole conclusion, not there). I felt it should therefore be deleted. After KIE kept deleting my post I moved KIE's post to the GM section and replaced mine. KIE then redeleted my post once again. Smartse (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue#3
Smartse is lying. She never moved my contribution to the GMO section - she simply erased it (see CCD talk). I guess she didn't believe i would scroll down and check to see if she had actually moved it. Again, she didn't - she just erased it and I then reposted it in the GM section myself.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colony_Collapse_Disorder&diff=276356356&oldid=276287185 I did post it to the GM section Smartse (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, apparently, someone else erased it and i had to repost it. Granted, when you stated in talk that you had moved it, and then i checked and it wasn't there, i assumed you were yanking my chain. My Mistake. I'll have to go back and analyse the history. Thank You--KeepItEven (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Smartse claims one was a dead link - i don't beleive this to be true.

Apologies - the link (http://www.mol-ecol.uni-halle.de/staff/kaatz-hh/) had not been working but now is. I don't see how this is a citaation however. Smartse (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smatse, you don't have to apoligize if it was just a misunderstanding. I think you can understand my frustration. As for it being a citation - he appears to be an expert on bees, as noted in the article linked to. I could not find the original science paper for the University of Jena study as you had requested - but then - many citations from other contributors on the CCD wiki do not link to the orginal science papers - only articles. I do not feel i should be held to a standard that no one else is following. Thank You--KeepItEven (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a little digging here - Smartse is student from Britian, Vickers is biochemist graduate from Scotland , and Dr.Wans institute is based in the United Kingdom. I believe i may have blundered not on differeing point of view - but some kind of political campaign being played out in the UK and having an impact on Balanced contributions in the CCD Wiki.


 * Please explain this further "some kind of political campaign being played out in the UK and having an impact on Balanced contributions in the CCD Wiki" Smartse (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Smartse,

I'm taking an educated guess here - and it's more in reference as i'm trying to understand why independent science studies aren't being allowed on the CCD wiki - iow - balance.--KeepItEven (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to the CCD talk - i spoke to Smartse about erasing my contribution completely - i then checked BOTH links (as i have this saved i just cut and pasted it back in) I made no modification to the original before reposting it.

THE RESULT : Both links worked just fine.

Therefore i believe Smartse statement that one of the links was broke is false. I believe she (I'm male Smartse (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)) only made that statement as a rationalized excuse for erasing the post and to (as we say in the military) cover her -ss syndrome. that's not good.

As to the sentence and link at the top that she refers to (10) - click on it - as per what she told me - it not a science paper but an article refering to such - she told me this wasn't allowed (look at CCD talk). If this is true; when other contibutors start following suit, then so will I.  Maybe Mr.Vickers and Smartse can lead by example on that one.

Last - the link (10) leads to an article that makes a circular argument, essentially paraphrased: "We have Colony Collapse Disorder, however, there is no disorder." That doesn't make any sense.

and again, according to Smartse, link (10) shouldn't be there because it doesn't link to a science paper. See CCD talk - his words - not mine.

I have no problem sourcing contibutions. I just happen to be one of those people that also clicks on those links and actually reads the articles they are refering to.

Thank you for sending the conflict of interest to its proper section - i'm new and still learning how things work here.--KeepItEven (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

--99.155.85.129 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello to all concerned, I have blundered this far along and may as well blunder on to the bloody end. I’m now torn over Mr.Vickers. After my last post to this mediation, I found this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=print

It would appear I have blundered into something much bigger than some political campaign in the UK over Colony Collapse Disorder. This article struck me because I have been told that the independent science studies that I have posted to the Colony Collapse Disorder wiki are invalid. That my contributions weren’t science papers.

It didn’t make any sense to me for Science is Science. That is, until I read the above article. As to Mr.Vickers, on one hand, I have some empathy. I understand the damage from ethical amibiguity when one is told to follow an unlawful order. However, we all know the difference between right and wrong. And I believe I have a better understanding why (article above) the independent studies I contributed were constantly erased. HOWEVER - No one is the ‘science police’.

Since this is a ‘point of view’ dispute as per Wiki standards as I understand it – here is my pov: I’m a Gulf War Veteran – I have been intensely trained in CBR (chemical, biological, and radiological) warfare.

While Mr.Vickers may have a great deal of theoretical knowledge in biochemistry, I have the practical experierence of CBR… I understand that Wiki are not to be used for original research – I have not done this. Rather, I am simply trying to contribute the evidence from independent science studies regarding CCD. People can then draw their own conclusions. In light of the article above – here is my conclusion – which I will not post to the CCD wiki. However, I may yet post links to the independent studies.

And yes, my point of view reflects that intense training in CBR…

On the USDA website is a powerpoint  slide show showing how BTcorn essentially destroys the guts of the cutworm – basically- the cutworms guts explode.

The article from Global research shows evidence (pictures) that Bee’s intestinal tracks are being damaged by GMO. Mr.Katz, director of the University of Jena study, theorizes from his study that GMO is damaging the bee’s intestinal track, allowing parasite invasion.

All studies show that bee’s remaining in a hive after the mass exodus of CCD have their immune systems greatly compromised.

Conclusion: It’s correct that the Disorder has many causes – however, just like in CBR, multiple symptoms can be traced back to original source of the cascade vectors.

In other words, a chemical agent can impair the immune system, resulting in collateral damage from a disease vector from something as simple as a cold (or worse). Likewise, a biological agent can do this – resulting in collateral damage from an impaired immune system.

HOWEVER – the worst kind of CB warfare is a ‘trojan horse’ – where the agent incubates (normally this is only related to biologics) and spreads host to host before becoming apparent – a stealth disease vector. Even here, some people have greater immunity than others.

Colony Collapse Disorder appears to be both a chemical and biological. After examining the evidence, it starts with the chemical agent BT (insecticide toxin) but it is transmitted by a biological agent (transgenic crops). In the case of cutworms – the effect is immediate. In the case of bees – the effect is additive (accumulative exposure over time), resulting in all the symptoms of Colony Collapse Disorder.

Inadvertantly, Proffesor Katz study and the GobalResearch article can be viewed as a double blind study. GlobalResearch appears not to be aware of Professor Katz study.

Again – I will not post my view to the GMO section of the Colony Collapse Disorder wiki. However, I should be allowed to post the independent science studies that have examined this evidence.

Thank You--KeepItEven (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tim Vickers
I've worked for twelve years on medical research that aims to develop new drugs to treat neglected tropical diseases. I'm unclear exactly how this relates to agricultural biotechnology. Could somebody expand on this connection, so I can see how I might have a conflict of interest on this point? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest relates to the Mae Won Ho bio you wrote - and that i edited one word in. This is about independent science studies on Colony Collapse Disorder and why they aren't being allowed in the CCD wiki.

I have made no mention of your other research.

It may be possible that you misunderstood - however, your smart - attempting to change the subject to what is being discussed here in mediation really doesn't help your ethical standing.

If you misunderstood - then please reread this whole mediation - it's fairly clear. And it has nothing to do with your medical research.

Thank You--99.155.85.129 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So you have opened a mediation case because I made a single edit to Colony Collapse Disorder that you disagree with? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Mr.Vickers - i'll ask again - why do you keep erasing indepndent science studies related to GMO at the CCD wiki? And please, it appears your being coy - and trying to 'turn it around' - the people here are smarter than that and deserve better. As i stated previously in this mediation - and now i will ask you bluntly and directly - why do you believe your the 'science police' against the independent studies that have been posted at the CCD wiki - such as the GlobalResearch link that you erased?--KeepItEven (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say "Keep erasing" this implies that you believe I have made more than one edit to this article. Could you please provide a list of these edits so I can examine them and see what you're talking about? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

here is what i contributed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colony_Collapse_Disorder&oldid=276095291

after which - i followed other editors advice in moving to the GMO section - You told me the global research was invalid - i then posted Professor Katz study - which also wasn't 'good enough'

You edited it as so...(clarification - the globalresearch edit you did follows) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colony_Collapse_Disorder&oldid=276113446

I then asked in the CCD talk why the citation to the independent study from Professor Katz was also invalid. No one reponded to my questions - not even you. I then posted a valid source that i thought would meet your 'standard' - and it still was erased.

Since you are responding here - I would simply like a direct answer-

Why is the citation to GlobalResearch invalid?

Thank You --KeepItEven (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

S


 * When you say "You told me the global research was invalid" you can't mean me. Since before I made that single edit to Colony Collapse Disorder I hadn't communicated with you in any way. Our interactions on Wikipedia seem to be limited to that single edit I made removing an unreliable source and the warning I gave you for edit-warring. Is that an accurate summary or are there other edits that I'm missing? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Vickers, you sent me a message that it was invalid - however - i see that you contribute a great deal here and will give you the benifit of the doubt - the message you sent to me may have been meant for someone else - (note: i don't how the message system works here yet and would have replied) i do know i recieved the message from you...but i didnt have an account at that time...

looking at the links i provided - i did not have an account here - so it recorded the ip - i then signed up in an attempt to communicate clearly on the talk page.

OK - so your saying the Global Research citation is valid? -  It would appear the mediators have made their decision - just need to clarify which citation they've decided on (see top)--KeepItEven (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

signing off - check this later tonight or tomorrow---KeepItEven (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim removed the Global Research citation with an edit summary saying it is not a reliable source. Which really should be pretty obvious, it is basically a personal website run by a conspiracy theorist with anti-Jewish stuff on it. dougweller (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Weller, I don't appreciate the crack and implication of 'anti-jewish stuff on it.' If you want to play political propaganda rhetorical games to discredit a source - then do so at American Enterprise Institute website where such nonsense is common - not wikipedia. Thank you.--99.155.85.129 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing statement by Tim Vickers
Since this case is now closed I won't be responding to any further comments on this page. If people need to contact me in the future please drop me a note on my talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)