Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 31 July 2016

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Monsanto must be pleased

We have successfully scrubbed the lede of GMO controversy article of all mention of scientists or academics who have concerns with GMOs. , following Monsanto's PR campaign to "enlist academics in the G.M.O. lobbying war".

Will we soon completely dispose of the WP:NPOV requirement to make edits like these easier? We did such a good job giving BP's version of the Deepwater Horizon spill, until some reporter had to call attention to it--as if such POV writing is problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Your insinuation that those who disagree with you on this issue have been "enlisted" by Monsanto is way out of line. It's precisely this inability by combatants on both sides to consider that their opposite numbers are acting in good faith that has made the editing environment on GMO articles so toxic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not a "combatant". I was not suggesting that editors were "enlisted" by Monsanto, but that editors were quoting the enlisted scientists and deleting the concerns of scientists that were misbehaving by criticizing GMOs. I'm sure Monsanto is pleased, and these editors should be praised for their success in presenting Monsanto's view and eliminating scientists' views that do not conform, as we did for BP.

I never suggested this was not good faith. I have no doubt editors believe they are doing what is best for the encyclopedia, and they are certain that the numerous scientists who raise concerns about GMOs are just nuts, and these editors have every right to believe that. Similarly, I have no doubt those who put BP's views of the Deepwater Horizon spill for good reason believed that BP's views were the most accurate and encyclopediac. If you have evidence the editing is not "good faith", please provide it. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim should have been t'banned from the GMO area a good while back. I'm amazed the community is still tolerating this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Carrite since they've voiced similar concerns, this is mostly because I believe people really just don't have the time or energy anymore to put up yet another AE case, especially with the history of all this. That and those of us involved in the topic have been trying to ignore David's behavior issues and focus on content. It looks like there's enough concern from the community though that an AE case should hopefully help put a stop to this behavior, so I've opened one up here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The attack on Folta was absolutely ridiculous. Monsanto essentially gave the university a donation to help cover the costs of his existing outreach program, so that he could essentially do extra work for free. What a scandal! --tronvillain (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. What could possibly be wrong with using the university to do your PR work? or buying politicians LEGALLY to get the legislation you want. . The idea that money "corrupts" is naive. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Doing more of the science communication he was already doing isn't "PR work." And I don't think sixty grand buys a lot of politicians. A corporation about the size of Whole Foods somehow controls the government eh? --tronvillain (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tronvillain: did you read the Forbes piece you linked to? "Monsanto’s $25,000 donation to the university’s foundation to support travel, food, and a digital projector for Folta to deliver a year of monthly academic and public GMO education workshops.... To be clear, the $25,000 was not a grant or contract and in no way provided personal funds to Folta, either as salary support or additional remuneration" (emphasis added.) If it wasn't for personal funds, then who ate the food? Similarly: "I don’t think a visit and a donation from the Monsanto Company is a relationship.... If I had this to do over again I’d absolutely call this a relationship." That contradiction is either evidence of denial or willingness to say what he doesn't believe to avoid similar situations in the future. EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read it thanks - as I said, additional work for free. You're complaining that he got to eat while doing that work? Pathetic. --tronvillain (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree completely with David Tornheim, whose work in this area has earned my greatest respect. What he points out are facts. His opponents are reduced to smears and gamesmanship. Bravo for doing the hard work, David! Jusdafax 20:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Driftwoodzebulin: and @Alexbrn: Your edits are in the two diffs at the top of this discussion, so you have a right to know that your edits have been mentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page of the article here, where you of course threatened me for "casting aspersions" for shedding light on this.

You said "'scrubbing' implies a deliberate attempt to suppress information" . You mean like white-washing? Well if it was not a deliberate attempt to delete the criticisms from scientists, are you saying these edits were accidental? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that, absent evidence to the contrary, the edits should be considered good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not discuss motivations. I was showing the results of the edits. The effect of the edits speak for themselves. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that you said: "...scientists that were misbehaving by criticizing GMOs. I'm sure Monsanto is pleased, and these editors should be praised for their success in presenting Monsanto's view and eliminating scientists' views that do not conform..." In my opinion, you did not say in so many words that the editors' motivations were to please Monsanto, but you implied it. We had an RfC about this, with something like 90 members of the community taking part. There's a heated discussion going on right now about the policy against outing, and part of what editors are discussing is how to handle evidence of COI in a proper manner. Doxing someone is obviously a bad approach, but insinuating a COI is not beneficial either. ArbCom determined that calling editors "shills" for industry is unacceptable. What ArbCom in their infinite wisdom failed to fully anticipate is how editors are learning to avoid the key words that would trigger AE, but still communicate their distrust of the community consensus, wink, wink. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If this page is under discretionary sanctions and he said that, the only curious thing is why David Tornheim is still working on this topic. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The paid editor calls for punishment of unpaid volunteer for pointing out POV-editing. And we wonder why readers are losing confidence in Misplaced Pages and we have a hard time keeping volunteers. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? Paid editor, I forgot that. So, presumably if I offer Carrite enough money, he will strike his comment and nominate you, David, for Admin? Jusdafax 02:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yowza!!! Touched a nerve there, didn't I? I forgot to mention that I'm on the Monsanto payroll, rollin' in the bling, baby, my network of Roundup Ready Sockpuppets paving the way for the Final Victory of my corporate masters. Wooooo!!!! Somebody ping me when this case hits ArbCom, I'd be happy to put in a couple hours of edit history research, gratis... Carrite (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Given your unique qualifications and proper attitude, I was going to suggest you contact them at the email below; but I see you are already one step ahead of me, padding your resume. Excellent! You have a bright future ahead of you. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any policy against simply telephoning Eric Sachs, Monsanto's director of online PR Regulatory Policy & Scientific Affairs and just asking if they've been coordinating activity on Misplaced Pages? 97.118.166.40 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What an interesting email that is! Also interesting that two years ago is when I noticed a surge in aggressive pushback by Monsanto. The "Holding Activists Accountable" section featuring Kevin Folta is fascinating. I just noticed Mr. Folta's article neglected to mention his alleged COI in the article lede, and have added a sentence per the existing article. Jimmy, this might bear watching. Jusdafax 02:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you take a longer term view, and I mean on a time scale of a generation, then what you see is that David Tornheim & co. by winning the argument in Europe, have created precisely the conditions allowing them to make the points that there are now making here. You have to ask how Monsanto ended up being in a monopoly position. The reason is that European companies cannot compete due to political roadblocks. If this had been different, then such companies operating EU rules would behave in a more acceptable way as judged by David and then a lot of the opposition to GM foods that actually derive more from Monsanto's business model and has less to do with the fundamentals of genetic modification, would not have arisen in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot more to it than that. You are making sweeping generalizations on issues with very complex interrelationships. How much do you think the monoculture brought about by Monsanto's monopoly costs consumers in those generational time-scales? I'm a proponent of genetic engineering, and I see it as no different in principle than animal husbandry and crop hybridization, but I am opposed to the situation where rampant consolidation has led to monoculture issues instead of robust competition between seed producers. EllenCT (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that a reasonable debate to deal with real problems never took place in Europe. What happened is that Europe pretty much turned its back on the GM industry by not participating in it. One then loses any influence one could have had to shape this industry. Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you visit http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm change "Registered / Withdrawn" from "All" to "Registered" and click Search, you can see about 70 varieties of GMOs, from American and European manufacturers. Europe has most certainly not turned its back on the GM industry. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you try to buy GM foods in the supermarket here, you may be dissapointed :) . Count Iblis (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If consumers in Europe reject GM foods while American consumers show relative indifference, is that equivalent to saying "reasonable debate to deal with real problems never took place"? EllenCT (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Retaliatory filing for shedding light on this issue

Kingofaces43 has filed an action against me at WP:AE. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#David_Tornheim. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I was particularly impressed with the part of the complaint where he accuses you of ranting for objecting to the removal of wikilinks from references about one of the diseases caused by a controversial pesticide. EllenCT (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have anything useful to add to this debate directly at the moment, as I'm not familiar enough with this area to have any ability to make thoughtful judgments. I find much of the above discussion reasonably productive, but other parts of it I find disappointing and not very helpful. "Monsanto must be pleased" is a combative and irrelevant way to start a discussion. I frankly don't care one way or the other if Monsanto is pleased. Perhaps they will be pleased because they have managed to help communicate factual information to the public in the face of crazed pseudo-science. Perhaps they will be pleased because they have managed a coverup of monumental proportions in their ongoing quest to poison the public. Or perhaps (more likely) they are a large large organization with a mixed set of motives, some of which we might rightly approve of, and some of which we might rightly disagree with. My point is, the criteria for good writing in Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with what Monsanto wants - nor with what critics of Monsanto want.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if my title gives offense. I will keep your concern in mind before posting on your page in the future. The title is meant as an attention grabber. I see your page as a public forum, and it is the last safe place I can talk about the problem on Misplaced Pages. I would never use something like that in an article.

I totally agree with your last statement that what Monsanto or Monsanto's critics want in the articles is not what is best for the encyclopedia, which is why I made this post, because too much of the articles are written from Monsanto's perspective rather than being NPOV and balanced, where critics' views are being unreasonably deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The boxes at the top of Talk:Genetically modified organism have information about the exhaustive and exhausting RfC that was held on the topic. Are you saying that Monsanto have influenced the outcome of that RfC? If so, does that imply that a significant number of participants in the RfC were stooges acting in the interests of Monsanto rather than Misplaced Pages? When an RfC is held, should it be binding or should editors continue to argue about the findings in any available forum? Johnuniq (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No, of course not (to your question "does that imply that a significant number of participants in the RfC were stooges...?"). Yes, of course, the RfC should be binding. I did not question the findings. Some of the recent edits I refer to following the RfC went *way* beyond what was determined by the RfC, that a closing admin called them "twisting the result of the RfC". Please see my comments and diffs at WP:AE and at Coffee's talk page (referred to there). --David Tornheim (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What Johnuniq fails to note is that there were two previous RfC's on GMO's that went the other way. So much for "binding." Jimmy, while I'm no scientific expert, I have followed the "GMO's on Misplaced Pages" issue for several years. David Tornheim is on to something. I submit that he is being harassed because he has been unusually effective in pointing out deficiencies in the writing of some of the GMO articles, and the methods used by parties with a demonstrably pro-Monsanto slant. His comment regarding your Talk page here being a final safe haven is sadly true. May I suggest you look into the matter further? David's defense at WP:AE, noted at the top of this subsection, gives additional details, for starters. Jimmy, you have previously expressed concerns regarding undisclosed paid editing, and advocacy editing. I contend this thread outlines a fascinating case study, given the fact that Europe and other countries worldwide have enacted legislation regarding GMO's and glyphosate, the herbicide in "Roundup" weed killer that Monsanto makes billions of dollars from. The stakes in how that information is presented on Misplaced Pages are substantial. Thanks for any time you can spare for investigating. Jusdafax 12:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Jimmy, what I find interesting is the email from the IP (in the section above). Monsanto's PR campaign began in 2013, which is exactly when Misplaced Pages changed forever for me. As I warned you then, when it first became apparent to me, Misplaced Pages has a Monsanto problem. Ever since I edited my first Monsanto-related article, I received essentially the same treatment as David, and experienced my first of a never ending series of noticeboards, with people crying out for me to be banned from WP in the last ArbCom, even though Roger Davies weighed in saying there was no evidence provided for any of the claims made against me. The thing is, if editors who ask for a reasonable amount of neutral information from your biotech articles are harrassed and eventually silenced, it's your brand that is hurt when articles read like PR. Wikpedia should not be quoting GMO advocates in its "scientific consensus" sourcing, but many editors "voted" that Pamela Ronald would have top billing in this most controversial claim, and critics (or "anti-GMO" advocates), such as Sheldon Krimsky, would not. Krimsky found that no consensus on the safety of GMO food exists in the scientific community. petrarchan47คุก 12:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not shockingly most editors did not find a source from a guy with a philosophy degree, with zero scientific research background, who gave massive weight to Seralini, and had already written and anti-GMO book, all that compelling. Capeo (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What was shocking is that editors decided to cite instead Pam Ronald, who is known is a GMO advocate by her own university, and who had to retract the two papers on which her research was based due to silly errors like mislablelling bacteria strains, leading her to start from "square one" in her lab, according to her own words. Now Misplaced Pages is using her as one of 3 sources claiming there is a scientific consensus, without giving attribution to her, using WP's voice, making the encyclopedia in essence a GMO advocate.

What is shocking is that editors here remain unaware that Seralini has been vindicated, in what editors referred to as a very high quality source, Domingo 2016. Notwithstanding, when long-term studies were conducted (i.e., Séralini et al., 2014b), the results were tremendously controversial. This paper was released the night the RfC closed. In it, Domingo also eviscerates the notion held by the US of substantial equivalence; it is not science-based and is used for nothing besides GMOs. This undercuts the second source, which is a 2003 statement saying natural foods are no different from genetically modified ones ("substantially equivalent" so no need for testing, questions, or worries).

The final source for a "scientific consensus" was picked over a more recent, heartier source which found that there is no consensus whatsoever: IAASTD, 2008 (under the auspices of five UN agencies, the World Bank and the W.H.O.). The IAASD, which was the group that concluded there was a consensus on global warming, concluded there was no consensus on GMO food safety. It is shocking that editors would choose an older source instead, and hard to believe this was in alignment with NPOV. I saw no evidence in the RfC that most editors really checked into sources, and indeed there were far too many to expect us to give them due diligence. I spent a good month looking into them, and am embarrassed for Misplaced Pages that it is now voicing pure GMO propaganda based on cherry picked, subpar sourcing.

Most shocking of all was that this RfC did not have consensus to move forward, as one can see by looking at the final comments before it opened; it took place on account of a few individuals, by ignoring the voices of others. I have never seen anything like it in my time here. Not very community-based in my opinoin. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC) petrarchan47คุก 03:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless and until we get some actual evidence to the contrary, I think it is highly unlikely that the issue here is paid advocacy - and as is well known, I'm quite the hawk against paid advocacy. What I think is far more likely is a bit of a crusader mentality against pseudoscience by people who have been working diligently to keep it out of Misplaced Pages for a long time. I'm not saying that is the case here, by the way - as I said in my first response, I don't currently have enough information to guess. But there are areas that I do know about where I know exactly how these debates tend to go, so let me talk about that for a moment. Here I will speak not just about the principles of Misplaced Pages but about my own personal beliefs, and I say that just to be transparent.

Some areas of knowledge attract crackpots and cranks, and the victims of crackpots or cranks who then become advocates of very bad ideas. One example is a particular pet peeve of mine: homeopathy. There is a long standing pattern to debates in this area. The pro-homeopathy people cherry pick results which purport to support homeopathy with very little concern for the basic principles of study quality, and (importantly) with very little concern for the basic principles of statistics. (The odds of getting 5 heads in a row is 1/32. Imagine a room with 500 people in it holding a contest to see who has the 'ability' to get 5 heads in a row. A few will very likely manage it. We can all agree that doesn't really mean anything. Similarly, do enough studies with a 5% or 1% margin of error, and eventually you'll get some false results. That's how it works.)

So you'll get a handful of studies pointing in one direction with the vast majority pointing in another direction. Why? Well, point to big pharma, point to what the tobacco companies did, point to all the many ways that science might be corrupted, etc. Make the argument that the coin flipping experiment proves that there is significant scientific uncertainty about whether people have the ability to flip 5 heads deliberately. Make the argument that homeopathy works or that at least should be treated as a plausible theory based on a handful of papers.

I think most people (except homeopathy advocates!) will be with me to this point.

When confronted with this people can quite naturally get fairly intolerant of people coming around again and again trying to push an agenda. This is true even when we stop and acknowledge that, for example, Monsanto is a big company that many people don't like, etc. The danger here is one that I think most people are aware of - the danger is that if you are used to batting away nonsense claims from POV pushers, then when you get into new territory with new information, there can be excessive conservatism.

Now please everyone keep in mind a couple of things - (1) "Jimbo said..." is seldom a useful argument. (2) I'm not taking sides as I know too little about GMOs to have an opinion worth listening to on the particulars of the topic. Both these things seem plausible to me: that there could be serious dangers (and amazing opportunities) in our newfound abilities to edit genes (CRISPR and similar), and that there are pseudoscientific luddites fear mongering. What is going on at Misplaced Pages in these areas I don't know.

What I am saying is that based on my long long experience, and unless and until specific evidence arises, we should not assume that any editors in this area are pro-Monsanto at all, much less paid advocates or tricked by paid advocates. What we should assume is that some of us may be crusading out of sincere beliefs and thus slightly less tolerant and reasonable in dialog than we might hope if we stepped back to reflect.

This is what our old saying of "Assume Good Faith" is about - and it works for both sides of a heated debate like this. Assume the other person isn't a Monsanto shill. Assume the other person isn't a pseudoscientific Luddite. Assume that we all want to improve the encyclopedia and avoid heated rhetoric that tends to cause people to dig in and not listen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think we should continue to extend good faith to the scientists quoted in who promised Monsanto "a solid return on the investment" for undisclosed grants in support of their efforts? What do you think the chances are that the campaign to show the pro-Monsanto opinions of "third-party scientists" mentioned therein is not active on Misplaced Pages? EllenCT (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The author of that statement Kevin Folta edited his own article. . Interesting that admin. JzG said that is not a COI! Kingofaces43 suggested that crafty use of blogs might be helpful for parity. But for Séralini affair a very different approach is used to handle criticism of a living person. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a COI. As I said, it's a real-world person trying to fix problems with their biography. Not everybody in the world is familiar with the arcana of Misplaced Pages policy and guidance, our obligation to people who have issues with articles is to try to help them and guide them to fix the problems within the rules, not scream COI and chase them away. IOf Dr. Folta had emailed OTRA he would have received a long description of how to go abouty fixing the problem without falling foul of the rules. I am intimately familiar with this because I actually wrote it.

The difference between Folta and Séralini is pretty obvious. Folta is doign good science and science communicaiton, and is bing harassed by the anti-GMO brigade for his pains, and Séralini is publishing junk science driven by an agenda. Any credible criticisms of either will of course be reflected in Misplaced Pages. The credible criticisms of Séralini include his use of science by press release, the terrible quality of his studies, and his concealed conflicts of interest. The credible criticisms of Folta include the fact that he naively took money from Monsanto and placed it in an arms-length communicatios fund, raising an obvious hostage to fortuine especially among the tiuny group of people who consider Monsanto to be the devil incarnate. The major point here is that Folta is being harassed with frovolous FOIA requests funded by the organic industry and their anti-GMO machine, and Séralini is part of that machine but was busted for doing crap science. Guess what? We have all of this in the sources n those articles already. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: from the point of view of someone who very firmly believes the GMO industry needs substantially more competition by, among other things, being based primarily on open public taxpayer-supported research than private patents, Folta's actions did nothing but enrich himself, Monsanto, and Monsanto's few competitors at others' expense. Both absolute pro- and anti-GMO positions are wrong. In Jimbo's terms, they ignore either the serious dangers by trying to censor any mentions of the risks of opportunities or vice-versa. That is a false dichotomy and a perfect example of the kind of controversy with which NPOV is designed to deal. However, in the face of coordinated efforts to try to show "third-party" scientists saying good things about GMOs when they are actually on the payroll of Monsanto, the result is the kind of censorship which occurred after the RFC in this case, and which did not result in the RFC's agreed-upon improvements to the articles. How do you distinguish what Folta did by trying to cover up his industry payment from companies hiring editors over the internet to try to avoid directly editing their own articles? EllenCT (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the answer to this should be obvious. Folta is a living person who has been subject to harassment for his public support for science, coming here to correct a perceived problem with his article. As with every single biography subject we should treat him with respect while gently steering him towards the proper way to engage with the Misplaced Pages community to fix issues with his article. If he had gone out and hired people on the internet then that would indicate that he had good knowledge that self-editing is wrong, and we would be justified in being very firm in resisting this. The idea that one is not permitted, by virtue of being unpopular, to make one of the most basic newbie errors, seems to me to be flawed. We live in a world where scientists who work in areas fraught with political controversy, are subject to harassment. This has happened to several noted climate scientists and to vaccine advocates as well. In a climate where deliberate falsehoods and motivated distortions are a standard tactic, we have to be careful in evaluating any criticisms of such scientists. There is a crucial difference here with Séralini, for example, because criticisms of Séralini focus on his science and the ways he has tried to sidestep the normal process of scientific discourse. I find it regrettable that groups whose ideology is aligned with environmentalism, have taken to the tobacco industry playbook. It is disappointing to me that the organic movement, for example, is funding harassment of scientists. I find that uncomfortable because I have always seen these kinds of anti-science rhetoric as predominantly a libertarian tactic, but it seems that my ideological bias is not supported by the facts. .Guy (Help!) 11:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more regrettable that GMO manufacturers, including Monsanto and Bayer, have taken to the tobacco industry playbook, but entirely predicatable. The reason we should follow WP:LEAD's advice about representing the controversy in Folta's article's introduction is because of the damage Monsanto did to the reputation of scientists when they decided to coordinate undisclosed paid work to try to manufacture the appearance of independent third party scientists saying good things about their products. The lack of disclosure makes those scientists seem like they are lying for pay, and that hurts the good scientists trying (but failing) to convince anti-vaxers and climate deniers of the error of their ways. The "organic movement" has a point about butterflies, bees, and fireflies, do they not? We shouldn't blame the messenger, however misguided, or further weaken freedom of information. We should make it clear to Monsanto that their behavior has shot them in their own foot. EllenCT (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that allegations of POV should only be made with evidence. That's why I provided evidence of strong pro-industry POV editing above and here. Yet, rather than acknowledge this is a problem, Misplaced Pages shoots the messenger . If I am silent, you will know why. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the way the science is conducted, like failing to declare a COI in scientific articles when that is required, then that will have to be dealt with by the relevant journals. If a dispute lingers on there, then there will be plenty of scientists who will write about that not just in newspapers but also in the peer reviewed journals themselves, see e.g. this article. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re one of your comments above, "Assume that we all want to improve the encyclopedia and avoid heated rhetoric that tends to cause people to dig in and not listen."

For controversial topics, it seems that most editors dig in and don't listen with or without heated rhetoric, based on their beliefs outside of Misplaced Pages. It would be nice if someone who is trusted to be neutral and whose comments carry considerable weight, could come in to influence a discussion, instead of having the outcome of the discussion be determined by those with the same belief outside of Misplaced Pages that are the most determined and have the greatest numbers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In the case of GMOs, a large RfC was recently run on the central disputed question (of food safety) and so a large number of fresh editors commented. However, as you see above when the outcome doesn't go the right way the cry from the "losing" side is "I saw no evidence in the RfC that most editors really checked into sources". For a number of topics on WP (guns, I/P, GMOs, etc.) as in real life there are some people who are ideologically totally committed to a position and no amount on reasonable argumentation will help. Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

FYI. I appealed the proposed decision of the case against me that was lodged for making this post on the grounds that my evidence of POV-editting (and other evidence) was completely ignored. Appeal here.

I also created a separate action here asking ArbCom:

• Is it *always* wrong to identify an edit as pro-industry, even if it has a strong pro-industry point of view?
• Is there a double-standard where pro-industry claims about edits are unacceptable, but pejorative labels (e.g. pseudo-science, incompetence) and associations (e.g. with anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc.) of editors who notice a pro-industry POV are totally okay?

I look forward to how ArbCom answers these and the other questions I posed. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI. I reasserted my appeal and added evidence that the reason for increasing punishment was that I had asserted my right of appeal. . --David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Towards resolution

Jimbo, this whole issue goes back to the questions of how much paid advocacy editing has occurred in the past, how much is likely actually occurring, the rate at which it is growing, the extent to which it inhibits community progress towards improvements, the extent to which it causes animosity and instruction creep, and the amount of money it would reasonably require if professionals were to supplement the efforts of volunteers to counter it. Is it reasonable to ask Foundation experts to study these specific questions as part of the endowment goal setting process? EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Except it isn't. It goes back rather to the question of how much lassitude should be given to problem editors who accuse, insinuate or imply that their perceived "opponents" are industry shills in order to try and win content disputes. The time the community wastes on dealing with this actually detracts from the effort to solve real (rather than imaginary) paid editing problems. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the community would be more productive if people were forbidden from explaining the reasons for their doubts of others? EllenCT (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

They shouldn't be expressing their "doubts of others" other than through the the processes outlined in WP:COI. Using the industry shill gambit to try and get the upper hand in content disputes is just not helpful and wastes the time of clueful folk who have to clear up the mess that inevitably ensues. This is why we have had such a problem with GMO-related articles. I'm not impressed with the limp administrator response. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "limp administrator response", remember that this topic is under discretionary sanctions so that it's harder for admins to address misbehavior. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:COI requires editors to consider whether "good-faith determinations of WP:DUCK" are warranted. Do you consider discussion of media reports showing actual conflicts of interest and attempts to hide industry payment and coordination any different in terms of disruptive accusations, insinuations, and implications, than discussion of PR departments hiring editors pseudonymously? EllenCT (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's quite simple: if there is a COI issue pursue it through WP:COIN and the associated procedures of WP:COI. Don't keep riffing on an unividenced "suspicion" to try and get the upper hand in content disputes in content-centric venues. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that how you personally would treat an editor who repeatedly joins in every complaint against you, even on topics they have never edited on before? The only COI issue I've brought up more than once had to do with something that happened a long time ago. Until there is an explanation, I respectfully decline your request to stop referring to it as the reason that I am hounded by the editor in question. EllenCT (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That's actually an example of factional behavior, which ArbCom has ruled on in previous cases, e.g. in the climate change case. What is undesirable is to have factions of editors who go about editing in tag teams and then start to follow each other to other pages. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In practice, as far as editing highly scrutinized articles is concerned , a COI is not going to cause problems requiring a COI investigation. If Donald Trump were to come here and edit his own article in a problematic way, we could just invoke the trouble he causes here and then take appropriate measures. So, referring to a COI would not be necessary. A COI is only a problem when editing in relative obscure corners of Misplaced Pages where the problem editor can get his her way pretty much unopposed. The loophole that would exist without the COI policy is that an editor can always behave nicely, he can let others revert his edits without protest, and yet cause problems for Misplaced Pages by editing in obscure corners of Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Jimmy? Is it worth having measurements to support round numbers? EllenCT (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is much room for criticism with Genetically modified food controversies. To start with, it is a WP:POV fork from Genetically modified food. The controversies should not even be in a different section, let alone a different article. I've folded controversies into the main text for other articles in the past - it really isn't as hard to do as people seem to think. You just have to look at the content with the frame of mind that for purposes of organization it doesn't matter what point of view it has, just what it is talking about.

The more specific problem is that the current controversies article starts up with and emphasizes things about advocacy groups and perception. But the article is about the issues themselves, not how they are argued. That means taking a step back and asking whether GM food can be made unsafe. As I've said here before, it certainly could be. The example I used was beans into which abrin might be inserted - a fine strategy against insects and fungi, to be sure! But also homicidal. That said, I chose the example because it was obvious, not because it was a good attack - a good attack would be one that is ignored until the health of millions of people is compromised. For example, if you loaded foods with trans fats you could kill millions of people (it's been done before...). Or to be more realistic, suppose you loaded canola oil with an altered balance of fats so that fish fed from it would have "healthier" omega three rich fish oil... and then there was question whether the fish oil was actually a healthy intervention in the diet or counterproductive. Well, that's not entirely unrealistic - though honestly I don't think the GMOs there would make a measurable difference, I can't be sure nothing would go wrong. The thing is though, articles about GMOs shouldn't be edited like we can be sure that nothing will go wrong, that we're never bringing home the Old Al Qaeda store brand of beans from the supermarket. What we know is that GMOs that have passed regulatory review and are widely regarded to be safe are ... widely regarded to be safe. But we should disclose up front the possibility for harmful GMOs, the types of risks people worry about, and reasonable estimations by people of all viewpoints as to how likely (or unlikely) those risks are thought to be.

I'm saying this here rather than at the talk page because these are general flaws in Misplaced Pages I'm seeing over and over. The deprecation of "controversy" sections and articles is being widely ignored, and people are abusing WP:FRINGE to mean that "one side is right and everyone else is fringe". If you know, as an ordinary citizen, that the use of something like GMOs is controversial, then whether they should be or not the two sides of the issue are both mainstream opinions and not fringe, and the debate should be covered earnestly. Wnt (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If only more people understood NPOV. EllenCT (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, you did bring up these issues at the articles themselves, and you experienced what David and I have - no changes to the articles are allowed. There are perma-editors on site to "talk" with you until you give up and go away. I tried only to add the percentage of Americans who want GMOs labeled - and that was disallowed. To this day, Misplaced Pages does not tell its readers this information. I rest in the knowledge that the GMO suite is so well spin-doctored that it is obvious, and no sensible reader will consider Misplaced Pages a valid source for information on this topic. What does bother me is the rather Orwellian word at the top left of the articles: "encyclopedia". WP has looked the other way when editors try to sound the alarm. We are left with GMO articles void of substance and a damaged brand. The RfC on scientific consensus resulted in a PR statement that acknowledges no questions whatsoever. The GMO articles do not unpack the sources used in the consensus statement, and of the 83 editors who participated in the RfC, none besides the regulars showed any interest in helping to work on improving and expanding the articles. Those who do are one by one driven away through noticeboard bullshit. And no one stands up to this, because at the end of the day what matters more here is to stay on the right side of the right people, and keep from getting on the wrong side of, in this case, the powerful Project Medicine clique, because when you end up a noticeboard, which you will, the gang will show up, and you're toast. That's really more like an online social club than an encyclopedia. And only those who are heavily invested in the content of contentious articles will end up editing them. Some adults are dedicating their days to defending Atrazine and Glyphosate. The default position is that dedicated (fanatical) editors is a good thing, and questioning possible pro-industry POV was made illegal by the masterminds at ArbCom (though questioning possible anti-GMO POV is still legal and quite popular). Misplaced Pages finds itself with the most valuable property on the web for many topics. Yet it responds to the obvious problems associated with this fact like an autistic two year old. petrarchan47คุก 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not create more RFCs on each proposed change? EllenCT (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

RFCs can work for key points, but are a poor way to build an article. There are several rfc's in the GM area from the last year where the discussion exceeded 10k words over the inclusion or move of a single sentence, and there are only so many uninvolved editors willing to participate in such tedium. I see now that one of those rfc's still has not been formally closed.Dialectric (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting copyfraud lawsuit

Carol M. Highsmith, a very famous American photographer, is suing Getty Images for $1.35 billion, in effect for copyfraud under 17 U.S. Code § 1202 - Integrity of copyright management information See news stories at Hyproallergic and Techdirt (which has a copy of the suit) and many others.

Carol has donated at least 18,755 photos to the Library of Congress copyright free which Getty is selling without permission on their website. They even were dunning Carol (e.g. $120 per photo) for using her own photos on her own site.

Carol was one of our jury members for WLM-US in 2012 and seems to be very aware of and supportive of Wikimedia's mission. We have at least 1,500 of her photos at Commons. I have to wonder whether some of the folks Getty was dunning got her photos from Commons.

I'd be surprised if Getty is not similarly selling without permission our photos at Commons. For a related example, I noticed a photo of our main page (turned 45 degrees) from around the date that we blacked out, that Getty was selling. I uploaded that pic as an example for the copyfraud article, but for some strange reason a Commons admin (now banned) insisted on deleting it.

I'm not sure if there is anything we can do to support the lawsuit, but it would be in our interest (preventing copyfraud) if she won. Maybe a friend of the court brief?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I love your idea. You should pass it along to the legal team to make sure they are aware of it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, before anyone thinks it's a good idea to support this lawsuit, once should be making sure their own house is in order first. This article states:

You see, Highsmith is such a wonderful person that she donated a massive collection of her photographs to the Library of Congress -- over 100,000 of them, for them to be released royalty free for the public to use. She didn't put them fully into the public domain, though, instead saying that anyone could use them so long as they gave credit back to her. It was basically a very early kind of version of what's now known as the Creative Commons Attribution License (which didn't exist at the time she made that agreement with the Library of Congress).

I have bolded the pertinent part above. I see over 1,000 of Carol's photographs on Wikimedia Commons, which rely on Commons:Template:PD-Highsmith, which states:

Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain. Photographs of sculpture or other works of art may be restricted by the copyright of the artist.

LOC states: "Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."

That news article indicates that Ms Highsmith did not release her works into the public domain, but rather requires attribution for her works.

I certainly wouldn't want to be using any of her works from Wikimedia Commons given the legal ramifications of doing so. 115.166.4.231 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Then the template needs updated to reflect that attribution is required more explicitly. The template itself somewhat does so, but it doesn't otherwise make it clear. —Jeremy v^_^v 23:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to crossing the t's re the Highsmith photos, it would be smart to do a search of Commons and Misplaced Pages imagines to make sure there are no Getty images hosted. (I know, from personal, painful, experience, that this can occur.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There is actually a category on Commons "Category:Media licensed by Getty Images" with 239 images in it. 238 of these images are obviously public domain. The last image is a screenshot of the enWiki main page sold by Getty to the Washington Post (and uploaded by me) see below. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the Australian anon's concerns "I certainly wouldn't want to be using any of her works from Wikimedia Commons given the legal ramifications of doing so." I don't think there are any legal ramifications for users of the photos, but sending Highsmith a bill for using one of her own photos, that's obviously a different matter.

One thing that Sphilbrick's story reminded me of. Photo uploaders should check whether any of their own photos are carried and sold on Getty. Call me a cynic, but if company is ripping off freely licensed photos from the Library of Congress and then selling them, then they very well might be ripping off Commons as well. So please do check some of your pix and list any ripoffs here or on my talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Jimbo Wales, just some further comment here. Also, please beware before joining Smallbones on any of his crusades. You seriously need to "not trust and absolutely verify" anything the guy says. Above, he stated that "a Commons admin (now banned)" removed an image from the copyfraud article. Martin H. is the editor who removed Smallbones', quite possibly libellous, original research. The image with that very problematic caption was removed by numerous editors, but Smallbones chose to edit war his original research into the article. The image itself was deleted by AFBorchert on Commons after a lengthy discussion.

Now we see Smallbones inserting into the copyfraud article information on this case. Although it's not a BLP, Smallbones seems to have a serious beef with Getty Images which I think needs to be investigated as he does appear to be using Misplaced Pages as a playground to settle grudges. 115.166.4.231 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If anybody wants to read the deletion discussion at Commons it's here. The now banned admin I referred is the guy who started the deletion and just would not let go despite just repeating the same old mantra (approx) "Just because a photo is a derivative of a CC-BY-SA screenshot, doesn't mean that the photo is CC-BY-SA, no matter what the license says." I'm used to another banned Commons admin making personal attacks such as the one above, so I'll just ignore any repetition of the above pa. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones is right here - unfortunately, he is originally right. At the moment it would be inappropriate to include it in the article based on one editor's determination it is copyfraud, even if we know it is - as familiar as Misplaced Pages editors have become with these issues, we should bear in mind this is still rather specialized knowledge. However, should the WMF get involved with this action, have the legal team come up with a determination that confirms his opinion, put it out in a press release that gets cited in a few newspaper articles, why then I expect editors could put it not only in copyfraud but in Getty Images itself, beside mention of the lawsuit described above. :) Wnt (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Getty has images of postage stamps from the USPS, clearly marked as copyright by USPS in the images, where their description does not include the information as to the actual copyright owner, and where the image may be used in accordance with USPS conditions which are fully unrelated to paying Getty a single sou. Collect (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic banning mildly problematic editors

The AE request against David Tornheim has ended with a topic ban for him, David has decided to leave Misplaced Pages. Let's for argument's sake ignore any fairness issues here, ignore anything that has to do with the personal side and just consider the interest of Misplaced Pages. So, we only take into account that the GMO articles have to be of high quality, reflecting the sources appropriately and that this has be done without too much drag on the editors in having to deal with problem editors. From this perspective David seems to have been such a problem editor to some degree, and superficially it seems like a good thing that such editors stop editing there. But here we don't take into account that the pool of editors will to some degree reflect the opinions held by the public. If in the public opinion some POV is more strongly reflected than can be justified by the reliable sources, then we'll always end up having to deal with editors who'll argue points that lead to nowhere as far as we're concerned, and that can cause frustration in some cases this gives rise to less than ideal behavior. If we remove such editors then other editors with a similar POV who were just lurking because their POV was already been argued for, will take their place. The danger is then that these other editors will cause more trouble than the editors we removed.

Another problem I see is that without the "wrong POV" being argued for here (suppose that other editors with that POV do not actually step in, or they get blocked due not not being able to articulate their POV in an acceptable way), then the GMO articles lose a bit of their credibility. People who tend to believe in some of the conspiracy-like theories about GMO may believe that Misplaced Pages is part of the conspiracy by the way Misplaced Pages deals with people who argue for changes in the article. So, we lose credibility not because of the actual content of the articles but by making it more difficult for people to voice their criticisms on the talk pages. Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I (and many others) would take exception to the description of David Tornheim as 'mildly problematic'. 'Extremely problematic, time-consuming and pov-pushing' would be a more accurate description. At which point the heading 'Topic banning highly disruptive editors' would be less sympathetic wouldnt it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

About "problems" with David Tornheim. He only tried to insert different, critical but still scientific point of view. But is it fringe and really "different"?. Let's see, what we can find in the wide-cited National Academies report (2016).

" The overall results of short-term and long-term animal studies with rodents and other animals and other data on GE-food nutrient and secondary compound composition convinces many (for example, Bartholomaeus et al., 2013; Ricroch et al., 2013a,b; Van Eenennaam and Young, 2014) but not all involved researchers (for example, Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011; Hilbeck et al., 2015; also see DeFrancesco, 2013) that currently marketed GE foods are as safe as foods from conventionally bred crops."

Can we find in our Genetically modified organism article at least that not all experts are convinced? We can find that there is "scientific consensus" as hard as a brick. Note, how many examples of convinced reviews (3) and non-convinced (4). But may be all non-convinced are freaks? And articles are retracted? No, we don't know knothing about it. But their reviews still are not in use in the article,

But may be there are much more convinced independent scientists? Lets's look for independent reliable article, which tries to find whether majority of scientists are convinced now. And there is review by Domingo (2016) (2016) which in "Recent reviews in the scientific literature on GM plants" part investigates this case over the past five years, and mentions Bartholomaeus et al (convinced), Snell (convinced), Tufarelli et al. (convinced), Bawa and Anilakumar (non-convinced), Kramkowska et al. (non-convinced), Zdziarski et al (very non-convinced) and Domingo himself not very convinced. So who is "problematic editor"? Cathry (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"He only tried to insert different, critical but still scientific point of view" ← not quite. How about: "He caused prolonged friction in the community by repeatedly accusing other editors of being dishonest industry shills". Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Уou can be sure that in my mind I called those editors much worse names due to their behavior. Cathry (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How about bringing diffs once in a while, Alexbrn? You haven't been editing the GMO suite but weigh in with fact-free opinion as if it's helpful. It isn't. Where do you witness David calling another editor a "shill"? petrarchan47คุก 03:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

His tactic of late is the same as yours, rather than say it directly, imply it in a way which leads to an unavoidable conclusion. Hence the "Monsanto must be pleased" post, or this most posting here where it is claimed "industry" is "doing advertising" for free, here on Misplaced Pages. The implication is unavoidable, if industry is "doing" something here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a key phrase to grasp: warriorism. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, the community has restricted me from discussing economics, and just a few days ago arbcom has restricted me from raising conflict of interest issues. In the first case, the allegations on WP:ANI included the supposition that I had annoyed you, and in the second case, the fact that I supported David Tornheim when he raised the issue with you was cited as problematic at WP:AE. Do you have any comments about the use of people's communications with you to censor them? Would you prefer that I abide by, defy, or try to appeal the restrictions? EllenCT (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo should obviously answer this, but I'll put in my 2 cents here. I've seen lots of bad behavior on this page and your, occasionally slightly annoying behavior (lots and lots of questions from way out in left field) doesn't rank anywhere near the top in the bad behavior department. You have clearly been discussing in good faith, have a pretty good opinion of yourself (like most of us here), know a lot about modern left-wing economics (though you're a bit uneven). Often a very good participant here, occasionally slightly annoying. Overall better than most.

I haven't seen either the ANI or ArbCom discussions, but as I understand it ArbCom has the final say on any disputes here (as they do on any enWiki page) but they properly leave it up to Jimmy to "police the page." IMHO you should abide by both restrictions for a short period of time, and when you are completely calm ask them to reconsider. Jimmy's talk page is generally seen as a place for open discussion, with only those who are obviously lacking in good faith removed sometimes. Just my opinion of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, as has already been pointed out, ArbCom did nothing to you. Your newest restriction was placed at AE by consensus of Admins not Arbs. Also, if you actually followed the COI procedure it wouldn't have happened. Instead you repeatedly, in multiple venues, inferred that users had a COI with zero evidence other than your opinion of their edits even after being told repeatedly that you were casting aspersions. Capeo (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with "zero evidence" but I am not allowed to say why. EllenCT (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You presented zero evidence of a COI as every admin who looked at your "evidence" concluded. You might be able to make the argument that you presented evidence of a POV editing but that's nothing close to COI editing and that's not how you worded things. You stepped into a contentious area that just had an ArbCom case, an RFC and a long history (that you seemed unaware of) like a bull in a china shop and started throwing around accusations. You were asked multiple times to stop by editors and admins alike and you ignored them. I find it hard to believe you are shocked you have been sanctioned. Capeo (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this inaccurate charactization, but again, I am not allowed to say anything of substance in my own defense, so why don't you just write an even longer paragraph smearing me even harder on the same topic? Am I allowed to ask one of the administrators who did take my accusations seriously to defend me in the ways that I can't? There would be less resistance to the facts that I am no longer allowed to state if they didn't impeach so strongly. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the great thing about WP. Everyone can just check the history and decide on their own if my characterization is accurate. But to remove all interpretation let's simplify it to the base facts: you made improper COI allegations, you were told to stop by admins, editors even pointed you to the proper venue and process to present evidence, you persisted despite warnings, you were sanctioned. On top of that, as OiD and the admin who placed the sanction point out, the sanction is only to abide by existing policy. It also only applies in areas under discretion of the GMO ArbCom case. Though I expect if you went to a different subject area and behaved the same way the next sanction would be worse. You've received a community sanction and an AE sanction in quick order. Perhaps, rather than lash out and claim everyone is misinterpreting or oppressing you, the better course would be to examine your interactions with editors and alter how you deal with people around here. Perhaps, I don't know, stop being so confrontational about things no matter how much you personally believe them. Capeo (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Whats REALLY hilarious is that it is not even a real sanction! Its just an instruction to abide by WP:NPA by not making allegations with zero credible evidence - something that every editor should be doing already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this characterization, too, but at least in this case I am allowed to say that you are allowed to raise issues about my motivations for including questionable material, but I am not allowed to raise issues about you doing the same thing. EllenCT (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And there we have it. The fundamental misunderstanding of policy at the heart of this. Only in Death is NOT allowed to question your motivations nor are you allowed to do the same to him. Particularly not in regards to off-wiki, private influences you believe are motivating an edit. People are blocked for such aspersions regularly. You question the edit not the editor. This is basic stuff. If you seriously suspect a COI is in play there is already a process for that. That process isn't throwing around public accusations. Capeo (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The COI process is explicitly a formal way to question motivations of editors, and I am no longer allowed to use it. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just an short observation: When checking David's talk page, my brain registered the heading "Notice that you are now subject to an arbitrary enforcement sanction". I don't think this is a good sign. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard to regret decisions, by whomever made, to topic ban editors who then leave Misplaced Pages. It demonstrates that they were unable to take (ideally constructive) feedback, and even when given free rein to write elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, chose to take their ball and go home instead. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with this sentiment. It is a nearly perfect indicator that a departing editor is a POV-pusher who is here for the wrong reasons. Now let's get busy writing and maintaining an encyclopedia, shall we? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

^Some serious hypocrisy here. Rather than assume good faith we have these derogatory posts, that could easily be classified under "casting aspersions" that I have been accused of. I am called a POV pusher without evidence. Yet, when I *provide strong evidence* of industry POV, that is not acceptable, I need to be silenced and punished for shedding light on the problem. People are even lying and saying I called editors shills and undisclosed COI or paid-editors. I never, ever did. Prove it. I know better. Instead I followed the rules and provided *evidence* of POV edits. But instead of looking at the evidence, people are just ignoring the evidence and calling it "casting aspersions" to show POV edits.

I had a lot of faith in Misplaced Pages when I started a number of years ago, which used to be far more balanced than it is now. The harsh and punitive way I have been treated for raising legitimate concerns is so outrageous, I see no reason to be part of this project. I can only imagine similar treatment for raising pro-industry concerns on any other article. To continue editing as if such treatment is acceptable would only condone it.

Let's just be clear, Misplaced Pages is become like all the other places where industry can do their advertising, but here FOR FREE. I am very saddened by what has happened to Misplaced Pages. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

See: "#WP has solutions for all business needs" but not "EOQ equation". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has tried to prioritize edits by how much they improve the encyclopedia by serving the readership, and is no longer able to do so, I completely disagree with the sentiment, and wonder if I should try a clean start. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Turning over a new leaf sounds like an excellent idea, but editors subject to a sanction cannot make a WP:CLEANSTART. The idea that you need to be able to engage in univendenced accusations of COI to "improve the encyclopedia" is exactly what you need to drop. Alexbrn (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As Capeo says, people can check the history decide for themselves whether the accusations were "univendenced." Why do you use the plural "accusations" -- it's not like anyone has ever complained about more than one such instance, is it? The fact that you would use scare quotes around the only reason we are supposed to be here speaks volumes. EllenCT (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

More aggressive WP:ABF - quotation marks can (as here) be used for quoting things you know: I was quoting your words. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Office and libraries

The United States Copyright Office is reported to be preparing a proposal of changes to copyright law involving libraries.

• The Copyright Office is trying to redefine libraries, but libraries don’t want it — Who is it for? (July 27, 2016)—Internet Archive Blogs

—Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC) and 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
For convenience, here are some relevant links: American Library Association (ALA), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Internet Archive, Wayback Machine, Digital Public Library of America (DPLA).—Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional information can be found on these pages.

• 17 U.S. Code § 108 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives—Legal Information Institute
• Revising Section 108: Copyright Exceptions for Libraries and Archives | U.S. Copyright Office
• Section 108: Draft Revision of the Library and Archives Exceptions in U.S. Copyright Law—Federal Register

—Wavelength (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Internet Archive worried about this? Per your Federal Register link, this appears to be an attempt to give museums the same rights libraries have to make digital copies for research, archives, preservation, and security; add new categories of works to those exemptions, permit the reproduction and distribution of publicly available internet content for preservation and research purposes ("with an opt-out provision" -- is that it?); allow outsourcing of those copying activities; and remove the three copy restriction, presumably for institutions that want more robust backups. EllenCT (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WP has solutions for all business needs

Misplaced Pages has 72,000 "solutions" (without water) for all your business needs, but not the famous "EOQ equation" taught in business classes. There are far more articles about what businesses sell rather than what businesses are. Although it can be good to know "Motorola Solutions" (company), WP needs more about business concepts, such as the EOQ equation (for "economic order quantity"). Anyway, for all your business needs, search solutions (without water), search: solutions -water. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've absolutely no idea what you're going on about, but Misplaced Pages actually has 72,000 articles that contain the word "solutions" and not the word "water", rather than 72,000 with titles that fit that criteria. Many of these are mathematical articles. Though that accuracy does depend on the competence of the Misplaced Pages search engine, which is frankly very poor. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

^You say "many" of the articles are about mathematics. Where is your evidence? How many? I ran the search Wikid77 suggested (search: solutions -water) and it was exactly as he said--the first 10 articles that came up were business "solutions". --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you only look at the first few pages of that search then yes, most of the articles are about businesses, because the search engine lists those with "solutions" in the title first (most of which will indeed be businesses) but if you look further down the list, most of the articles are ones with the word "solutions" in the text only, and as such quite a few are mathematics and science based (Here's 2000-2500 in the list). I was pointing out to Wikid that he was claiming that there were 72,000 articles about business solutions, which is plainly nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That list wasn't much better. Note: It does change slightly every time I run it. Every time I ran it, >=50% were promotional. Of the 4 times I tried it, one was 50% and the others were about 70-90% promotional. I think it is safe to say that although not 100% of the 72,000 are promotional, the overwhelming majority (~2/3) are. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, there are certainly a large number of promotional articles. Misplaced Pages is not good at weeding them out. But one mustn't confuse the simple existence of the word "solutions" in a business article with it being promotional; it is a pan-industrial buzzword that is used in many different contexts and thus tends to appear in even otherwise good articles. I have a catalogue on my desk for a company providing "traditional education solutions". They print school textbooks. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially with sentence #1. I think this is what Wikid77 successfully showed. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And let's be clear, the text book industry is big business (Tamim Ansary author of the ref. is an excellent author by the way). That they would even consider putting creation theory in science text books says quite a lot about their priorities . (See also about problems with textbooks.). I have been a teacher in secondary school. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I await Wikid77's and my punishment for "casting aspersions" for his providing evidence of pro-industry bias and my agreeing with him/her. As has been made clear--talking about such POV problems on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable, *especially* if you provide strong evidence. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wow! Very interesting and sad. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)