Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive878

---

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

short story

OK, I have a stalker, userlinks above, who is accusing me of bad faith actions and COI across multiple Talk pages, so the issues are WP:HOUND, and WP:AGF/WP:NPA. He is also WP:CANVASSING about the "biased POV of the GMO articles". On his userpage he makes it clear he is a community activist, and it appears to me he is using such tactics here in WP and is violating WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY.

At this point I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing, and a strong warning for this inexperienced editor to stop these behaviors and to focus on content, not contributors. If David persists after a formal warning, I will seek a topic ban. I believe he is well-intentioned but does not understand WP. He appears to be WP:NOTHERE but I am not bringing that case, at this time.

longer story

WP:Canvassing

David entered the GMO topic by canvassing 4 editors on their Talk pages.

• 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif
• 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif
• 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif

These messages are identical, are on pages of dissenters from the consensus on the GMO articles, and are decidedly not neutral, citing a "a pattern of corporate manipulation" and other bad behavior by "small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject" and discussing the "bogus" and "blatant falsehood" of the scientific consensus statement. (Note: the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is as safe to eat, as food from conventional organisms. That was subject to an RfC that upheld the content with the consensus statement and its sourcing. That statement in the GMO articles really bothers anti-GMO activists. Continual problem with drive by editors, and some editors who are active here.)

I provided David formal warning of canvassing here. I also made a note on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page and added a recruiting template to the article.

• After the canvassing warning, in this discussion on another user's Talk page, David used his concerns about my removing a personal attack (see below) to again vent his general concerns with the POV/COI going on at the GMO suite and my behavior. (again, with an editor he thought would be sympathetic) - which is canvassing, in my view.

David's canvassing led directly to a posting on Jimbo's talk page by one of the canvassers. Thread is here, which grew directly out of David's canvassing of the OP, one of those already linked above.

• David contributed this to the discussion there, discussing "COI problems that are happening with pharmaceuticals, and are now an equally big problem with GMO articles which lack of NPOV." This is just a continuation of the community activist campaigning and canvassing.

• And then, David left a message on another editor's Talk page tonight that I consider to be canvassing, that started with said "Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." and discussed more below), and is what prompts me to call for a 24 block for canvassing.

• WP:NPA / WP:TPG

• David has now twice added content to article Talk pages, to "introduce" new users, with POV and attacking messages about contributors, not content:

first with this beauty, which i removed per NPA and provided David with a warning on this Talk page

and just now, this, which was also removed per NPA by another editor.

• Most recently, a new editor came to the articles wanting to add UNDUE content with messed up referencing to the Genetically modified organism article, which i reverted. I provided that user with a Welcome template, and I added another note informing the editor in a neutral way, about how the suite of articles is set up and explained how to add a reference. That editor used what I taught him to edit war the content back in (with proper reference formatting), without talking back at all, so I provided an edit war warning. (am not going to do all the editing diffs in this part. they are here if anybody wants to see them)

Today, David followed my note and warning with two messages on that editor's page. This first started with "Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this." Which is a continuation of WP:CANVASSING and violates NPA... and is also bad advice, because the editor was edit warring. David then wrote a message to me on that editor's page, critiquing my introductory note. This is just hounding, and this, along with the canvassing, is what prompted this posting.

• In the two or three weeks since all this started, David has engaged in only two real discussions about content.

• one about "substantial equivalence" which is here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Substantial_Equivalence
• the other, trying to add content about a 14 year old primary source discussing cellular engineering (not genetic engineering) to the genetic engineering article. Discussion is here.

In both cases, he was wrong about the topic (law/regulation in one and science in the other), and after he actually read the sources or had them explained to him, he acknowledged he was wrong. All this agita appears to be based on a very strongly held position that "GMOs are bad". He does not appear to be WP:COMPETENT in the subject matter.

• The behavior is all, classic WP:ADVOCACY. I deal with a lot of editors like this in the GMO suite and do not bring them here or create drama.

I am bringing this case, because David is different. With him, there is a new stalking element and really wrong focus on motivations and on contributors (namely me) not content, that is, to me, really icky, and a set of "community organizing" activities that is very unwikipedian.

deeper background here, for anyone who wants it Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing. David believes he has The Truth here and that his behavior is justified, and I reckon he will try to turn this into an examination of my behavior. I know that and expect it. I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.

• I ask that, if this turns into an examination of my behavior, that this be done in a separate thread. This thread is focused on David's behavior demonstrated above, which is out of line.

• Anyway, as I mentioned above, I am seeking a 24 block for canvassing and a warning for David to stop these behaviors. I would like the warning to include instruction to discuss content, not contributors.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (added a bit per note below Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

Have you first tried to engage with David in a meaningful discussion? If so, why did initial attempts to solve the issue fail? I'm asking this only because I can't make any clear inferences about that from your long post, so it may be a good idea for you to state that clearly. -A1candidate 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, as i did describe above. added some Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of accusations thrown against David Tornheim for allegedly stalking you, and that may indeed be occurring, but if you don't want him to come to your talkpage, you may wish to tell him to stay away from your talkpage (in clear language) and see if that works. You said that you apologized to him, but I don't consider that a good way to deal with unwanted attention. -A1candidate 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your advice but you are distracting from the point. I have not disinvited him from my Talk page, as that is the first place for him to bring concerns about my behavior. Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, this board is next, as I have told him.

But this is about david's behavior. I believe the canvassing is sanctionable and the discussions of content, not contributor, need a warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also chime in and say that Jytdog seems to try to help out new editors relatively well. However, some terseness is needed in controversial topics when someone comes in with a strong viewpoint of their own. This seems to be a case more so not of a new editor being bitten, but someone coming in from an advocacy perspective with a fringe viewpoint and coming in a bit too hot to really realize the problem with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning. Support temp block and warning. I'd weakly support a temp block, but it's really the warning that would hopefully help the situation. I've been involved in some of the content in this case, but haven't been targeted by David Tornheim like Jytdog has with this hounding behavior. There's really no excuse for this behavior and it's just poisoning the well at the related articles. The canvassing is very apparent (also to a t as described by WP:Votestacking) as Tornheim has been selectively recruiting from editors who appear to hold his viewpoint or have been trying to further WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the article. If it was just a new editor reaching out to one of those folks, that could be construed as someone just learning the ropes, but not this many people. The WP:TRUTH behavior seems very apparent where Tornheim came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles where other editors with fringe POVs run into trouble). Overall, this just seems to be lashing out for not understanding how Wikipedia works (not for a lack of others trying to help) from trying to move too fast with a certain POV. The advocacy is tricky to address at this point here and maybe could be resolved without need for ANI, but it does seem to be leading towards the personal attacks and hounding that is not appropriate in any case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also tack on there has been some battleground behavior/edit warring:

• [1] David adds content, removed due to sourcing issues by Jytdog.
• [2] David reverts content back in " please do not undo without presenting your reason on the talk page. "not accurate" is not a reason"
• [3] Reverted by Jytdog asking, "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [4] David reverts again directly copying Jytdog's edit summary "per WP:BRD please do not edit war, but rather open a discussion on the Talk page."
• [5] I reverted David's 3rd revert asking him to justify his new addition on the talk page at this point.
• [6] At which point, David posts a 3RR warning on my talk page after my single revert.

This shows a tendency to edit war rather than come to the talk page and seemingly not understanding that if you make a change and it gets reverted, you then need to gain consensus for it on the talk page. The snark involved in copying Jytdog's edit summary about BRD is also problematic and the warning on my page seem pretty retaliatory in nature. This user is still relatively new, so I do hope changes occur, but this is looking like a difficult case that isn't just due to being a new user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose temp block and warning. I am working on a response, which I intend to post tonight. I would appreciate a chance to respond before any action is taken. David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Calling for a block based on a single incident involving canvassing of four editors which occurred nearly a month ago seems on its face unreasonable. Jytdog is an involved editor in this issue, and as such, Jytdog's behavior in this lengthy interaction should be subject to scrutiny as well; "this isn't about me, this is about them" arguments are specifically discussed and dismissed in Wikipedia:Boomerang, and "anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."Dialectric (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Dialectric, I am sorry my complaint was not formatted more clearly and that I missed your response. I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. I hope that clarifies. I wouldn't have brought the block request based on the initial 4 canvasses - I agree that would not be reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of this would be for Jytdog to clarify, but I didn't see a clear it's not me it's them demarcation in his post, but rather him asking that if someone really wanted to discuss his behavior, it be brought up in a different section so there could be some clarity rather than a jumbled mess. The canvassing though is only one of the problems experienced at the articles (though maybe the most actionable). Advocacy really seems to be the core problem here though, so this isn't based in a single incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say there is nothing to do at this stage but it's clearly important to watch David Tornheim's input in relation to these articles, as he seems to be of the school that believes that anything not anti-GMO is pro-GMO, an easy mistake to make but not one that Wikipedia should fall for. For example, this edit states in Wikipedia's voice that an experiment that led to genetically modified human children in the US was unethical and illegal "there" and in other countries (in fact it should say "in the UK" as it is not illegal in the US, where ti happened); this is attributed to "British scientists" but the story makes it clear that the criticism comes from some British scientists and is nto a considered corporate view of any British scientific body. It would have been much better to attribute the actual quotation in the source by Lord Winston, whose criticism was much more measured. But in any case this is a 2015 edit based on a 2001 story about a technique (ooplasmic transfer) that has been covered much more recently, and is intimately bound to the three-parent baby debate. As a criticism of genetic engineering, it represents nothing more than a random interjection. In short, the edit represents a simplistic and partisan view of a complex topic, within a mature article. many of David's edits are similar. I think David now understands that he needs to discuss such edits in advance and achieve consensus before making edits that may be controversial. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

*note, created separate section for comments on my behavior below. this section is for David's behavior. I imagine this is going to get separated as new comments come in. This is the point in the thread where David added his comments below. Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi JzG I am not making this report based on the 4 initial canvasses. I warned him for that. I am seeking the block because of the subsequent canvassing that I bulleted above, here and here, with that post on Jimbo's page here in the midst. He shows no sign at all of stopping and appears very committed to continuing to "community organize"?canvass around these issues. And I am seeking the warning for his continued comments on contributors (me) in, inappropriate venues, and following me around. ( this message to me on another editor's talk page... just ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Don't support. DavidTornheim has indeed attempted to inject content that was not supported by RS and has been looking for support. I'm not enough of a WP policy maven to weigh in on whether he's been violating the many policies cited here. However, he has in some cases responded appropriately to specific criticism and backed down. I think attempts to continue working with him are appropriate. I do wish he'd stop with the allegations. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Wrong place The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This section is about David's behavior. Thanks for your support the warning. Blocks are meant to be educational, and I think David has no concept that his canvassing/campaigning is wrong. if you want to comment on me, you would probably best do that below. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is my opinion that the allegations raised against me by Jytdog are a direct result of my attempts to address Jytdog's behavior. Please see my response and reply to the allegations incorporated into the discussion below about Jytdog's behavior. David Tornheim (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • • yes it is clear that you believe you are doing The Right Thing. The problem is that you do not understand WP nor its behavioral guidelines. This is not a place for the tactics of community activism. It's just not. In any case, this thread has zero traction. All three of our posts are TLDR and we are not going to get community feedback nor admin action. Ah well, I screwed that up. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's behavior

(note - created separate section so this has its own focus, separate from the above, which is David's behavior Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC))

• Response to Allegations: I have been on Wikipedia since July 2008 [7] and have worked on a number of different articles.  I have never been taken to an ANI board before and have never been blocked. I have never taken anyone else to an ANI board or any other notice board. I am used to working things out on the talk page of the relevant articles.

I do understand Jytdog has put quite a lot of effort into revising all of the GMO articles and so it is not entirely suprising there is resistance to new people making changes. However, Jytdog's treatment of new users does not follow WP:DONTBITE, especially those that raise WP:NPOV concerns, which I explain below. In 2004, Jytdog said:

"There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up ..." here

Unfortunately, during this massive rewrite, as indicated above, the voices of GMO critics/consumer advocates (renamed pejoratively "anti-GMO") were compromised and the revised articles took on a Pro-GMO slant. "Anti-GMO" is an unfair label for the consumer groups, because people can be conerned about GMO's and want more testing before widespread release, without being opposed to all GMO's. This is an example edit where GMO critics' concerns are watered down to be almost unrecognizable here.

Jytdog is correct that I believe there are serious issues with lack of WP:NPOV for all of the GMO articles, and my good faith efforts to address them and work with Jytdog and the others are met with these kinds of accusations--just look at my talk page.

The 'scientific consensus' issue is simple--there is none, and other editors have pointed this out:

• Unmismoobjetivo (talk) here
• LesVegas (talk) here
• user:Arsenal lb here
• Gaba ^(talk) here.

English language Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and there is widespread mainstream diversity of opinion in Europe, at least, especially ENSRR here. Reliable sources explain the lack of 'scientific consensus' here and here. Jytdog and others insist that reliable sources that do not conform to their view of the subject are fringe/advocacy groups here. This is POV pushing.

Jytdog, especially, but also Kingofaces43 and others have shown owernship behaiors WP:OWNER (or WP:GANG) towards the GMO articles, especially when changes are proposed that might address the NPOV concerns. For example,

User LesVegas identified the WP:NPOV problem and put an NPOV tag on an GMO article here and the tag was removed only 5 minutes later by Jytdog here. The user attempted to put it back here, and again Jytdog removed the appropriate NPOV tag only 2 minutes later here, despite the fact that the user did discuss the NPOV problem on the talk pages (here) and had good reason to tag the article that continues to have WP:NPOV problems.

Shorly after Jytdog engaged me on my talk page and I explained my concerns about lack of NPOV, he wrote, "You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be..." here.

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

After Jytdog bared his teeth, I was still able to find some common ground and establish some rapport with him/her. However, I felt it necessary to explain the problem of intimidating new users, as gently as possible. I did so here. The situation I explained is that user Alexlikescats explained the same lack of NPOV here at 21:45, 29 March 2014 (another user:107.2.182.250 chimed in, in agreement here). Only 32 minutes after Alexlikescats said the article was biased, Jytdog accused Alexlikescats of having a single-purpose-acccount here, which violates the rule of WP:DONTBITE, especially the section, "Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute ". That was the last thing the user did on Wikipedia. See Alexlikecats, contributions.

When I had confronted Jytdog with the problem of intimidating new users, Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.

Another example of Jytdog's similar treatment to a new user is here

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

When I saw yet another new user (MaxwellBarr) who tried to make good faith edits to address NPOV in a GMO article getting hit by accusations by Jtydog here, I did indeed tell Jytdog again I saw that as a problem here, here and here, while urging the user not to give up on editing the page here. Unfortunately, this user appears to have been scared off as well and has not made any further contributions to Wikipedia confirmed here. Again this is a problem with WP:BITE. This last incident pushed Jytdog to bring me to this forum claiming this confrontation was "canvassing.". I am happy to accept advice from 3rd parties on what I should do if I see a problem like that. I continue to be concerned about Jytdog's behavior of treating new users like this and having ownership behaviors like reverting any new additions and refusing to take seriously new ideas, but I am not sure what I should do about it.  Even though I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, I don't really know much about resolving disputes in the forums.  I generally just try to talk it out with the people involved. Until I tried to add sourced material to articles in the GMO suite, I had never encountered such vigorous and tendentious opposition.

The incident Kingofaces43 describes was resolved here and here. I said on the talk page, that I intended to add material another user had suggested here, for which neither had specifically objected except for a blanket rejection here. The two working together reverted my inclusion without discussing on the talk page and without giving a valid reason of reverting (too old and "not true" [an opinion not backed up with WP:RS] are not valid reasons for rejecting material IMHO), which to me seemed like edit waring and unnecessary obstruction on their behalf as part of a WP:TAG team to accomplish 3RRR.

In summary, I think there are some real WP:OWN and WP:GANG behaviors on the GMO pages, and serious problems with WP:NPOV that can not be addressed because of that. I have tried in good faith to address those problems and am looking towards 3rd party admin(s) who have no investment in the GMO articles to give some guidance on how I might address the problems.

Instead of a block or warning for me, I think the deserving person for sanctions should be Jytdog for biting (WP:BITE) new users who do not share his/her POV and thereby "poisoning the well." David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen, because the allegation of biting relies on the idea that anti-GMO views have parity of esteem with the mainstream view. The articles right now reflect the neutral point of view as a result of many years of debate between people of all shades of opinion. I understand that some people are not familiar with a lot of this, and you perhaps you don't know about the practices of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that historically plague contentious articles. Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).

We do know that people cast themselves as "consumer advocates" not anti-GMO. Antivaxers, climate deniers, creationists and many other activists opposing the scientific consensus, do the same, with some success, in that in recent years some segments of the media have fallen into the trap of believing that science and cranks are valid opposing views. Recent outbreaks of preventable disease have seen some changes here and it's becoming slightly less common to interview an antivaxer and put them up against a lone scientist representing the tens of millions who support the consensus view. The nature of a scientific consensus is that it encompasses all known facts and valid opinions about those facts.

Wikipedia notes that there is no good evidence to support most of the harms claimed by anti-GMO activists (a few of the economic ones are entirely valid but that is a different debate). I'm a fan of the precautionary principle, but I've had to accept this view of GMOs over time. They are actually in many ways safer and less environmentally damaging than non-GMO crops: less pesticide, less fertiliser, less preservative, less chance of toxic breakdown products in the produce. It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage.

This is not Wikipedia's problem, it's the anti-GMO movement's problem, they need to find better arguments. Obviously we also need to patiently explain the facts, but in general we already have, in talk page headers and the articles themselves. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses

articles under discussion here. broadly stated, are:

Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified crops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genetically modified organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Monsanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Organic farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OP of this subthread, making a complaint, is David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am the one against whom David is complaining: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The complaint is: violations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE

• some of what David writes above is about content; this is not the place to discuss content disputes so I will not respond here.
• With regard to claims that I WP:OWN the subject matter...

It it true that I watch them (I watch ~2500 articles) and in all my editing, I am keen that content be sourced from reliable, secondary sources per VERIFY, OR, RS, and MEDRS, and that content be NPOV. The GMO suite is no different.

And it is true that I am the biggest (or one of the biggest) contributor to most of these, and that they dominate my editing, if you analyze my edits by article. Here is a breakdown. i am aware of this.

but I don't believe I do the behaviors described in OWN, here. i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. But some things come close to the OWN behaviors, like

*the "qualifications" thing (the subject matter is technical - science and law etc.) If an editor is calm enough to actually listen, those things generally can get worked through, as they have with David twice now when he slowed down enough to actually listen - you can see that in the two examples I linked to in my complaint (here and here.

*The "comments on other editor's pages" thing comes close too. I think I have generally stayed within both the spirit and the letter of this place in talking with other editors and especially new editors, but I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.

• to state the obvious, GMOs are a subject matter where people come to the article with very strong emotions and views and make changes that violate NPOV, OR, RS, etc. We get lots of "driveby" edits adding bad content (violates NPOV, OR, etc) in the articles because of that. The new editor Maxwell discussed above is very typical - editors come, want to add some UNDUE matter, and never talk back. it is not my fault if people do not understand WP and do not talk back. WP:BITE does not say that "anything new editor adds is OK." It just doesn't say that.
• That said, I try very hard to engage in civil, PAG-based discussions with editors who are willing to talk on these pages and have received several barnstars, specifically for my efforts working with people on controversial subjects, (and this is just some of the feedback along these lines):

this from 7%266%3Dthirteen

this from Yobol

this from Brangifer

this from DocumentError

this from IRWolfie-

this from Epipelagic

this from SandyGeorgia

With regard to "engaging with new ideas" I am very happy to hear new ideas and see them implemented, or implement them myself. On the GMO suite, most people who come by are not bringing up anything new. Maxwell's edit, for example, was about the Seralini affair, which was worked on vigorously as it is unfolded and is now integrated into the suite and has its own article. I'm always happy to discuss re-arranging things and have offered to discuss with David, which he has taken up.

I am really proud that ~in general~ these articles have stayed off the drama pages, and we have not gone to Arbcom. (although there was a really bad period back in August 2013 when it got to so ugly (especially with unfounded claims of COI on my part that I took myself to COIN (none of my accusers had the sense or graciousness to even bring a case in the proper forum) and I revealed my RL identity to an oversighter - results of that are here.... and that it looked like this might go to Arbcom. We avoided that.

I have interacted with lots of folks over the past three years on these articles. I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV. I will ping some of them here, to be sure they are aware of this. Viriditas, Petrarchan47, Canoe1967, El duderino, The Banner, I would say are key people who have said I am a bad presence here and might like to comment. There are other editors whom I know have strong concerns with my GMO editing, for example Gandydancer and Groupuscule, but have generally not personalized it (especially not groupuscule who is always a paragon of elegance and civility). There are other editors who have generally had different perspectives from me and have really engaged in Talk discussions over the years, like Semitransgenic. IjonTichyIjonTichy and Dialectric have shown up more recently.

Lfstevens is fairly new to the topics and recently went over the GM Controversies with a very fine-toothed comb (thanks again for that) and may have input on this. Guettarda also recently came by.

Then there are those who have really collaborated on building the articles - Sunrise (not so active on them anymore), Aircorn (not so active on them anymore), SylviaStanley too, and Kingofaces, who has already weighed in above. (the article analysis tool is broken or i would list more)

Tryptofish (away on personal matters) has been invaluable in mediating some of the conversations. I wish he were around as his feedback is wise.

What I am trying to say, is we have managed to keep the conversations civil enough, and focused enough on PAG based discussion of content and sources, that we have been able to resolve issues on the Talk pages or through RfC. David - a newbie, community activist - is breaking that. Making personal attacks of COI etc all over WP, trying to whip up opposition, instead of simply dealing with the content and sources in the article.

I am glad David finally brought this here, however. This is, finally, the proper forum for raising his concerns, especially since RfC/U is now dead. . As you can see, I am taking the initiative to open this up wide. Let's get this dealt with.

finally, i ask myself the questions in WP:TENDENTIOUS all the time. I am human and fuck up sometimes. When I do, I acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, fix it, and move on. If there is consensus that I am acting badly on this more meta-level, I look forward to hearing that. I do expect some strong accusations that I am acting badly. I do not expect that to be the consensus, but am opening this up, since we are all trapped in our own limited perspectives on the world; feedback is good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion. Which is such a mess I can't tell who is saying what about whom.

As a tangent/rant, I don't know why we did away with RFC/U, and instead get these long rambling incoherent threads on ANI, where everyone with an ax to grind piles on with little regard for subsequent readers or relative actionable evidence requiring admin intervention. There are frequent references in here to a "David"; for readers who don't know this "David", how about using usernames?

One thing that stands out to me in this discussion (because I've seen it now twice in just a few days, reference the recent thread about Formerly 98) are these two statements:

This behavior of Jytdog's is what Viriditas describes here as “poisoning the well”, scaring off new users who do not share Jytdog's POV.

and

Viriditas (talk) wrote about this WP:BULLY behavior as well on my talk page here with this edit.

Both Viriditas and Petrarchan47 are mentioned several times in this discussion, which is not surprising considering that both of them have long been grinding an ax with medical content (ref threads about a year ago on marijuana, and recent threads about Formerly 98-- they both seem to show up whenever controversial medical content is involved). That Viriditas wrote negatively about a medical editor on someone's talk page is not evidence of anything, except, well ... that Viriditas frequently does that. In spite of a long-standing ax-grinding with me, Viriditas nonetheless posts to my talk page when he wants to go after another editor.[8][9]

Is any admin action required? I don't know, because I haven't read through yet another long incoherent discussion here that would have been better served at RFC.

I do know that something should be done about Viriditas and Petrarchan47, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I asked for a short block and warning for David Tornheim way above, which is still an open matter. He responded by making a complaint about me, which is in this subsection. I expected this, and made my original request in part to provoke this, to get David to finally raise his concerns in the right place. I do want the short block and warning, however and think it is warranted - my posting was not POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the subsequent clarification. But more generally, I just do not understand how ANI is supposed to result in anything productive in the absence of RFC/U. Multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors, and yet, we no longer have such a forum. I agree with you that ANI is now the only place to raise issues, but don't think engaging here is likely to be productive. It will result in useless section headings and drahmaz like the section just below this, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the offensive section heading has now been removed-- thanks to whomever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's concerns

SandyGeorgia, I have no idea what you are talking about. With that said, I would like to clear up some of your glaring misconceptions:

• Petrarchan47 retired a year ago from Wikipedia. My understanding is that she recently dropped in and made several comments and then went back into retirement. I fail to see what she has to do with any of this.
• David Tornheim recently left me a message on my talk page, and I responded to him on his talk page in regards to his dispute with Jytdog. I also commented about Jytdog's treatment of David Tornheim on Jytdog's talk page. However, I have not edited in the GMO topic area since 2013 and I would ask that you stop trying to bring me back into it.
• As for your extremely bizarre claim that I am involved in some kind of "long-standing ax-grinding" with you, I'm afraid you flatter yourself as I have no idea what you mean. You appear to harbor deep grudges and then project them on to other editors.
• Your claim that I post to your talk page when I want to go after other editors is simply absurd. Your diff shows that I was offering you support in a conflict with another editor that I had the same experience with, as I felt I could offer a corroborating opinion. It shows nothing about going after anyone, and I've never pursued the matter.

Now, please stop drawing me into your petty squabbles and role-playing fantasies. I have not edited in this topic area since 2013 and I have no desire to be pulled back into it. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, in any case, V. I won't ping you since you don't want to be involved. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is, I'm not involved. And yet, SandyGeorgia has created this fantasy world where I'm somehow the evil ringleader lurking in the shadows. This is bizarre behavior. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

and you are the 2nd person who is unhappy with David for having tried to drag them back into this. I am sorry for that. I've seen some of the work you've been doing since you stopped being involved, via watching Trypto's Talk page. happy editing to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit, I've criticized David Tornheim's methods on his talk page. I think he needs to take a rest from the GMO battlefield for a bit and focus on improving one article. He's scattered all over the place and that makes it seem like he's less interested in improving an article than in fighting the good fight. On the other hand, he's had a lot of trouble editing in this area because of the guardians. It might go a long way, Jytdog, if you could offer to work with him on a single article in a collaborative manner. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've dealt straight and clean with any objections or ideas he has had, on specific content or sourcing, and will keep doing so. There is no way to respond to Big Global Statements, as you pointed out. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog and KingofAces43 both revert too much in my opinion and Jytdog has done so to some of my edits. The intense emotions that accompany the GMO controversy pushes everybody involved to their limits. That said, when I identified RS material that suggested a problem with glyphosate, Jytdog added it to the article unbidden. I'd just like everybody to spend less time on this controversy and more time on the articles. Lfstevens (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for that feedback. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• My name was included in the above sections, so I guess I ought to respond. In my opinion, the GMO articles were a mess before Jytdog reworked them. Often they were eye-wateringly one sided, the same information was repeated in several places, poor English, poor references, information out of date, and so on. Jytdog has made a marvelous job of re-writing them in a neutral factual tone in Wikipedia style in spite of massive attacks on him. He has reverted several of my own insertions but I can always see the logic behind what he has done. I congratulate him on the vast amount of excellent work he has done.SylviaStanley (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC

• Regarding a block: Oppose (will not solve the issue); regarding a warning: support; regarding a topic ban from GMO and organic subjects: support. I have first hand experience with the rather bullying way Jytdog applies to get things his way with the effect that the neutrality and reliability of articles is impaired. That, and his behaviour, needs to be stopped. The Banner talk 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Moved from section above, wrong person

• Oppose Block/Ban Having read through the supposed "bullying behaviour" of new editor MaxwellBarr, I find it not to be any sort of bullying at all. The editor (MaxwellBarr) first puts in a spam link to gopro.com that is bot deleted. Then the editor immediately puts in a bunch of material that is unref'd. Jytdog reverts but fully explains his (proper) reasoning. Then the editor inserts a random citation at the bottom of the article, and Jytog civilly removes and explains. That is how this is supposed to work. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am preparing further response.David Tornheim (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC). (It is now posted below. David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC))

If you do I suggest you keep it brief. We have both already left WP:WALLOFTEXT here, which is probably why we are getting so few responses. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate your desire for brevity and to avoid worsening the WP:WALLOFTEXT. I wish you had considered that before creating the problem by posting a wall of text. I am glad you said something here, because it is indicative of your attitude in the general case: Your contributions are held to be more valuable than other people's contributions. The rules do not apply to you as much as they apply to other contributors.David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on my own experiences, I feel obligated to acknowledge that Jytdog does demonstrate behavioral issues that require an admins attention as other editors have noted above. I included a few diffs which will help confirm the bullying behavior mentioned above:
• [10] <---Bullying?
• [11] <---passive aggressive bullying of a newbie with mention of ARBCOM because they disagreed?

Despite Jytdog's good intentions, he has a rather skewed interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI guidelines in that he believes those guidelines supersede policy. I imagine there are quite a few editors who have been targeted under the pretense of WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI, and would gladly provide more diffs to demonstrate same, but I see no reason to include them all here. It also appears we've been getting a snowjob as it relates to the ongoing abuse of WP:MEDRS by the same select few.

• [12] <---reverted (Undid revision 650497838 by 2602:306:836F:A3E0:A17D:786E:1D03:BE85 (talk) revert content based on WP:PRIMARY source per WP:MEDRS) Excuse me, but the passage he reverted was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals..... [13]. How is that revert not an abuse of the guideline to control article content?
• [14] <--- reverted (Undid revision 646440329 by AmiLynch (talk) revert addition of content based on WP:PRIMARY source that violates WP:MEDRS) Same song second verse. The excuse that the passage violates a guideline is not cause for a revert. How does one violate a guideline anyway? Furthermore, the passage came from the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 26 (2014) [15] Again, it appears as though he is controlling article content per WP:OWN which actually is a violation of policy.

Granted, there are vandals and CAM spammers who need curtailment, but some of Jytdog's targets have been GF editors, including newbies who actually added passages citing RS in adherence to WP:PAG. In most cases, all it requires to become a card carrying bullseye of the quack-watch cabal is to express a little opposition or criticism of certain interpretations of mainstream views regarding WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS and/or related categories. It reminds me of the trials and tribulations of Judge Roy Bean and his sheriff's posse, only now we're subjected to a 21st century mobocracy which actually determines what information will or won't be allowed in articles regardless of PAG. Hello WP:OWN and WP:NPOV - is anybody home? I don't doubt that the majority of editors on both sides of the isle have good intentions - most are highly intelligent experts in their respective fields - unfortunately (and representative of what happens when power corrupts), innocent editors inadvertently fall victim to the demands of the cabal, and open collaboration is replaced by censorship in a "police state" environment. Quite frankly, few editors survive such an onslaught. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects a one-sided view via censored topics.

In the interim, Jytdog says whatever he wants to say, apologizes to those he has offended whenever he gets around to it, strikes what he says, hats and archives it, resumes bullying and his normal pattern of tendentious editing, attempts to baffle admins hoping they will swallow his BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS because they're inundated with work and are less inclined to analyze the material presented. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I can't help but believe it's part of his baffling exercise which usually precedes the dazzling. For example, it may be difficult for some admins to see his strikes as a tactical measure. If there were only a few, I might be inclined to believe he was being sincere, but are the strikes a true representation of regret for the right reasons? Admins will only see the one or two diffs he might provide in his own defense with a statement something like, I thought about what I said, realized it was wrong so I struck through it. The admins and/or reviewers may think, "Ok - he acted in GF by striking through that comment." Are you sure about that? I think it requires a little more research to see just how many strikes are involved in his repertoire. I find it hard to believe such behavior is a common practice among GF editors. Perhaps I'm wrong in my evaluation. If I am, I will gladly strike through my comments and archive them. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• These observations are in alignment with my own, and with several others. For example, in the midst of a year-long, intense debate at BP, Jytdog joined the discussion and essentially tried to take over the process. Here and here he apologized, exactly as Atsme describes above, and then left the page. In the comments on the page I've linked, Coretheapple said this about Jytdog's approach: I notice that you tend to characterize editors who disagree with what you're doing here as people who are "arguing" with you, in contrast to the nice people who are producing a "positive vision." and some of the editing has bordered on the tendentious and violative of WP:OWN, especially the hairtrigger reverts that I've seen. But the solution is not for one editor to appoint himself as impartial editor, "negotiating" an "apportionment" agenda[as Jytdog categorized his role].

I do agree that his tactics deserve an impartial look from *uninvolved* admins. It is my opinion and personal experience that Jytdog come across as a bully/dictator and may be inadvertently working against WP's goal of retaining editors. I had an experience similar to David's in that I was editing here for a few years and hadn't seen the inside of a noticeboard aimed at me until I had the misfortune of editing a GMO-related article. This is a tactic Jytdog and his buddies use unabashedly. It serves to scare off editors who question the neutrality of his work, if nothing else, and the articles go ignored and remain unchanged. (It is not a done deal that the GMO articles are perfectly NPOV, and the claim is ridiculous on its face.) Even when no action from an ANI is warranted, the editor's reputation has been sullied - with David in this instance being lumped in, sans evidence, with the "anti-vaccers" (read: crazy and not to be trusted). petrarchan47tc 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: And excuse me, but the most damning evidence you can find is Jytdog reverting the addition of primary studies? We don't use the thousands of primary studies published daily peer-reviewed journals; we use the secondary sources, and you already noted that according to WP:MEDRS, Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals. If you don't understand that publishing a single trial in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it a literature review or a systematic review, you shouldn't be criticising the actions of editors who do. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove Escitalopram and venlafaxine for the prophylaxis of migraine headache without mood disorders, One hundred and twenty cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment, and Persistent sexual dysfunction after discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors because they are case studies - primary studies and not of value for making medical claims on Wikipedia. The only "BS diffs and misinterpretations of MEDRS" are yours above. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: no, it wasn't the most damning, there are way more, but those two were enough to demonstrate behavioral issues. FYI - the 1st revert sourced a published article that was cited in 2 different reviews - 1 systematic review - Migraine in Adults: Preventive Pharmacologic Treatments and 1 PubMed Central article Italian guidelines for primary headaches [22]. The 2nd revert sourced an article that mined data from 120 reports and summarized the findings in a report published in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, a book published by IOS Press, [23] which would fall under A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Atsme☯^Consult 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's complete and utter nonsense. Two of the three sources are clearly primary and the other is dubious. If you even bothered to look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667978 you'd see "Publication Types: Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial". Studies and RCTs are primary sources. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/1021h330k91qv844/?genre=article&issn=0924-6479&volume=26&issue=2&spage=109 is a report by the authors based on a website they set up to collect self-reported data. It's neither a systematic nor literature review - PubMed doesn't even classify it - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508. If you read the third source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173768 it says "Publication Types: Case Reports". Case reports are primary sources. Jytdog was absolutely right to remove them. If you think these are the sort of sources that should be in our medical articles, you need to be banned from ever touching a medical article article again. Competence is required. --RexxS (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense is believing dubious justifies a revert, or that the suggested guidelines in MEDRS must be followed explicitly, or that they should be treated the same way we treat BLP violations. Let's not forget that today's mainstream science was yesterday's fringe. WP:MEDRS reads: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It further explains: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. You don't revert just because it doesn't follow MEDRS. Who came up with such a nonsense idea? The most important aspect of editing is having the freedom to do so in an open editing environment. Bottomline, the passages Jytdog reverted in the examples I provided above were not themselves considered policy violations as was Jytdog's WP:OWN behavior. DS, blocks and topic bans are not initiated because an editor wants to add information to improve an article and didn't cite a particular source Jytdog determines to be a RS. If other editors question a source, we have a citation needed template for just that purpose, and I'm pretty sure Jytdog knows how to use it. If I may recommend the following passage in the quote box at WP:FRINGE: ...This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries." I find the latter to be valuable information to keep in mind before your next revert. Atsme☯^Consult 21:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So you've shifted your stance again. This time it's "give us the freedom to stuff articles with today's latest fad as illustrated by this single case study". Well, no. Here's what the opening line of WP:MEDRS states: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (my emphasis) That has to be the first and foremost consideration for including content in any article that has medical claims. MEDRS has the consensus of the community and it spells out that it is vital to base our articles on secondary sources. Not "optional", not "preferable", but "vital". So of course the proper action is to remove dubious claims sourced to primary sources. And yet you want to pillory Jytdog for simply insisting that we only use the best quality sources for medical claims. I've seen far too many SPAs trying to undermine MEDRS to sit back and watch you try to do the same as them. MEDRS is the bulwark that prevents every pharma shill from stuffing our articles with "subtle" advertising; or every "true believer" from promoting their peculiar view of medicine - all based on readily available primary sources. Bottomline is that the edits that Jytdog reverted were clear breaches of MEDRS and he not only had every right to revert them, but a duty to Wikipedia to do so. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply by David Tornheim:

I am glad that Jytdog is reflecting on his/her behavior that I raised about new users, when he said above:

"comments on other editor's pages"... I could see how someone could have an issue with some of what I do there. I acknowledged that to David already and am thinking about this going forward.” (posted here)

I do feel harassed by Jtydog and this feeling continues from these allegations and the vigor which he continues to fill my talk pages even during this ANI (here and here)—he has put more than twice as many edits to my talk page as I have. (see)

How can I be stalking him/her, when s/he keeps showing up on my talk page with endless allegations like those lodged here? This is not about me: Jytdog appears to do this to anyone who tries to edit the GMO suite of articles in ways that he does not approve of, in particular new users who can be scared away. The only reason we are here (in ANI) is because I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while, and cannot be accused of WP:SPA, and have not been intimidated in letting Jytdog WP:OWN the articles.

I disagree that a determination of whether WP:BITE has occurred is dependent on the outcome of a content dispute. New users should be welcome even if other users think correctly or incorrectly that the new user's POV is WP:FRINGE. Please note that a consensus can change, but organic consensus can be stifled by WP:BITING people who do not agree with a consensus achieved at one point in history. Also, a consensus can be achieved that does not adhere to other Wikipedia policies: For example, it may be based on inaccurate information, use of unreliable sources, original research or insufficient use of all reliable sources, WP:UNDUE, etc.

It has been stated that that some GMO articles are “mature” articles. However articles on Wikipedia are never “done” (WP:PERFECTION and WP:EDITING). I am not aware of any policy that says a “mature” article requires a higher threshold for changes or improvement than a brand new article, and Wikipedia policies make it quite clear that users should be WP:BOLD and correct articles that have problems (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). That an article has a long history is not a reason to avoid correcting errors and problems with it (WP:PERFECTION). WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM includes “adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced."

To Guy (Help!): you said, “Your best bet is to offer new users advice on policies and how to stay on the right side of them (though I have to say I'm not convinced you know, fomr a sample of your edits in this area).”

Jytdog has accused me of canvassing by talking to new or existing users anywhere but the article talk page (although sometimes my attempts to do that are censored by Jytdog here and/or KingofAces here). Jytdog has said I am stalking him/her if I interact with a new user after Jytdog scolded them and I have tried to encourage them not to feel intimidated.

What do you propose I do if I were to see this behavior of WP:BITE from Jytdog or any other user? I noted this WP:BITE behavior in Jytdog and all attempts on my part to address it only made things worse. I am very open to any suggestions about the proper way to address it in a way that would not cause the reaction I witnessed from Jytdog, which is to accuse me of canvassing and stalking.

I think the behavioral problems here are likely to go away if Jytdog learns that his WP:OWN , WP:BITE, and POV pushing behaviors are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I think he is a good editor who sometimes forgets that we are all here to make an encyclopedia, not to be the 'guardians of Truth” WP:The_Truth

-David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to close

• Support as proposer per the excellent comments by Lfstevens above. This thread no longer serves any purpose. There are problems with David Tornheim's edits in as much as there are issues with Jytdog's behavior. Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this, as ANI is not setup to deal with this current issue. Use the RFC process to resolve content disputes on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a distinct imbalance between the evidence of problems with David Tornheim's edits and the evidence of Jytdog's behaviour. In fact the evidence adduced by diffs of Jytdog's behaviour was a completely unfounded misrepresentation of WP:MEDRS as I've shown above. You can't simply brush away the clearly documented problems with David Tornheim's edits by calling them equal to Jytdog's policy-compliant actions (that Atsme tarnished through Atsme's lack of understanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources). --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read my response to you above regarding primary and secondary sources, and what guidelines are applicable to the actual passages that were reverted. Sometimes verifiable requires more than a click and a revert. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read it and it's clear you have no clue what a primary source is. If you can't tell the difference between case studies or RCTs and secondary sources, you have no business criticising someone like Jytdog who can. Your intervention here is spurious at best. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Read it again. You are confusing a suggested guideline with adherence to policy. Bullying people into using RS you and a few others consider acceptable is not acceptable, and neither is reverting another editor's contribution simply because you don't like the source. I think it contributes to the reason we are here now. Atsme☯^Consult 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You read it again. There's nothing "suggested" about Wikipedia guidelines. They enjoy the consensus of the community and you'd better have a damn good reason to claim your edit gets to be an exception to them. What was so extraordinary about the edits that Jytdog reverted that they shouldn't be subject to MEDRS? It's the community that agreed MEDRS, so it's you and your tiny band who find MEDRS inconvenient who are pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. It's not my judgement of what's acceptable; it's the judgement of the community. It's not a dislike of a source; it's a dislike of POV-pushers who try to make medical claims based on feeble evidence. If you make a habit of pushing dubious medical claims based on primary sources - assuming you can figure out what they are - I predict you'll be back here soon enough. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, guidelines are guidelines, and they are suggested best practices. No matter how good the intentions of MEDRS are, it's a guideline that can be abused to promote biased views. The same is true of the FRINGE guideline. Neither of these things are policies nor should they be treated as such. What tends to happen is that editors like yourself yell "MEDRS!" and/or "FRINGE!" when there is the slightest bit of criticism against a medical view or perspective that has substantial opposition and or alternative views. Often times we find that these so called "establishment" medical views are corporate-funded and distorted, such as AAAS uncovering the manipulation of NIH health guidelines by the sugar industry from 1959-1971.[24] Sorry, but medical content is not immune from corporate bias, and both MEDRS and FRINGE are abused to perpetuate this bias, which is why we rely on the NPOV policy above and beyond any project-promoted guideline. It is of note that GMO critics have made the same claims about corporate bias in the "established" GMO literature. MEDRS and FRINGE are frequently cited to prevent other perspectives from being presented. Merchants of Doubt covers the specifics of how this works in the real world. This is why, at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, with some editors trying to falsely elevate guidelines in order to bypass the NPOV policy and filter out critical viewpoints outside the consensus established by Big Pharma. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing contrary about it: guidelines are indeed documented best practice, as agreed by the community. There's nothing "suggested" about guidelines; they are not optional to be disregarded at will as you seem to think. Don't bother deflecting by going off on tangents, just concentrate on your campaign against MEDRS and your attempt to criticise an editor who followed "best practice" by removing claims that cited only primary sources. Let's be clear: do you support the notion of using primary sources to insert medical claims into Wikipedia? Yes or no? Then we can see what your agenda is here. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not belabor the point that guidelines are not policies because the tone of your responses is somewhat elevated, so I will end my participation in this sideline discussion by suggesting that you review WP:MEDRS wherein it clearly states: The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research). I try to adhere to policy and use guidelines for...well, guidelines. You might also want to read: Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Enforcement and WP:IAR. To keep reverting and/or deleting the edits of others simply because you think the passage isn't properly sourced according to a specific guideline could very well be considered disruptive. Not following a guideline isn't the same as violating policy, the latter of which is subject to enforcement. Atsme☯^Consult 00:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support to close and move to more appropriate venues such as dispute resolution, per Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is WP:Dispute resolution. Look at the page -> the box on the right -> third heading: "Conduct disputes" -> first entry: "Administrator assistance (Request)". That's here. The only other venue for conduct disputes is RfArb. Is that what you want? Are you going to file the case? If not, perhaps it's better to let the community come to a conclusion here, even if it takes a few days. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Stop the badgering, RexxS. You know very well that DR in this context refers to "civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages" about content. ANI is not the place for that. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
      • • Don't accuse me of badgering when that's exactly what you're doing. ANI is one of the only two venues left for DR of conduct issues and you're simply trying to close down a discussion that's not going the way you like. This isn't a content issue, it's a conduct issue and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not. --RexxS (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
          • It's a content dispute about GMO. You are badgering people who disagree and I and others see no purpose or reasonable outcome to this discussion, which is why I've proposed closing it. I have zero involvement in the GMO debate. The extent of my involvement is from two years ago, when I covered the protests that took place where I live and when I wrote about the larger movement from a journalistic perspective. Get a grip. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
            • It's a conduct dispute about David Tornheim's behaviour, although I can see you'd like to pretend it's something else. Here's a clue: the title is "Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO". Canvassing, hounding and allegations of bad faith are not content issues. So you can stop your badgering and attempts at deflection. If you want to talk about content, clear off to the article talk page and let those who understand the difference get on with discussing the behavioural matters. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

guys, fwiw, you have each made your points and are unlikely to convince each other. Whoever closes will take your arguments into account. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support in agreement with DR. Atsme☯^Consult 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support; overdue. It is not the function of ANI to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other. I encourage all parties discussed here to reflect upon their own behavior and take steps to address the concerns raised, and worry less about the shortcomings of others. See The Mote and the Beam. NE Ent 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• I would be fine with a close if folks feel that there has been enough discussion. However I disagree that this is a content dispute. I do not raise ANIs spuriously; I think David's canvassing and NPA behavior is at least warn-able. I came here looking for that; continued accusations of COI are DISRUPTIVE and I feel I am being stalked. David is doing these policy-violating behaviors because he believes I am corrupt (which is out of bounds) and that I have problems with WP:OWN and he doesn't know how to address problems in WP, and instead seems to be resorting to the kind of community activism tactics that he uses in the RW (per his user page). His attempts to raise BOOMERANG issues is normal, and I expected it and indeed hoped for it, so that whatever might be legit in David's concerns could be addressed in the appropriate forum, which is indeed this forum. There is no other place where it could be addressed. I am interested to get community feedback on OWN ( maybe the community will judge that I have issues with that - just because David doesn't understand WP doesn't mean he might not have a point, and we can all be blind to our own faults. I do think my behavior is OK. but I could be wrong. I expect random haters to pop up here and add garbage to the thread). I would appreciate if folks focus on the issues actually being raised and examples provided, as hard as that is with the TLDR posts, off-topic stuff, and our busy lives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here. But in all of the above, do you know if anyone pointed out the proper channel's where David might get assistance, instead of canvassing? Like adopt-a-user, the teahouse, and what ever? If not we could gather up a few links to what ever and give them to them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Serialjoepsycho I explained to David how concerns about COI are handled at the bottom of this (in response to David's question about how COI is handled in WP). Dialectric gave more advice about dispute resolution here and here. The canvassing warning I gave David points to Wikipedia:Canvassing and that article explicitly tells you how to bring up concerns in various forums as well. One can lead a horse to water... I don't see that anybody pointed David specifically to Teahouse or adopt-a-user.Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think its wp:teahouse and WP:ADOPTif he's not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

fwiw, Serialjoepsycho... responding to what you wrote above ("You can pretty much consider that David has received a warning here"). David pretty much views my posting here as "bullying" - so while i might take what has been said here as a warning for David, what I would like, is that David take at least a warning from this - a warning from the community, not from me. The closer will judge if that is warranted or not, of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. I agree with alot of the positions you have highlighted. I only mention the above so that if he does canvass again this can be pointed to. Also so that he can be informed about these places where he can seek help, whether or not he's banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support close with part of the resolution being that David seek help through either WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT, or Wikipedia:Co-op, or some similar venue regarding matters of policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support close. This has gone on enough and is looking to just be a drama-fest for those with a chip on their shoulder. A formal warning at the close for David could still be helpful if it doesn't seem like the point is getting across that his behavior was problematic (not sure where he's sitting currently). It's hard to deal with folks pushing WP:FRINGE ideas into articles, and they often don't react kindly when they come in strongly with their own point of view to get it rejected. There are always going to be people that get ticked off about that in science topics especially, and I don't think there's much we can do about that unfortunately. Doesn't seem like there's anything more to do here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is really confusing. Yesterday, I saw this was closed. I mistakenly read that to mean it was like a court case, that it was closed, over, final, done, resolved, a decision was made, etc., and I (and others) could continue other more productive work without having to monitor it. I mistakenly also believed that if a new case or issue was to arise, I would get notice and new arguments would begin there. I am really glad I looked again, or I wouldn't have known that the resolution had unraveled and that a whole new set of voices have appeared shifting the balance yet again with old voices taking new positions vying for a resolution more to their liking hoping the new voices would side with them and those who disagreed might lose interest. To be honest, it seems pretty chaotic. I like the legal system a lot more where you have a non-partisan neutral judge who is an expert in the law and is supposed to give decision based on the law, work on specific time constraints and limits on the amount of material submitted and the relevance of that material rather than this chaotic free for all that is very partisan that seems to keep going on as long as anyone doesn't like the result... That said, I guess I need to respond yet again...David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC))
• As you can tell above, I am frustrated this was re-opened. However, there may be some value to that. I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. I did go to WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:ADOPT and Wikipedia:Co-op and utilized all three as recommended above. As I said above, partisanship seems to be compromising the resolution process. It seems Jytdog and his supporters want me punished/warned and Jytdog to not be punished/warned, and my supporters want Jytdog punished/warned and me to be off the hook. (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) From looking at what Jytdog wrote here, it looks to me like both Jytdog and I will be willing to admit responsibility for the problems between us if the other does the same. I will be willing to go there if: either:

(1) neither of us is punished

(2) or both of us is punished/sanctioned/warned equally.

It would be grossly unfair if one was sanctioned and the other not sanctioned. That will only infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road. I am hoping there is a way so that we can all be on the same "side". This does not need to be a "war" or a "battlefield". (struck word "partisan" and suggestion of "sides" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

SO INSTEAD I PROPOSE THIS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE:

(1) Everyone who has been partisan stops adding material and arguing with each other, including my supporters (<<<THANK YOU!)and Jytdog's supporters:

Kingofaces43 (talk)

Dialectric (talk)

Guy (Help!)

The Banner talk

Viriditas (talk)

SandyGeorgia (Talk)

SylviaStanley (talk)

Capitalismojo (talk)

Atsme☯^Consult

petrarchan47tc

RexxS (talk)

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

John Carter (talk) (struck word "partisan" per request by Atsme here and my response here. My apologies to all for my use of the highly charged word "partisan" that is an unfair description of user's GF input to this discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

(2) No new users come into the discussion except by mutual agreement of Jytdog (talk) and me.

(3) Other than Jytdog (talk) and me, only those who have shown a strong middle ground (i.e. noting problems of both parties) stay:

Lfstevens (talk), A1candidate, NE Ent. In fact, I would be okay with just a discussion between Jytdog (talk), NE Ent and me

(4) The goal of further discussion per NE Ent "is not...to sort out which of several problematic editors is more problematic than the other." Indeed. That will not accomplish anything. However, I also think that to "reflect" on behavior will not make the problems go away.

(5) Instead, the goal of continued discussion here will be to IMPROVE COMMUNICATION between Jytdog (talk) and me, using a NEUTRAL 3rd PARTY. I propose NE Ent for that.

Jytdog: What do you think? With the help of neutral third party (NE Ent) and possibly also Lfstevens, A1candidate, I think I could answer the question you asked me here.

David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

David, there are many things wrong or just odd about what your write above. Generally, you just don't understand how this place works, and you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you. I won't address everything, but I really object to your (again, and wrongly again) guessing about my motivations and what I will do; you speak only for yourself when you write "That {namely one of us being sanctioned and the other not} will infuriate the side that loses and cause more drama down the road." And there is no competition here; nothing here is about "winning" or "losing" and I am sorry you view it that way. I have brought up issues with your behavior; the community will decide if those are real issues or not, and if so what to do about them. Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around. All that said, if you want to talk with me through some third party - if that would help you somehow - I would be open to that, as weird as that is. I recommend that you do not try to work with A1 on that, as A1 and I are often on different sides of disputes over alt med health content. But this is not a content dispute where mediation would be helpful. The two times you have actually raised content issues at articles, we have worked through those fairly well; we don't need DR/mediation. My issues are with your campaigning/canvassing, and your following me around accusing me of COI. You think I have issues with OWN. Those are things the community can and should look at it and make decisions about. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you really need to talk to me in such a condescending manner? That is not helpful saying "you just don't understand how this place works" and "you haven't listened to the advice that people have given to you". I have listened to plenty of advice and used it, even in this discussion. Guessing about motivations? What about you and all your claims here that I am an "activist" and that I am applying activism to the articles? While you are a self-admitted biology scientist working at a University in real life and are practicing your slanted views of the science of GMO's in the articles, and trying to convince everyone you are neutral and objective when many can plainly see that you are not? You said to me that at Wikipedia "we don't care what you do in real life". Well, if that is so, why did you bring it up? It's a double-standard.

I have not gone around accusing you of COI. You don't need to have a COI to put PR materials supporting GMO's in the articles any more than those who put Arturo's work on BP into the BP article. The people who did that might think BP can do no wrong and that everyone else who has something negative to say about BP is an "activist", a "charlatan", "crank", "Luddite" or WP:Fringe or anti-BP, anti-Oil and part of the conspiracy of the "War on Oil". If you believe the PR materials from industry are true and incorporate them, that doesn't mean you have a COI. But the article becomes slanted if it is composed of PR work from the industry. That's what I said on Jimbo's page--that the articles are slanted and pro-industry. I have never accused you of COI. I said the material is slanted. And when new users try to add material critical of GMO's I tell that that you and your colleagues will oppose addition of material that is critical of GMO's, why and how, which is telling them the truth about what happens on the GMO articles. I don't see why the users should not be informed of what is going on, why they are going to receive unreasonable opposition to reasonable proposed changes, and why they are getting allegations, threats and hints not to be BOLD on their talk pages. I think they have a right to know that when you show up trying to scare them off.

"Your behavior is yours, not mine. The same thing is true the other way around." You speak as if the two are *completely* unrelated. They are not. That's why BOTH of us are here. I have said time and time again that my behavior that you call "stalking" and "canvassing", is my attempt to mitigate the damage you do in dealing with new users. Something quite a few others have noticed as well and brought plenty of supporting evidence for. I have asked others here specifically the best way to deal with that if you or anyone else treats new users inappropriately or condescendingly or with threats of ugliness as you did early on with me, and I am awaiting advice on that. Calling it "stalking" and "canvassing" is not useful feedback. I do not understand why that is not obvious. It seems to me you think you have a right to talk to new users on the GMO articles as you please, but if I talk to the same new user, that's not okay, then it is "canvassing" and "stalking". If rather than accusing me of stalking you said, "Yes, David, maybe I was too rough on the new user. I'm sorry for that", this entire ANI could have been avoided. But instead, you got mad at me for confronting you about it and can't see that the two are directly related.David Tornheim (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) here is David's post to the teahouse, which ends with "In other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?" And here is the new coop project David started - a project to "deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles." Oy... more of the same campaigning behavior. But maybe someone will give good advice. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope they do give some good advice. Back when this was happening with the BP article, and if you were as new as me and wanted advice on how to deal with the WP:OWNers of the BP article who insisted on the BP PR materials, and you knew the owners were going to drag you to ANI accusing you of "canvassing" if you tried to talk to anyone but the owners about the problem of slant, how would you word it when asking for advice?David Tornheim (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

First, if i were inexperienced as you, i would be way more tentative than you have been, and would hold back from drawing big, strong, global conclusions. I would go ask at the teahouse, "I think article X is messed up and not NPOV...how do I fix it?" They would tell you to WP:FIXIT - the same advice you have been given many times, which is focus on content, not contributor. Deal with actual content, one thing at a time. If you think some content is missing from an article, or some content is being given UNDUE weight, try to fix it, one bit at a time. One bit at a time. If people object to your edit, listen to what they say, ask for the basis in policy or guideline. Go read the policy or guideline, and try to understand its heart. Go back and look at the source and content under discussion, and really consider it again, in light of PAG. Let the source and PAG and what other people say, speak to you. If the objection still doesn't make sense to you, ask (really ask) more at the article Talk page.' If the responses still don't make sense, start working WP:DR, which is usually to go ask at the Talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, or relevant content noticeboard, and try to understand, and really listen to what other editors say. Once you have done all that, and the objection still doesn't make sense, use whatever next WP:DR process makes sense, to deal with that specific content. One thing at a time. If in the course of that, you find that some behavioral policy or guideline is being broken, bring that specific behavior up to the editor at his or her talk page, focused on the concrete behavior, supported by diffs (not focused on their motivations- as I have told you, we do not do psychoanalysis here, we don't speculate about what motivates somebody - we focus on concrete behavior, and actual content and sources) and citing PAG. If the editor doesn't change his or behavior, and you are able to establish a pattern of that behavior, you can bring a case here, at ANI, about that editor's pattern of behavior, concisely, supported by actual diffs showing the behavior, and citing the actual PAG that is being violated. Simple, concrete, step by step. Without all the dramatic, global language. Simple. Concrete. That is how we work here. Instead, you have charged into this topic with a very strong, glaring even, pre-existing POV on GMOs, and have thrown around these big claims around about corruption, POV, etc. in every place you can find. You are a campaigner and you have made me the target of your campaign. It is ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian. Not what we do here, not how we act here. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

responding to this above, at 13:15, 12 March 2015. david, you alone are responsible for your behavior, as I am for mine. I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat. I am a human, and an editor here, just like you. Your focus on me is bizarre and is your choice, and the way you are dealing with your concerns about my behavior, is not how we do things here. And you do not understand how WP works. I and others have kept asking you to deal with actual content to which you object, instead of running around making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil. And again, the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. I am getting close to asking for an i-BAN or topic ban; you show no signs of respecting the community and its norms, or allowing the community to judge and act, and instead you are continuing your campaign, full steam ahead. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) (note what this is responding to Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

I was not continuing any "campaign". I followed the advice of two users above who said I should ask my question at the forums they suggested. "I am not a Big Evil Thing that You Must Defeat and we are not locked in some mortal combat." I never said you are. And neither am I. "I am a human, and an editor here, just like you." And so am I. Where did I suggest otherwise? You are imagining things. Talk about ascribing motivations to others. "making these big global statements and trying to whip up support to Fight Evil." I am not trying to fight "evil". I am trying to deal with the case where the WP:OWNers of the article, lead by you are unreasonable. the only two times you actually have engaged with content, we worked through it, and you saw that you were wrong. That's not true and you know it. We talked a number of times, and nearly every time you rejected anything I suggested adding using the same reason you almost always do, it's written by an "activist" organization. Therefore they should have no voice. Anyone who criticizes GMO's can't have a voice. So then, all you can get in the article is things filtered through the people who support GMO's. At some point we need to go to RS and/or NPOV forums to address that. I don't know enough about those forums to do that at this time. Anyway, this discussion is not productive. All you do is lodge more allegations as you always do. More intimidation and I'm really tired of it. I hope neutral moderators can see how difficult it is to try to talk to you. David Tornheim (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave the links to the two actual edits that you have made. Two. And on the other stuff, your words speak for themselves: "in other words, when we see the PR materials have not only infiltrated an article but have dominated the article, is there any hope of doing anything about it, or is Wikipedia been corrupted beyond repair to be just a new kind of advertising space for various industries?", teahouse and see the difs and what you said in them, in my original post, way, way above. Really, go read them. Canvassing, campaigning, from day 1. This thread is about your behavior. It is not about content. You are not dealing with how bad your behavior has been - you just keep making excuses for it - and you keep doing it, even today at the Teahouse. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and you alone are responsible for what you do. Just like I am for my behavior. As always, I will be happy to discuss content with you, at the articles and their talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - David Tornheim, I joined this discussion as an uninvolved editor, and have never collaborated with you to my knowledge. I have collaborated with Jytdog, and will admit that we have not interpreted policy the same, but that does not make me partisan against him. The only partisanship I have or have ever demonstrated on WP is to WP:PAG, particularly to policies that affect BLPs. Your list gives the wrong impression of me as being partisan to a particular cause or editor, and I imagine others on that list may feel the same or similar. Please remove or strike my name from your list. Atsme☯^Consult 12:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To Atsme☯^Consult: Sorry. Thank you for the feedback. You are correct, "partisan" was the wrong word, is far too charged and an unfair description of your participation and that of others. The idea of two sides is also equally problematic. I especially regretted my use of the word "partisan" shortly after I posted it and have since contemplated how to fix it to convey what I meant in terms of why resolution of the conflict between Jytdog and me would likely go smoother and be less charged if just NE Ent was mediating it without further evidence brought in and without new conflicts between various people who have entered the discussion making it even more complicated than it already is.

For simplicity, I will strike the reference to both partisan and sides. I thank you for your input into the discussion and apologize for using an unfair negative label to describe you and others.David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, David Tornheim. I wasn't asking for an apology, and will humbly accept the one you volunteered. It was an extremely nice gesture considering a strike would have been adequate. I hope my typewritten words didn't sound harsh, but if so, I apologize to you. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Jytdog I've been meaning to ask you to provide evidence for your categorization of me as "anti-GMO", or correct your initial statements to reflect your mistake, lest this branding follow me around WP masquerading as fact. You are now the first and only person, both online and IRL, to refer to me as anti-GMO. You already apologized for doing this at BP, when you became the only person to ever call me an environmenalist, but no lesson was learned. As Core suggested a couple years ago, "I strongly resent [Jytdog's] effort to pigeonhole editors in this fashion, while he in effect positions himself as a kind of Kissinger-like mediator who is the only fair party here." petrarchan47tc 19:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan. First let me say that I am sorry that David's canvass of you woke up all these old conflicts. I don't want to extend this already too-long thread, so I posted a response on my Talk page (you asked me not to post on yours, I think) Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You have highlighted cases where I challenge industry slant in GMO articles, your control over GMO articles (with your thousands of edits), and where I show that the idea of "scientific consensus" has been called into question. None of this can be construed as having any idea as to my personal view on GMOs, but rather my view about NPOV on WP. I haven't come to a personal conclusion about GMO's, so I am sure that there is no evidence proving I have. If you want to categorize me as "anti" industry slant, I accept. But no, I am not anti-GMO. I am pro-NPOV. WP readers come here to read about all sides of the story, but instead we are engaging in censorship, as Atsme mentions above re MEDRS. The first time I heard of MEDRS was when I attempted to update the Monsanto article here, and was quickly reverted by you. At the noticeboard you suggested, I am told that MEDRS prevents this addition. MEDRS is meant to protect readers from bad medical advice - but in this case the only ones protected are Monsanto stockholders. Your opinion seems tethered not to WP rules, but to how GMO's and biotechs are described to the reader. I have observed that you use drama and bullying to distract from this fact (David's talk page is a good example). I hate that people have to deal with this, but I don't hate you, as you claim on your talk page. :) petrarchan47tc 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs on my page are plenty clear as to where you come from. MEDRS is about health, not just medicine, btw. And that Seneff article you wanted to add, that I reverted, that was shot down dead as pure flake science. As long as you keep wanting to push that kind of content into WP you are going to be frustrated. I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I deny having an anti-GMO stance and ask again for you to strike that claim. From your edits previous to the above, I see you are ambivalent about how to avoid responsibility for your ad hominem label. First you decide it is about "scientific consensus" and compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?) here. Then you decide that I had baited you and you are not taking the bait here wisely removing the Hitler reference. But you can't help but compare me to Nazi'sWP:REICHSTAG(?), so it comes back in here. Then you decide that the reason you can't be held responsible for name calling is that I am here to "right wrongs" and predict the future. here. An hour later, that all has to go, and you conclude these are not the real problems, that the real problem is that I'm helping Atsme with "conspiracy theories" and "Fringe" theories. here. petrarchan47tc 09:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (amended by Petrarchan47 in this dif, but changes were made without redaction marks; I showed redaction. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC))

Errm - nowhere were you called a "nazi" and I strongly suggest you retract that accusation. I take it you are not familiar with WP:REICHSTAG? It has nothing to do with nazis. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:REICHSTAG has just as little to do with Nazis as it has to do with Wikipedia. It is a joke essay and has no reference to this discussion. However, the Reichstag building is associated with Hitler's rise to power. I'm not sure how you know what Jytdog meant by his comment, nor why you seem to speak for him and, along with his other buddies, fight his fights. Your participation here and at J-dgos' talk page does little to help your friend fight the accusations of WP:GANG behaviour and bullying. Indeed, it exemplifies them. I will correct references to Nazis and assume that I misunderstood his motivations. I doubt that I will receive the same treatment for my simple request. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

writing screeds on jimbo's page has been linked to that essay many times. i referenced it myself in my response to David's continuation of your most recent post on his page. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the level of cheap-shotting (citing comments I over-wrote as my thoughts/feelings evolved) and sheer ignorance, all twisted up into a self-destructive angry ball is typical and makes me sad every time I see it. it is just sad. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

would an admin please close this thread? it is just devolving. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

---

There has been a previous ANI discussion about User: SPIKE SPIKE BAD here- it was effectively ended because they claimed to have retired. However, this user is now back, and their conduct doesn't seem to have improved.

He claims to have uncurated one of my edits 1, without giving reason for it. Doesn't look like it was actually uncurated either.
Attacks on User talk:Maruff: 1, 2, 3.
Strange replies on User talk:Vanessa Shoshaj: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Given that the user admitted to abusing multiple accounts in the [previous discussion, I believe that they should be blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, the userpage Vanessa Shoshaj was an attack page (speedily deleted by RHaworth), including accusations of being a sex worker. These "reviews" were entirely inappropriate. This user is NOTHERE. Recommend indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: SPIKE SPIKE BAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've revdelled part of the history of the User:Vanessa Shoshaj talk page as continuing the allegations on the now deleted article Vanessa Shoshaj and I suspect that this user might be SSB anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An indef block definitely seems to be warranted here. This is certainly a WP:NOTHERE case. --IJBall (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely for persistently disruptive behaviour. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Just to let you all know that "palestine" does not exist, and I'm removing it from Wikipedia. Thank you.101.160.175.244 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article called Palestine, and it appears to be a real entity, not a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bugs. IP has been blocked for vandalism. -- Diannaa (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP account needs its user talk page access revoked as well, as it's using it to make personal attacks. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Tumadoireacht was blocked in December last year for tendentious, disruptive and combative behaviour on the Circumcision article. Since then, things have not improved. The latest example is this obvious attempted baiting[60] of an admin (Zad68) for warning another editor about the WP:TPGs. In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As Alexbrn is one of the small but co-ordinated group of editors maintaining the main Circumcision and other related articles in an unbalanced pro-circumcision state, as I have pointed out in recent edits, it may not be public spiritedness that leads to this call for a ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you offer some evidence of the problems that are persisting? I'm sure Zad68 is quite capable of handling themselves but beyond that can you substantiate current misbehavior?JodyB _talk 11:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same JodyB who states "Marginal ideas and thoughts have a place but should be plainly shown to be marginal. If sourced, the reader can investigate for himself and determine whether the thoughts are correct" on his home page - even if not that JodyB - WP policy is positively disposed towards including the views of "activist" groups that is, in this case, those who question, from a scientific or human rights or other perspective the cutting off of the tips of male child genitals.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to this edit which by itself is sufficient I'd have thought. But for more just review the previous few Talk pages edits such as this[61] (reference to a "small but well coordinated group of editors and admins") or this[62] where the use of anti-Circumcision groups' web sites and primary sources is being advocated, despite Tumadoireacht knowing that WP:MEDRS applies. Or just look at the problematic response above here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Tumadoireacht has been engaging in personal attacks and general battleground behavior on the topic of Circumcision for a long time now, as a short persusal of Talk:Circumcision and its archives will demonstrate, but here are a few examples from the past few months:

  Any editors out there (apart from the good 'ole boys)

  Be aware that you are most unlikely to be permitted to make any change, however well referenced, to the Circumcision article whether it is better structure, wording, references or content, unless it augments positive views on Circumcision.

  Doc, Flop, Gop or one of the gang

  cabal behaviour

  concerted cabal.

  Tumadoireacht seems to have given up on proposing actual changes to the article entirely in favor of vague complaints and talk page sniping. It is time to see if he can be more productive on some other topic. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing worded changes to the article is the last of a list of eight ways the Talk Page Guidelines mention under the title "How to use article talk pages"

In his eagerness and haste Mr Ollie has failed to notice that at least one of my contributions which he chose to quote from most selectively IS PROPOSING A SPECIFIC WORDED CONTENT CHANGE. Is it" time for Mr Ollie to see if Mr Ollie can be more observant and productive on some other topic ?

My proposals for article content change are evident and numerous not "vague" There are about an equal number of cogent pertinent aspects of Circumcision which about a half dozen editors refuse to permit mention of. These same editors on patrol misrepresent WP policy on Primary Sources and on non medical aspects of the subject to any editor attempting to address this obvious imbalance. The WP policy for instance on both scientific and human rights activist groups ( in this case those who are against this from of genital cutting ) is a good example- it is quite contrary to the picture painted by Alexbrn et cetera. It is not "problematic" as Alexbrn chooses to label it, to point out these aspects of the article, in an attempt to improve it. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I have been half-heartedly monitoring Circumcision and its talk for years and Tumadoireacht is not helping. As MrOllie shows, current activity is centered on sniping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Users editing is disruptive. They have not made constructive suggestions with good references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban The situation has to be understood in the context of the protracted, bitter content dispute that is Circumcision articles. It has already been said several times that topic-banning me would help. Yes it would help- it would help those editors that have been in a content dispute with me for months on end. I think almost everybody who has supported this proposal so far is either moderately or highly involved in the said content dispute. I think that I have raised some genuine issues here, and did in fact, originally raise some genuine issues on the article talk page. In the interests of attempting to find consensus I have largely stopped editing the article - all gets reverted by the patrol. On the question of proposing worded content - the pattern of the concerted pro circumcision group is as follows - "we/i have reverted or refuse to allow your edit because your source is too old ( older sources already used for pro C content) your source is a primary source( primary sources already used for pro C content) your source is non medical" ( non medical sources already used for pro C content) - then "your content is 'against XYZ policy" (which often has no relevance but serves the purpose of putting off the would be editor) and then when such inhibitings fail - sarcasm such as this to a new editor

"Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you."

Send to ArbCom - This has been going on from time to time for months. This is the sort of content dispute compounded by allegations of conduct issues (tendentious editing) for which a full evidentiary hearing by ArbCom works better than letting the loudest and the heavily content-opposed editors from the subject area gather at a noticeboard and attempt to establish a false consensus.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I feel a lot of the editors of the circumcision article are blatenly biased in favour of circumcision. It is helpful to have editors from both sides of the debate. For a cabal of those same pro-circumcision editors to ask for his dismissal is typical. Tremello (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Tremello is a single-purpose account (SPA) regarding circumcision and related topics; please refer to the user's edit history, and the linked page for Wikipedia's definition of an SPA. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not poison the well zad. Assume good faith. I am here to create a neutral article. Tremello (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Hello, I was discussing secondary sources for the part of the article on economic benefits with Tumadoireacht. I don't know what happened before but it seems this specific complaint here is that Zad came in to the discussion to tell us to stay on topic . . . kind of ironic because he could have just made an on topic post, such as showing what he might think a secondary source was. And I think instead of trying to get someone topic banned, everyone who has voted here could help wikipedia better by going to the talk page in question and discussing the topic. I read the guidelines here ^[1]. I think if anything, give Tumadoireacht a "final warning". To Tumadoireacht: I don't think there is any kind of "criminal cabal" on wikipedia that is pro circumcicion. I think the cabal exists in real life and gets trickled down to wikipedia. Either way, this isn't the battleground to fight a great wrong. What do the sources say? You have many good sources. If any other ediots on wikipedia make you angry, I say "kill them with kindness" by that I mean be helpful by giving good sources that they cannot deny. Popish Plot (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from WP:MEDICINE-scope content as first choice, and from this topic in particular as a second choice. NuclearWarfare blocked Tumadoireacht just three months ago for disruptive editing (see discussion here), but the editor has returned to the exact same problematic editing behavior as before. He simply cannot or will not accept or understand Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, personalizes nearly every comment to the point that it seems he's incapable of just holding a conversation about the topic and the sourcing, and regularly uses the article Talk page to air his personal views on the article topic with highly-charged rhetoric. Most of his comments are just paranoid complaining about what he perceives as a "cabal"; when asked repeatedly to actually provide a specific, actionable article content change suggestion, backed by a genuine reliable source, he never delivers. Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit. Zad68 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Zad is an industrious,productive, meticulous and often painstakingly helpful editor and admin. Unfortunately he has a blind spot when it comes to this subject. He can be regarded as the leader of the group of editors who maintain this article in a currently highly both positively and medicine focussed selective stance on the subject of `circumcision. He exhibits a mean spirited obstructive streak when the unbalance of the article is explored, attempting to characterize good faith teasing out of the articles weaknesses with the worst either mistaken or deliberately misdescribed negative interpretation. This habit is uncharacteristic, but still unworthy of such an eminent and valuable editor. Zad's proposal to ban me from all medical related articles is interesting. It dovetails neatly with Alexbrns idea to ban not just from this article but from the twenty or so related Circumcision and genital cutting articles, the two lads thus presenting a sentencing spectrum. The really funny part is that one of our chief bones of contention is whether Circumcision is primarily a cultural rather than a medical act - a conversation which is currently occurring on the talk page but which Alexbrn's shunning proposal seems to be inhibiting his and Zad's participation in. Lets list the points Zad has raised

1/Previous "conviction"

2/No change

3/Non acceptance of WP sourcing standards

4/Personalizes most comments

5/Incapable of holding a conversation about the topic or the sourcing

6/regular use of talk page to air personal views

7/most comments are paranoid complaining about the cabal

8/never delivers actionable content when asked

9/this editor a useless waste of time.

I suggest any editor can find these charges to be exaggerated or plain untrue by reviewing my many engaged and good faith practical proposals and conversations/debate on the talk page of the article. Further I suggest that Zad himself engages frequently in the numbers 3 and 4 and 5 behaviour which he professes to abhor.

On a more general point it might be a positive influence on the article quality if those editors or groups of editors for whom circumcision has a religious, cultural or ethnic imperative or for whom it is second nature, made a conflict of interest declaration, or if not willing to do this, then at least allowed themselves (and thus the talk page and article) to examine ideas about its downsides.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the type of content that Tumadoireacht, by and large, generally attempts to add to the article. However, the way he is going about it is unhelpful—routinely using non-MEDRS compliant sourcing, casting aspersions to other editors, and most importantly, not changing their behavior in response to requests from other editors. This is a serious matter, and I think it merits a block if not a topic ban. I have acted before as an uninvolved administrator, and I reserve my right to continue doing so in the topic area even despite this post. NW (Talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose topic ban I don't see the behavior issue as per these diffs. They are just opinions. Discussing views is not a basis for topic banning. Zad's comment here "Overall, dealing with this editor is a huge time sink for no benefit" seems more of a behavior issue (PA) than info (diffs) presented here. If there's more, please enlighten. (UTC)--Pekay2 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support for topic ban. I'm only coming into this glancing at the diffs provided at the beginning of this post without looking into the actual article and I am seeing some decent amounts of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ASPERSIONS towards other editors. It's one thing to bring up perceived problems about other editors in appropriate venues, but not to do so in that manner while trying to affect content as well. If this user hadn't been blocked already (and very recently) I would have wanted to see very clear diffs showing even stronger disruptive and tendentious behavior than I'm seeing now to suggest the ban, but given the past block, it seems apparent that the editor's behavior isn't improving. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be that I mention too often the possibility that there is a group of editors staging a co-ordinated campaign to present a positively selective view of Circumcision within this and related articles. I can stop doing this. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Tumadoireacht barely focuses on the article content, except to call it biased, and usually negatively focuses on the editors he disagrees with. Almost every time a Wikipedia rule is validly put forth by editors that Tumadoireacht considers part of "the cabal," he does not seem to understand the rule and/or disregards it, and instead rants about the editors' supposed biases. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Crusaders have to be sent away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22's assertions are easily disproved - look at my edits and talk page entries and judge for yourself. There is a habit that some editors engage in -mentioning a WP policy when they encounter content they disagree with and then getting cross or going silent when the actual content of that policy is brought to their attention. The undue weight policy may be the best example. Those who love to use it as an inhibitory tool do not realize or choose to forget that it applies mostly to proportionality and not to utter exclusion of minor views on a subject. As for Baseballs Bugs cryptic quip - no crusader here folks - just looking for a balanced article that references all aspects of Circumcision -not just the medical ones and not just the positive ones.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What you call "negatives", i.e. unsterile conditions or botching it, are issues with any surgery, they're not peculiar to circumcision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@BaseballI think you are misunderstanding the use of the word negative and misunderstanding the difference between medical and societal circumcisions also.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from WP:MEDICINE-scope content per Zad. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that you had enough on your hands defending your own behaviour and reputation on this page at present Jytdog but I am not surprised to see you here chiming in.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the difs presented and your behavior; the topic ban is well warranted. I hope you can find happier fields to work in within Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And I,Jytdog, in turn, wish you the same happiness in attempting to successfully carry out your undertakings to modify your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, given elsewhere on this page. The many areas of health related articles, including Circumcision, where you have had problems in the recent past will undoubtedly benefit.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Even as this thread runs, Tumadoireacht's tendentious contributions continue.[63] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you really know what tendentious means Alex? - it does not mean another editor on a talk page proposing content that you yourself or your friends simply do not like. Are you aware that accusing others of tendentious editing thus may be naughty?  ?. On those now very rare occasions when I edit the Circumcision article, I work the 1RR which is the opposite tendency. Please re-examine your own recent behaviour here and elsewhere after revision. "Like sands through the hourglass.. so are the Days of Our Lives."Blah blah et cetera--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This proposed ban is totally wrong. That will not solve the real problem, which is draconian censorship of negative information about male circumcision. I oppose the ban.

184.46.139.238 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ban Zad68 and DocJames

The editors who should be banned are Zad68 and DocJames. They evidently have religious bias in favor of male circumcision that causes them to exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Yes a boomerang indef topic ban of User:Sugarcube73 would be reasonable. The came here making claims without evidence stating that I have a "religious bias in favor of male circumcision" and "exclude all content that is negative on male circumcision". However, the article in question states "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure" Hardly a statement in favor of the position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Doc, I've no doubt this section was bad faith, and a poor attack but do you really think Sugarcube needs a topic ban or are you just responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes. (because there's no tone on the internet I want to be clear I'm not judging either way just want to be clear)SPACKlick (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sugarcube is attempting to comment on the religion of editors on Wikipedia. I have never disclosed a religion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose and boomerang terribly POINTy and disruptive. 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Judging by his userpage hes a definite troll. I say an admin needs to indef him. 146.199.60.249 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)