Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 12 March 2014

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Messages go on User talk: pages, not User: pages

Greetings! I see you tried to leave Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) a message. Those should be left on the user's User talk: page (in this case, User talk:Beyond My Ken). I've moved your comment there as a courtesy, and so BMK will get a notification about it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Geogene (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese exclusion policy of NASA

The IP is a serial block evader. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some others. If you feel that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NASA&oldid=587811630&diff=prev is actively good, not merely allowable, then you should go ahead and revert my reversion. Otherwise, you really shouldn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit was fine, which is why I reverted it back. It seems to be the "editor" you're having a problem with, and I'm not interested in an edit conflict over whether some edit is "actively good" or not. I'm going to continue to assume good faith. Geogene (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. It's been established by consensus that the editor is still not here for the good of Misplaced Pages. If he wants that consensus changed, he should appeal his block(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I should have said that I will assume good faith with IPs in general, not with this one in particular. Also, I see that tracking edits from blocked IPs is something you're involved in, so I'll try to remember not to interfere with any of your reversions of IP edits, appearing benign or not, if I come across them again. With the limited information I had it looked like a small, benign edit had been mistaken for vandalism. It is not my intention to give blocked users unauthorized access to editing, or to encourage them to attempt it in any way. The issue just had not come to my attention before. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• erosion on an island in ] sped up by the death of mangrove trees and marsh grass.{{{{As of|2013}}<ref name="Dermansky 4-20-13">{{cite news|last=Dermansky|first=Julie|title=Three

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Beagel, give this barnstar to you for your attempt to make the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and BP related articles more encyclopaedic. Many good editors have tried this but have give up for obvious reasons. I hope you have more luck and courage to keep Misplaced Pages being an encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

My first one, thanks! I've reviewed the history of those articles, have seen some of your work (and quite a few others), and was reassured in seeing I'm not the first to make some of the points that I've made. But when it just isn't fun any more, it's right for people move along. It's the ones that can't let it go, the ones that feel like they have a mission to serve, or a "message" that they must send, that ultimately I have pity for...because nobody can "own" an article, and who would even want to? Geogene (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Common interest

You and I don't edit the same articles, but I believe we have something in common. I happened to stumble into a discussion you were involved in, and particularly this. If you're serious about escalating a conduct dispute I suggest we collaborate in some fashion. In response to your query, "I don't know if she is just naturally prone to that sort of thinking, or if she does this to try to run off editors that don't carry her point of view," the answer is YES, and I've just about had it as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see you may already be aware of me. I have more COI accusations to add to your list. It's clearly a modus operandi, now that I've seen yours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the "witch hunt" from the other day and that made up my mind for me. There is no question that this a persistent pattern of behavior, and I think it's getting worse. Conflict dispute is a last resort but it's on the table, and if this aggressive behavior continues to escalate as it apparently has been it may ultimately be inevitable. But on the other hand, her COI accusations tend to be so grandiose that they are self-discrediting, I tend to be abrasive and should have been nicer at first, and she would do good work and probably have a MUCH more positive experience here if she would just learn to stay away from articles she has such a strong personal POV about. I know I learned my lesson about that once. I'm more concerned about what I feel to be POV pushing, but this is my perception and is often subjective, and always difficult to prove. If it hits the fan we'll definitely coordinate, but of course we must be careful to that correctly, not to canvass and to make sure that everyone, including her enablers--I'm sure she has them--has a say. In the meantime, keep an eye out for copyvio and close wording in your articles. She left a whole paragraph straight out of the New York Times in one of the BP articles I edit this morning. That had to have been an accident, but it wasn't at all obvious and there's a huge mess in "our" articles if this has been happening consistently. Give my regards to Never Say Anything. :) Geogene (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I love it! Keep up that greenwashing! Wait a moment, did I meet you at that White House business roundtable last month? :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to post them here if you like. I hate to risk antagonizing people that could plausibly see this, but this conversation was inevitable. Geogene (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not at all concerned about canvassing between us. Canvassing requires an existing dispute. We're talking about a future dispute. That said, please don't participate in "my" content disputes and I won't participate in "yours." (Ironically, she's done some canvassing herself, though apparently not a lot of it--and my stern warnings seem to have had the effect of making her think twice.)
• I have a pretty thick skin, so I can handle the personal attacks--but what I want to stop is when it turns into disruption. These days a typical pattern is: (i) I revert one of her additions, (ii) she re-reverts with a personal attack in the edit summary, (iii) I explain my position on the talk page, (iv) she replies with more personal attacks, (v) I reply, please give a substantive reason, (vi) radio silence. A new pattern is: (i) I revert one of her additions, (ii) she re-reverts with a personal attack in the edit summary, (iii) I explain my position on the talk page, (iv) radio silence, (v) a week later, I revert, (vi) repeat steps (ii)-(v). I mean this is awful. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to that stage yet.
• Another problem is that she has a team of defenders. In particular, every time I confront her about disruption, one particular editor starts screaming harassment. The discussion invariably gets sidetracked and nothing gets resolved. Have you had this experience?
• Here's some stuff you might find illuminating: . I have more to gather later but I've gotta run. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, thankfully things haven't progressed to that point on this side, but my interaction with her started very recently. She may be more concerned about the Snowden articles, in which case my edits are just a distraction from opposing you. I haven't been attacked by one of her enablers but I also haven't left anything at all on her talk page. Those are some interesting remarks you've got there, and she's pretty blatant about not being AGF toward you. She also sees this is as a war, gave a pep talk to get people to keep her POV in the article, and did you gather from some of those that she would like to rid Misplaced Pages of the 90% of us she doesn't like? Am I reading that right? Geogene (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That might be pushing it. She says a lot of crazy stuff. I'm most concerned about the pattern, the disruption, the utter lack of trust, and the willingness to "retaliate" through improper means (see links below). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• More education, in completely illogical order:. Paranoid much? As I dug through these it became apparent that this has been her M.O. since long before you or I encountered her. This is really rather sad actually. She needs help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• More from today. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll be a while to digest all of that, but what I've seen of that further confirms my suspicions. I've tried to understand the history of the BP/DWH articles I've worked in, it appears that some years ago, there was a media accusation of an incognito BP employee caught POV editing the environmental sections, which created some outrage--very justifiable outrage, if true. But the community's response seems to have been to spend years "correcting" POV with everything imaginable to compensate. This also seems to have created a culture amongst the local editors where it became acceptable to assume that armies of BP shills were actively trying to overwhelm them and, presumably, make it look like oil spills are wonderful things that fertilize the oceans, or something similar. This overcompensation is why you'd wonder, from reading the BP/DWH articles, whether anyone is still alive on the Gulf Coast. I figure that particular editor learned "the ropes" of WP in that odd milieu, carries that over to other articles she feels strongly about, and thinks it's normal practice. But I also agree with you and think there are other factors at work there as well. And beyond the paranoia/persecution issues that you've documented well, she seems to frequently insinuate she hates being here, dealing with us, or gets severely drained by it, and that raises more red flags. When you see that it can mean someone's fishing for reinforcement, but could also mean they're editing the wrong articles, is emotionally involved in the editing process, or that otherwise has an unhealthy relationship to WP. It's sad that people use WP to make themselves unhappy, but also concerns us because it's hard to deal with people that are always on their last nerve and that try to blame us in front of others for their threat of leaving. And it isn't conducive to good work. If I'm right, the people that reinforce that behavior really just do the editor, the rest of us, and Misplaced Pages itself a disservice. There are reasonable limits to what the rest of us should have to put up with in our efforts at WP. The serial COI accusations are not furthering WP's goals, and I see sowing distrust as an effort to make our collaboration with other editors more difficult. And a certain bit of discussion and debate is part of the process, and should be fun, but should someone really have to sit down and try to debate why NOAA, the FDA and the EPA are more reliable/mainstream sources than DemocracyNow and truth-out.org? Collaboration needs to have some fundamental common ground to start with, especially on the relative reliability of sources. Science articles are supposed to reflect scientific consensus, which is troublesome if your collaborator thinks they've all been bought off. All environmental regulation/policy is done by the government, most science is done on government grants, and most of the rest of it is done by private sector (usually corporate) funding. This should not be an excuse to deny realty or fabricate your own from questionable sources. I don't follow the Snowden/Mass Surveilance articles but I imagine things there are fairly similar. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A very level-headed response, IMO. I really can't speak to the content disputes at BP, as I've tried to stay away from that toxic mess (ha ha). Regarding behavioral dynamics, I think WP:DIVA is an illuminating read. I don't like labeling people that way, as it doesn't advance the discussion in any way, but the "Spotting divas" section fits this situation to a T, and the "Dealing with divas" section is helpful. As for paid COI editing, I want to be clear that I think it's a very serious problem here, disturbingly pervasive and corrupting. (If you weren't aware, there was a firestorm in the media over this in October-November 2013, on top of the BP issues.) I myself occasionally find myself suspecting my fellow editors of paid COIs, and on two occasions I've even taken editors to WP:COIN over it. The difference between this case and those is that in those cases I remained civil, gathered all the evidence I could, and threw it on the noticeboard for the community to judge (and received positive receptions). On a broader scale, however, one of the saddest outcomes of real paid COI editing is the distrust that it breeds among non-COI editors. It's truly destructive, and this particular situation is Exhibit A. But, you're spot on, no matter what suspicions one harbors, those suspicions should be kept private until it's time to present the evidence to the community, and in the meantime none of this should have any bearing on the independent obligation each one of us has to abide by WP basics and do what we can to make sure this place remains pleasant and collaborative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd imagine so. I haven't noticed them yet but most of my activity has involved non-commercial subjects. Here's another way paid COI is a problem for everyone: when a paid COI gets caught, it's a crapstorm. That's a completely deserved, Darwinian outcome as long as that's really what happened. But PR people read the news too. I strongly suspect that corporations silently watch edit histories now as much as they do article content. Looking mostly for potential employee edits, which would be trouble regardless of content. But what happens when a truly independent editor is accused of COI but doesn't object loudly enough, or ignores it? Are they going to get a threatening letter from Legal? Yes, that seems stupid to try to shush people from saying even non-negative things about your company, but there's a certain logic behind it. And the corporate world has shown themselves capable of stupid things time and again. Things could get worse than they are now, as far as that goes, after big business shoots itself in foot a few more times. And that's yet another reason people shouldn't just run amok making those accusations. Geogene (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about that. Say you're accused of editing the Acme article while working as an Acme employee. If you're not an Acme employee, then Acme isn't going to be sending you a letter, even if they could identify and find you. And if you are in fact an Acme employee and you haven't disclosed your COI, you shouldn't be doing that and I have little sympathy for you, and to boot you'd be foolish to make yourself identifiable to Acme (either by using a real name or by editing on Acme's equipment). On top of that, I could be wrong, but I doubt many employers are snooping with that level of sophistication. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, only the Foundation would have their IP logged. And if the accusation got enough traction to create demonstrable PR harm to Acme then a lawsuit threat would cause much greater fallout. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yet more, courtesy of Second_Quantization: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Granddaddy of them all: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I knew that something on a Board would turn up eventually. The simple request was that an admin write a warning on P's (and another's) talk page. That wasn't an unreasonable request, but wasn't fulfilled. In the process of making that happen another editor had to go to COIN to prove to others that they didn't have COI (as was shown in one example above). The word "McCarthyism" turned up many times in that long discussion. I wholeheartedly agree with that term applied here. Admins didn't really want anything to do with the drama. At the end somebody asserted that "the debate has died." And that the COI accusations "aren't exactly atrocities"--no but they have a cumulative cost of squelching discussion and they seem to happen nearly everywhere this person has been working. But half a year later look where we are. One of the last comments was from an editor that made a change to the Riki Ott page. P was surprised at the "suddenness" of it--a remark usually accompanying her COI accusations--and left a remark on their talk page. That editor came back and said to the effect of 'I don't think one of them thinks this is over' which got no response. But until recently she seems to have been misbehaving as part of a pack, or at least with some reinforcement. If that disappears the situation might improve. Or the editor might just feel cornered. Maybe find a new Great Injustice in some other article and start over. Geogene (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My two main takeaways from that ANI are: (1) near the end, she (among others) was told by an admin: "Everyone seems to be well aware that everyone should follow WP:AGF, not throw around empty accusations"; and (2) if we are to escalate we must be prepared for attempts to disrupt our effort. Clearly, avoid WP:TLDR at any cost. (TLDR is the bane of the noticeboards.) Keep it pithy and don't take the bait. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As you can see I struggle with loquaciousness. And WP:BOOMERANG may be an issue for me, see: , so my less-than-laudable behavior will probably be cited as a distraction. Geogene (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. There's absolutely nothing wrong with those comments. So you asked her to explain her edits, nothing wrong with that. And you pointed out a pattern of incivility, nothing wrong with that either. As for me, I believe my biggest skeleton is that I accused her of engaging in a "cowardly and disruptive witch hunt." In full disclosure, I've also been accused of hounding (for editing three of the same articles as her, all closely related), excessive pinging (five times to respond to five different comments), and general unpleasantness (for lecturing two editors, including P, about civility). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This should stop. What board, and how do we start? Geogene (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's between WP:RFCU and WP:ANI. I've been through ANI a few times but I've never touched RFCU even slightly. Groupuscule chose ANI last time, and no one said the report was in the wrong place, so I think we're justified in going there. However, RFCU seems like the more cautious, step-by-step approach and I want to make sure we do this right without being accused of overstepping. WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility is relevant, points toward RFCU as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's try RFCU first. It looks like it's the smallest stick. Before we begin I must try to negotiate with Petrarchan on the user's talk page about her concerns/accusations of my COI, etc. I've avoided this because I think it'll just make her angrier. Volunteering myself for a COIN investigation is not on the table. But I'm wondering if I can offer some reasonable change in my behavior in exchange for her not casting aspersions. Geogene (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll start drafting something in the next few days. I won't post anything until we've both reviewed it and are comfortable moving forward. In the meantime see if you can work something out with her, and let me know which of the links in this discussion you feel are most egregious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that certainly blew up in your face. Now not only was she justified in calling you out, but you'd have to be "brain dead or completely uninformed" not to call you out. The primary misunderstanding, which we've seen over and over and over again, is the assumption that bias (even if established) automatically means COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)

Exactly. I left a reply but I suspect that negotiations are ended. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a similar precedent for the behavior. This user was indeffed for puppetry, but before was found to have been accusing other editors of being spooks. That seemed to become the focus over at ANI. . Before that, there was a discussion with a couple of like-minded people... . Actually you showed me the second link there already, but don't know if you saw how that behavior was treated over at ANI. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)