User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Attack on Pearl Harbor article experience

Jytdog: In answer to your question about whether I have been on contentious pages. Yes, definitely. As I may have told you already, I was very impressed early on with the quality of Wikipedia articles, but I didn't understand how differing perspectives were handled and settled, and why the content didn't just change every day if people disagreed. Around the time I created an account, I picked a topic I knew something about that I knew would definitely be contentious and controversial to the average Patriotic, nationalist American: I knew from college level history studies the very un-Patrioriotic facts that about Attack on Pearl Harbor: FDR and the military were aware the Japanese Navy was out and was likely to strike--they just didn't know where--and, in fact, Pearl Harbor was on alert at the time of the attack. Also, the U.S. had backed Japan into a corner with foreign policy having to do with I believe trade barriers and naval power. so, it wasn't entirely a surprise Japan was going to do something about it. The only surprise was that it was not the Philippines. And, worse, FDR was itching to get into WWII, but popular sentiment was against it, so this was a convenient way to get in the war, a bit like Remember the Maine. These are all well established and documented facts (and I believe you can find them all cited in Wikipedia, but not in that article where they belong!). So, to some degree the "unprovoked" "surprise" attack wasn't quite as big of a suprise as the average Patriotic American believes it is, and I think it is easy to argue that FDR used it to get into the war--something President are quite adept at doing (I can name a few if you don't know of any. :-)).

Anyway, I went to the page to see how these controversial facts were handled: Not very well at ALL. Any attempt to put any of that on the page was absolute heresy to the people who controlled the article at the time, and probably still is to this day. (Incidentally, despite the absence of this material, the page is a work of art otherwise--lots of good pics, and narrative, etc.) Anything negative like this--even if it was factual--was just a "conspiracy theory" and had to go on this page Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, which was NOWHERE referenced on the pristine attack on pearl harbor article, because after all since it is a "conspiracy theory", it's not true, it's just b.s. in their minds, and held by lunatics. (I see that it is mentioned fairly early in the article now, but is still a "conspiracy theory").

I quickly saw it was hopeless to get anything like that in because I didn't understand the system. The take home message for me then (I view it differently now, especially after discussion with you) was this: if those with your perspective don't have a majority of the editors on your side (especially admins who can threaten to block you -or- experienced users who can twist the meaning of WP:RS to get their source in and yours rejected, and who know all the horrors of DR and the other threatened administrative actions and are probably friends with the decision makers who would be the judges and rule on their side even when any neutral observer would surely disagree), you will be bullied and you are sure to lose and they know it and are happy to flaunt it. It was pretty humbling--a bunch of thugs running the page making up and bending the rules to suit their agenda. (I suspected then this was not the plan, but I hadn't a clue what was to be done about.)

Shortly after that experience, I ran into one of the few people who had a paid position at Wikipedia Foundation at Cafe Abir in San Francisco and told him about this experience. He said he was pretty disappointed to hear about it, and that that was not supposed to happen. I don't know if I got his contact info. and if I did I doubt I could find it. He was a great guy regardless and I really enjoyed conversing with him.

I share this experience with you, because I know this is *not* how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but I think many new users get the feeling that this is how it works, and even long time editors seem to hold this opinion too, and that is a problem. Speaking with you--and again thank you for the long COI--I feel a little more optimistic that the system is designed to address these problem and with the right amount of patience perseverance, and attention to proper procedure, the kind of thing that I saw on the Attack on Pearl Harbor page will be rectified. David Tornheim (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for sharing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. The page is vastly improved on this issue as some of this is right in the lede, and it looks like its first appearance was only a few months after the time I was watching it. I would love to find out how the "conspiracy theorists" were able to get it in. (Possibly the process really did work. I really thought it was hopeless. Maybe I will put some time into researching that. I wish it didn't take so much work to figure out how something got in--although WikiBlame helps.) Nonetheless, the language there is still a little slanted. I doubt FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack or even let it happen in order to get the U.S. into the war (I don't the evidence supports this theory), just as I doubt GW Bush tried to make 9/11 happen or let it happen (same). But both presidents unquestionably used the attacks to justify getting the U.S. into wars they wanted to get in to that the U.S. was opposed to with propaganda that played fast and loose with the facts. The Remember the Maine article is much more honest about how the propaganda works. I hope you can see how this is relevant to the issues I am raising on GMO's. David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are comparing the anti-GMO stance with a conspiracy theory rejected by the mainstream, Are you saying they are parallel? That is a real question, not sarcastic. Jytdog (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

No, I wasn't comparing them directly--obviously the mainstream is concerned about GMO's!---but please hear me out. When you had asked if I had experience with controversial issues in Wikipedia, I wanted to share that particular experience and how it shaped my feelings about how Wikipedia functions in practice (far different than the ideals stated in all the policies, guidelines, etc.), and what seemed to be the typical way contested decisions are handled. My belief at that time, and for a long time after that, was this state of affairs was the result of a combination of vague, confusing, overwhelmingly complicated and seemingly contradictory rules, many of which were more like suggestions, all of which could be arbitrarily broken ("ignore the rules" WP:ignore), that could and were interpreted to suit a POV-pusher's agenda. Also included was my impression of a bizarre pseudo-judicial system of dispute resolution that appeared to be based more on friendships and loyalties than an objective and somewhat predicable decision-making system overseen by vetted judges who fully understood the rules, had pledged to obey them objectively, and had to put aside their personal opinions of the dispute's subject matter and any feelings about the parties (which is how law is at least supposed to be practiced in the United States). Instead, it seemed those particularly versed in all the confusion and ambiguity of the rules were at a huge advantage to get their way, even when it was transparent to the new user they were playing fast and loose with the rules to get what they wanted in the article. And lastly, that people with admin. power were especially to be feared, because they would not hesitate to use it to get their way, and if you challenged them, they would retaliate and get you blocked or banned.

It wasn't until you sent me that wonderful long essay about COI, "passion", anonymity, [WP:Policy], etc., that I began to understand how things are supposed to work, which was inspiring. I want to believe it can work and that a reasonable NPOV will result, instead of the horrible things that at least seemed to be happening with Attack on Pearl Harbor.

(Sorry if I am repeating myself. My reason for repeating it is, that I want to articulate concisely that experience, which I think may be typical for new users (and even experienced or long term users like myself who still feel overwhelmed and confused by the rules), and bring it to the attention of a bigger audience of more experience users (in some noticeboard) who may have forgotten that feeling but may have the power and wisdom of the process to address it, with hopes of both rectifying new user confusion like this, but also with aims to find ways that new users and users like me can find ways of obtaining, what I would call Wiki-Legal advice on: (1) if rule abuse really is going on, or it is just a misunderstanding of how the rules work -and- (2) how to challenge abuse if it is truly going on without how having to fear retaliation by advanced users and admins. Even better would be to have experienced users who act like attorneys assisting client users, who clearly have been wronged by users who have gamed the system, and who will stand by their client until the issue is resolved. (I work in law, so it's easy for me to see it this way)).

That said, I have seen on the talk pages, comments that GMO critics are WP:Fringe and that part does indeed remind me of my experience of Attack on Pearl Harbor, where legitimate verifiable perspectives are scrubbed from the page like a nasty blemish to the "truth" that concerns raised by GMO critics are just paranoid fantasies of people who "don't know what they are talking about". The discussion about the "contamination" vs. "mixed" is a good example. I really feel the people who changed "contamination" to "mixed" in that discussion are not playing by the rules. Is it deliberate? I hope not. Perhaps, they are blind to the obvious violation of the rules, because they are surrounded by a number of people who back them up and can't see the violation either? And perhaps, deliberate or not, they feel emboldened to continue scrubbing GMO critics' concerns, because they have gotten away with it before, many times over, and it feels like the natural order of things, because after all, GMO critics are nothing but a bunch of fools (like people who believe in space aliens) and everyone with any common sense knows this, except the GMO critics. It's this patronizing attitude towards GMO critics that is a big problem. That part to me is indeed just as unfair as what happened with the Attack on Pearl Harbor article.

Does that answer your question? I tried not to exaggerate too much--the first draft I'm sure you would have disapproved of!  :-) David Tornheim (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to know what you meant - if you meant that the anti-GMO position itself, is like some aspects of the pearl harbor conspiracy theories themselves. I get it, that you described your experience at the Pearl Harbor article so I could see what it was like for you and what issues you saw there. I am asking a different question, to understand you better. I took a quick look (not complete, and somewhat cursory!) of some of the history of the pearl harbor article and I see that you argued to give more weight and credence to some of the ideas held by conspiracy theories about pearl harbor and that others opposed you on the grounds of NPOV, specifically UNDUE. In your view, is that provisional description, a somewhat accurate description of what you were doing and the opposition you encountered? You are free to not continue this conversation, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

No, I did not give any support for any conspiracy theory or WP:Fringe theory. I supported having an article that reflected the current scholarship on the subject by expert historians using Wikipedia's standards for RS and NPOV and any other RS that was appropriate as I still would now. I looked again at the talk pages of that time, and am reminded how uncivil and rude those who controlled the page were, using ad hominems like "loon" and "stupid" to people they disagreed with. I was saddened to see Wikipedia discussion was not at a higher level of civility. I did stand up for those who were being mistreated by those who were all bluster and no substance. I think I was more interested in trying to get the two sides to be civil and reasonable to each other and see eye-to-eye than anything else. (Not likely, right?) I see that I put a lot of time creating an outline so both sides could insert their claims and evidence to back up their claims. When I saw it again today, I had to laugh that I actually thought either side would cooperate! They were more interested in arguing with each other, for sure. Thanks for having me take a look at it again. From rereading it now, I do see that most of the discussion on those talk pages did not sufficiently focus on RS and a bunch of it was speculation and personal opinions rather than direct references to material in RS. I would definitely approach all of it quite differently now if I saw that discussion. But I was just learning back then, observing, and it was fun to see how it worked about be part of it. I was basically "getting my feet wet" and watching what was going on more than anything else and some times jumping in. David Tornheim (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

yes it is really important to remain focused on sources and proposed content, and how to use them per PAG, and to discuss things as simply and directly - there are many strong temptations to go wrong, in many ways. takes a lot of self-restraint. anyway, thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Thank you for talking too! Last questions on this topic: In regard to my paragraph above starting with "(Sorry if I am repeating myself..." and explanations for the purpose : (1) Do you think the most experienced users are well aware that new users may often think this is how Wikipedia actually works and why they might lose confidence in it? (2) What forum is appropriate for discussion this general Wikipedia issue? (3) Are you aware that it has already been thoroughly discussed and efforts are in process to address it, and if so where I might look at those discussions? I wouldn't know where to begin searching for any of that. As a very involved and invested Wikipedian, I would think you might know. David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

when i witness new users getting all involved in hot conflicts (especially if i am not involved too) i try to jump into the new user's talk page and try to calm them down, and get them to understand that a) this place actually has a "rule of law" and is not a wild west, mad max place where people can just do whatever they want' b) they don't know anything about those "rules"; c) it is really unwise to get offended and even get in arguments when you don't understand what is going on... and I try to get them to let go of the argument and go edit elsewhere, on stuff they don't care so much about, while they learn what is going on. it works sometimes.

but there is very little one can do, when a new editor comes here with an ax to grind, and will not listen, and will not compromise, and will not learn.

Wikipedia, through the operations of NPOV, is very committed to being mainstream, to showing the world as it is, not as activists on any side of any issue wish it to be. In articles where there are very strong .... counter-currents to the mainstream, and activists/advocates of various stripes are constantly trying to drive fringe-y perspectives in, you will generally find a cadre of committed editors holding down the fort. (above, i told you it comes down to people. it really does).

In the field of health, I call these editors "quack fighters". We get all kinds of alt med POV-pushers, big fans of this or that fad diet, people convinced that some drug harmed them (lots of those), and less often, company/PR people, all trying to push bullshit into WP. The quack fighters do really important (and difficult work) every day. Some of them are a bit too battle hardened, but you have to respect them for hanging in there and not quitting, especially with all the abuse that gets heaped on them by the tinfoil hat crowd that keeps flowing through WP (some of whom stick around and become like zits on your butt that just will not go away and keep hurting and making things ugly). I respect the quack fighters and their commitment to WP's ideals, a great deal.

if you are a newish editor, and come to one of those articles wanting more representation of a minority or fringe view, you are going to have a very, very hard time getting your content to "stick". And probably an emotionally hard time as well; especially if you make typical newbie mistakes of personalizing things, instead of dealing with sources and PAG. Especially if you don't come in ready to do (ideally already having done) a lot of work to actually understand the mainstream view. I've gotten alternative views added to highly contested articles, but it was only by being very respectful of, and knowledgeable about, the mainstream position and showing, with really unimpeachable, nonpartisan sources, that the ideas I wanted to get into articles were very solidly part of the mainstream - just not in the center of it. And by being respectful and focused on content, not contributors.

so... that is about the best answer i can give you.

i think a lot of malarky (cliques and bad power game behavior) happens at lot here in "fuzzy" topics like video games, software... other stuff where there are not serious, scholarly/scientific institutions that produce a serious body of literature that in turn provides a great foundation of reliable sources to work with. I avoid those topics in WP (I actually don't care about them much); but i see really ugly battles about them at various drama boards - and it usually comes down to shitty source A says X and shitty source B says Y... nightmare stuff for me. It doesn't happen so much in topics I work in (mostly ag and health) because there is a great body of solid scientific literature to work with.

don't know if that is helpful or not. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't answer your question fully, about helping new editors. I know there are all kinds of tools to help new editors - the various welcome templates, everything in the Template:Help_navigation help navigation template, the invitations to the Wikipedia:Teahouse (meant to be a welcoming place to help new editors get adjusted), the WIkipedia Adventure training modules.. there is also a community working on this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. I don't know if, or if so how, they try to help new editors who really want to work on contentious articles. Like I said, i do my best to advise new editors not to try - its like trying to climb mount everest when you have just started learning how to climb; or skiing a black diamond trail when you are just starting to ski. WP:COMPETENCE really is required sometimes here, as it is in real life. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

science

hi david. you seem pretty committed to working on the GMO stuff, so I want to ask you... how much of the underlying science do you understand? if you don't understand it much, that is fine, but i would appreciate the opportunity to tell you about it. i find that the work goes much better when everybody is starting with a baseline understanding. thx Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Far more than the average U.S. citizen and many of the reporters who write articles about it for the mainstream and just repeat stuff from press releases they got from one side or the other and couple of short interviews with the originators of the press release. I know a little bit about how journalists work on "breaking stories". But I know far less than GMO critics like Jeffrey Smith, Michael Pollun or advocates like Pamela Ronald or John Entine, and far far less than scientists who are experts who work in toxicology like Seralini and specialize in the science of food safety (I'm not talking about the regulation which is a very different matter). I also understand the politicization of science within scientific institutions and at universities. My parents are both professors emeritus from a major University and one actually did studies in drug testing and is familiar from first hand experience with the heavy handed ways drug companies will manipulate studies to try to make it so they can sell their drug, and how using the wrong statistics is part of it. I could tell you more about one particular story on that, but I would need to make sure it doesn't violate and ethical issues to talk about it. I have a B.S. Electrical Engineering and a Masters in E.E. as well, but I don't consider myself a scientist, but I know quite a lot about physics and chemistry, but took no additional courses in biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry. My science study in college was all with dead stuff!  :-) Thanks for the response on your page--I'll get back to that. I thought I would give you this report. One reason that I more than the average American besides my knowledge of science and info. from my parents is that I have spent a fair amount of time reading about food and watching documentaries like Jeffrey Smith's GMO Roulette--which exaggerates about the actual impact on health (I know that from reading some studies)--many things he does say I have checked out and have found nothing that refutes them at all. I did see a John Entine article (or maybe it was someone else) going point by point trying to discredit everything thing in the film--and some of the things they did question like cause-effect of leaky gut (which MAY be related to GMO's or equally well might not) I thought were fair criticisms. But the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to me to be honest, and I think that most Americans feel the same way--regardless of how many studies so far have not observed any effect at all on human health, and this is the big value of the film--to tell people things that they don't know and have good reason to be concerned about (IMHO). I hope that answers your question. I have tried reading the various studies and because I am not an expert it in toxicology it can be challenging to know if many of the things Seralini said defending his behavior are reasonable or not, especially for example, his claim that Monsanto used the same # and kind of rats in their 90 day feeding trials, but then critics said that he needed to use more because of the mortality of the rats--I don't know if that is a fair criticism of his work or not. And if it is, I want to understand why he would use the wrong # of rats for a 2 YEAR STUDY if he knew in advance the # of rats was too few. It could be because of pressure from Greenpeace. I really don't know. So something like that, I wish I could talk to a specialist in toxicology who does studies like that but has not done them on GMO's to see what makes the most sense. Again I hope that answers your question. David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing I meant to point out that I should point out, which I have been holding off on saying, is that the relevant fields, I believe for questions about the safety of GMO foods are: Food Safety, Toxicology and Epidemiology, possibly a couple of others not Biogenetics. One of the big problems with the "scientific consensus" statement I have been challenging is that it originates with biogeneticist scientists who can make enormous profits from minimum regulation and study and findings of potential or actual negative health impacts. Being out of their specialty, I do not believe they are qualified to make such wide sweeping claims about the safety of the applications they create (any more than you and me are), or any more than engineers who design integrated circuits are qualified to make consumer safety claims about their designs, unless they have special training in the correct field and are not tied financially to selling their products.) I have not raised this issue yet in that subject and maybe I should just copy and paste this portion or rewrite something similar. David Tornheim (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks for answering. what you write opens more questions for me, but i will just ask a few.

when i asked you if you understand the science, i wanted to know if you understand genetic engineering. sorry for not being more precise. i am not asking if you could do it if you standing in a lab - i am asking if you understand what goes on, in making a genetically engineered bacteria, plant or mouse (or gene therapy, for that matter). I din't ask what you understand about subsequent steps in bringing a GM crop to market and am considering how and whether to address that with you off the article talk page (we already started addressing this with the "substantial equivalence" discussion at the article Talk page)

i can explain to you what is wrong with Seralini's reasoning defending his study design (and more importantly, his rhetoric) if you like. i can give you my best guess as to why the study design was set up the way it was, if you like.

please tell me if you like, why the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to you. i would be interested to hear. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

No, I don't know much about how biogenetics is done. I understand from this article that there are at least two major ways of doing it: (1) gene gun (which is mentioned in "Genetic Roulette" documentary (2) using bacteria to replicate either DNA or proteins or something like that. Observing the DNA I understand can be done with electron scanning microscopes. How one is able to take a strand from one gene (these are pretty small, right?) and force that small strand into another organism's gene--that a bit harder for me to envision. Like a operation to try to take a collection of molecules from someone's brain--what tools are able to cut and dice at submicroscopic levels? Despite how impossible it seems to be able to drill around and do construction at these submicroscopic levels, I know some sleep study experiments involved putting probes into INDIVIDUAL neurons. Those I would think are about as small as a DNA strand--so that's hard for me to believe too, but I know that can be done--I just can't imagine HOW that is possible. Having worked in VLSI design, I do understand how chips are created at these levels--they use a very finely calibrated laser, masks are photographically reduced to do etching.

Seralini: I am creating a new topic for that.

Bt Corn "please tell me if you like, why the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to you." I don't think food (even if it is just for animals) should have pesticide (or herbicide) added to it. We was are instructed to wash off our conventional fresh fruits, for example, to rid of pesticide residues, because of undesirable toxic effects of pesticides and herbicides to humans (even though clearly not all pesticides have negative human health impacts). Pesticides and herbicides (the suffix gives the indication) are designed to kill living beings, so adding them to the various parts of the food supply, especially in widespread quantities with very little long-term study, to me is very risky. Unintended consequences could be pretty bad--consider DDT.

One might say that pesticides and herbicides exist in nature. I do know that honey, for example, doesn't spoil because it has an anti-bacterial layer or emulsion, which is probably not unlike a pesticide. That is not so troubling to me because it has developed from evolution and has been around for many centuries (or probably far far longer), and there is no evidence I know of even from paranoid and delusion people much less highly trained scientists that eating honey in ordinary quantities has negative health impacts, except for those who might be allergic to it. Evolution is a very slow process, but biogenetics is not.

Question back for you: Do you understand toxicology (and epidemiology) and if so, on what level of expertise do you have and how did you obtain that knowledge?David Tornheim (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering.

I understand toxicology and epidemiology enough to discuss them soundly and confidently. I have a high level understanding of statistics. I am not discussing personal details.

if you want me to explain genetic engineering to you, let me know. if you want me to explain Bt to you, let me know (the comparison with DDT or any other small molecule is not apt). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

"The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation" by Jonathan R. Latham, Allison K. Wilson, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher (J Biomed Biotechnol. 2006) is informative and concise. It complements an aforecited law review in showing that the consequences of genetic engineering procedures are, in fact, unpredictable and not well understood. Also see: User:Groupuscule/GMO#Engineering Creates Unpredictable Changes to DNA. "Explanations" of genetic engineering, propounded by the likes of Henry I. Miller, oversimplified the process in a way which no longer stands up to scientific scrutiny (if indeed it ever did). groupuscule (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Done

In light of your comment on my Talk page, I believe it is best if we stop talking off the article Talk page. I am unwilling to risk being perceived as canvassing (no canvassing is an important WP policy, and important to me) and you are clearly taking it that way, and I also don't want you to feel intimidated. See you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: I'm sorry if my allegations about your PAST behavior are upsetting. I knew they would be, but it needed to be said. Now think about how it might have made me feel when you made canvassing allegations against me and they still are on the talk page even though we have been gaining rapport and trust. I could have done the same, but I did not. I honestly think it is pretty childish to strikeout all our discussion like that and I expect more from an adult. Please, take a deep breath, take some time out, and think about what I said that was so upsetting. I was not talking about our most RECENT discussion, which is very productive. I was talking about WHEN I FIRST SPOKE TO YOU and you said THINGS WOULD GET UGLY and the way you treated Alexlikescats. This recent discussion is quite productive and I think you know that. I would really appreciate if once you cool off, you undid the strikeouts of the recent discussion so we can continue and talk like two adults. David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not upset. You are continuing to write all this stuff about contributors and not content, and you are continuing to make very strong statements about what motivates other editors; as I've said to you before, this is both unwise and not what we do here. You don't know what motivated my actions today, and you haven't asked. From my behavior, I think it is very clear that I am backing out of the kind of engagement I have had with you. Striking, is what we do here, when we disclaim what we said and apologize. That is what I have done. I do regret having engaged with you as I did, and I am sorry for having taken up your time and for the upset I have caused you. I will see you on the article talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Séralini

Jtydog said "i can explain to you what is wrong with Séralini's reasoning defending his study design (and more importantly, his rhetoric) if you like." Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to hear that. FYI, when I first talked with you I had zero respect for the study, and thought Séralini did not apply statistics correctly either out of intention or ignorance. That conclusion came shortly after the prodding one of my parents (who is very Pro-GMO) for A SINGLE study like the one Lfstevens was asking for. When I saw the various memes about the Séralini study, I briefly looked at the study, which I didn't really spend enough time to fully understand and showed it to my Pro-GMO parent. My Pro-GMO parent attacked the study, criticizing it for statistical insignificance and use of the Sprague-Dawley rat designed to get cancer. I trust that parent's judgement about reading a study, but now I wonder if that parent, instead of reading it just Googled it to find the criticisms. I see that parent often uses all the Pro-GMO rhetoric like "feeding the world" or "GM has been going on for centuries with traditional breeding", rather than coming to that conclusion independently as I had formerly believed.

The criticism of too few rats (I was told 10 in the control and 10 in the study group, but I see it was 10 per group, with maybe 10 gruops) were too few to obtain significantly different results. From my knowledge of statistics, I agree, and wondered my anyone would use so few rats. But then later I discovered that Monsanto used the SAME # of rats and no one was criticizing them for doing inadequate study of statistical significance! When I heard that, I knew there was far more to the story and so I read up a bunch more on Séralini and think he is probably an upstanding guy and was unfairly attacked--except I think the PR methods to announce the study are a bit questionable and I don't approve from what I have read (and if Greenpeace was the major funder of the study that I can see how that compromises the communication at a minimum, and possibly also the choice of methods an # of rats). But Pamela Ronald I think does the same kind of things on the other side and has COI herself, so it not just one side's PR voice that is a problem.

The fact that the study was done with Sprague-Dawley rats made the finding of tumors not as remarkable as I originally thought when I showed the Pro-GMO parent--and hence the pictures in the memes of rats with tumors was DELIBERATELY misleading and designed to scare. But I suspect that miscommunication is not necessarily Séralini's fault, and may be the media--which loves sensationalism--and very likely also Greenpeace's PR communication strategies. And since he was taking money from Greenpeace, he might have been compromised in giving them the pictures or letting them take the pictures, possibly not realizing that those pics were going to be used to send a misleading message to the public (but I have trouble believing he could be so easily mislead by Greenpeace!). I suspect something like that was going on so Séralini may have been compromised by the funders--which happens all the time with drug companies on the industry side as I had mentioned before.

I did understand that the Sprague-Dawley rat was standard in toxicology so one can't fault the study or experimenter for using them. From everything I have been reading more recently, I think Séralini is probably not any worse of a scientist than say Pamela Ronald. And both that both have some COI issues that have compromised their messages to the public. David Tornheim (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the study design was the whole thing - the choice of rat, the numbers of rats, and the length of time (lifetime of the rat). That rat develops high numbers of tumors over its lifetime, all by itself. Same rat, way more rats (60 per arm per OECD), same length of time, the results would have been interpretable. (this what the Grace Project says they are doing) Same rat, same number of rats, less time (which is the current standard tox study design), the results are interpretable. Seralini's design - not interpretable. Just noise. I don't speculate about motives. I just know what Seralini did and said. And I know what Ronald did - when her lab discovered the contaminated reagents, she self-retracted. That is what good scientists do.

I just wrote a long response to your bringing Ronald into this again, and deleted it. If you think what happened with Ronald and what happened with Seralini are in any way parallel, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi David, just as an FYI your comment caught my eye: "But then later I discovered that Monsanto used the SAME # of rats and no one was criticizing them . . ." That's actually a common half truth in this topic that comes up often and part of the reason why the nuance and understanding needed on the controversies for GMOs (or any science topic) makes editing the articles so difficult. Monsanto did a very different study than Seralini in that it was for a shorter period of time (90 days I believe). The number of rats in the Monsanto study was actually appropriate for the length of the study, but Seralini's went way beyond that length and would require more rats because of it. That detail often gets glossed over whenever the "Monsanto used the same number of rats" comments pop up. Just curious if you were aware of that. It actually could be something worth mentioning in the article, but I'd have to go back and find the sources that briefly mention that if it's even worth including at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

yep - sprague rat, 10 rats per arm, 90 days, is the current standard tox test. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

Yes, I knew about the 90 day vs. 2 years was mentioned in some of the criticisms. I am not sufficiently an expert to know the basis of the conclusion that he should have used 65 rats. Is there an international standard in toxicology that 10 rats is fine for 90 days and 65 rats are required for 2 years. That would be more compelling that he was not doing "good science." David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. The OECD puts out guidelines exactly for this (one example [1]). [This source] that we also currently cite explains the difference between the two studies pretty well in the last few paragraphs. We don't flesh that out too much right now in the article, but that's a conversation for the talk page there if anyone wants to start looking into that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the standards. David Tornheim (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the standard. The one you gave me is the wrong standard. Séralini used OECD No. 408, just like Monsanto did. Séralini was not testing for carcinogenesis; he was testing for toxicity. He specifically says in the study's introduction "Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." For some reason the editor appears confused and says Séralini was looking for carcinogenicity, when it is clear he was not. So this doesn't really provide any evidence that Séralini used the wrong # of rats, any more than it does for Monsanto. In fact, it appears to confirm that he did use the correct number of rats to test toxicity. Here is a quote from the editor from the link you gave me:

In accordance with OECD Guideline No. 408 (OECD, 2009a), the Hammond et al. study was limited to 90 days following and used 20 rats/sex/group, and was conducted in general compliance with OECD Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines, as previously stated. The Séralini et al. study ran for two (2) years with only 10 rats/sex/group and was reported to be done in a GLP environment according to OECD guidelines (which guideline is not explicitly stated in the paper). Séralini et al. state that they had “had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group,” as recommended in OECD Nos. 451 and 453 (guidelines for Carcinogenicity Studies and Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Studies, respectively)(OECD, 2009a; OECD, 2009b), and instead seem to have opted for 10 rats/sex/group as recommended by OECD No. 408 (guidelines for Repeated Dose 90-day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents). While the number of animals used may have been sufficient to reach conclusions regarding oral toxicity, it proved insufficient for conclusions related to the carcinogenicity of the test substances.

[Emphasis added.] source

So the editor appears to agree that the # of rats were sufficient to test toxicity, which is exactly what he said he was testing in the study.David Tornheim (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the criticisms of Seralini is that he calls it a toxicity study, but the results he emphasizes in the study are indeed carcinogenic in nature. The main problem though was that Seralini went out 2 years instead of 90-days. That causes multiple confounding factors related to rat longevity that makes the two studies very different and also makes Seralini's a more poorly designed study for toxicological findings. More rats are needed for longer studies not just because they're testing for carcinogenicity, but because of the underlying biology of the rats when a study lasts longer. That's the basic gist of some of the underlying science just for reference. Since we're not actually generating content right now from this conversation though, I'll be letting this conversation be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk)

Per WP:NPA and WP:TPG. please use article Talk pages to discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. If you have a concern with the behavior of other editors, please politely bring that up with them on their Talk pages, and if you don't see a change in the behavior you see as problematic, you can take that issue to the relevant noticeboard. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, you have continued and i again have removed your comment. On article talk pages, please discuss content, based on policies and guidelines. I am politely telling you that your behavior is problematic. Please change your behavior, or I will need to bring this to a notice board. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You had suggested on my Talk page that "It might be help if when someone comes onto any of these pages and starts making changes or recommendations to tell them up front how much time you put into the articles and the goals you have had for them, past problems and concerns and the desire not to repeat these problems, that you hope to be able to work together to achieve these goals if they are agreeable. It might still be a bit heavy handed, but I think it would help them understand your resistance to changes in the article, especially resistance when someone is trying to do a better job of presenting the GMO critics concerns.". I had responded to that quite clearly, which i subsequently struck. I will re-claim what I said there, and say it here: "the notion that i would somehow introduce myself to new editors and explain my history there to them is ... well... wrong-headed wikipedia-wise and icky, in my view. first it is way too much about contributor not content. second, i know that i don't own the articles and that i have no intrinsic authority over them. i have to justify whatever changes i make per PAG, every day, just like the next editor." That remains true.

Your effort to do what you recommended that I do, which i removed, is as wrong-headed with regard to WP's policies and guidelines as your initial suggestion that I do it. It is not what we do here, and i take it as a personal attack; i provided notice of that to you above. You have told me on my Talk page that you find my behavior problematic. That was the right forum in which to initially address your concern. I told you that i heard you. If you see that I continue the behavior, you can bring me to a notice board if you like. Please stop discussing contributors on the article Talk page; please do not canvass about this either. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not use any ad hominem attacks, foul language, sexist, racist or otherwise illegal language, etc. I simply pointed out the behavior of the editors, not any specific editors themselves. Those who are concerned about GMO's have often noted the problem, and as I pointed out to you, you have treated them unkindly for doing it, and ultimately they have been chased off the GMO pages. I was even more surprised you have taken the bold step of even censoring my comments and concerns which are valid and relevant to the article's lack of NPOV and bias. Such censorship seems to me unethical--it has never happened to me on Wikipedia: People have disagreed on talk pages, but never have I seen a user censored like that. The obvious problem with such censorship is that then only your opinion survives--even on the talk page. It's a kind of authoritarian rule that I think is very un-Wikipedian that silences reasonable dissent.

Your response above is somewhat misleading. When I pointed out your problematic behavior, you did not respond by saying "I heard you"--that language preceded the concerns I raised about Alexlikescats. Your response to the concerns I raised about your behavior was to strike out everything you ever said to me on my talk pages here, which I said was pretty childish. You also immediately archived all your talk, so no one might inadvertently see what I said--sneaky. I do appreciate, however, this far more mature response acknowledging the concerns I raised that I do think have been a very big problem and I hope are not continued.David Tornheim (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this back and forth, as you are distorting what I did and said. It seems to me that the more I say, the more I give you to distort. So there is really no point in continuing, except to say that I disagree with just about everything you say above. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On Canvassing

Contacting another editor about a page they are already working on is hardly ever seen as canvassing, though on contentious pages, I suggest you (1)start new user page conversations with only one other editor at a time (2) avoid calls to action of the 'we should do x' variety, (3) speak about groups of editors generally and avoid specifically mentioning one editor, even by insinuation, i.e. 'lead editor'. In my experience, if you follow these points and are generally civil it would be almost impossible for anyone to bring admin action against you for user or talk page comments, either on the grounds of canvassing or 'personal attack'. As Jytdog has said above, article talk pages should be used to discuss the article. If you have advice for another editor, their user page is the place. If you feel things are getting heated or personal, taking a day away from editing to reflect can be a good thing. Dialectric (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Isn't Jytdog's behavior of intimidating new people who come to the page who are not Pro-GMO problematic? It seems to me very un-Wikipedian and tantamount to canvassing, and others have complained as well, and have successfully been chased off the GMO articles. I don't know the best way to address selective bullying on pages, especially by experienced users who know the system and have loyalties with the judicial decision-makers. Those decision-makers may not be very objective in holding an abuser--who is their friend--accountable, instead blaming the abused for inviting the abuse (like when men say a woman caused the man to behave badly by wearing a sexy outfit). So when I point out the behavior, the bullying, in fact, only gets worse; the bully doesn't see the problem. I was completely shocked that my comment on the talk page was censored and Jytdog has made it clear he is committed to preventing my concern to see the light of day on the talk page (where I believe it belongs), so that now only the comments from people who share his/her POV will be visible--even on the talk page! I've never seen anything like that on Wikipedia before. Is censoring on the talk page like that even permissible? David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, often framed as 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', is, in certain areas, becoming the encyclopedia where only confident experts can edit. This trend extends beyond GMO articles. See the way the guideline (not policy) WP:MEDRS has been applied to a wide range of health articles. This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on one's perspective, but it is a trend I've noticed, and one aspect of this trend is the disencouragement of some new editors. Intimidating new editors is bad regardless of who is doing it, but I am unaware of any admin actions taken against someone for aggressive but policy-based responses to new editors.

In regard to 'judicial decision-makers', the final say comes down to admins, and there are enough admins that personal friendships will hold little sway over the outcome of a WP:ANI proceeding, for instance. The key to making use of the wiki-judicial system is a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policy and precident, again a major obstacle for new editors. While Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is discouraged, what that term constitutes is something of a gray area and experienced users can definitely leverage the system to their own ends. If you are willing to waste a few hours wading through archives, you can often find examples where an experienced editor violates the same policies he or she stridently enforces elsewhere.

Removing personal attacks from a talk page is permissible, usually only done in clearcut cases - see WP:RPA.Dialectric (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response. I will look at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Where is the proper forum to raise the issue of unreasonable censorship? David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clear answer to your proper forum question. You may be able to answer for yourself looking over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It could be that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is what you are looking for, though you will have to decide that. In general if you see behavior which is contrary to policies, one approach would be to make a note of the diff off-wiki for personal use, then when you have compiled several which show a pattern of behavior by a user or WP:GANG, take that to WP:ANI. Administrators are more likely to respond to a pattern of behavior than a single breach of policy. Dialectric (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have said several times, the best way to deal with a behavior issue is to bring it up directly and politely with the user on their talk page, and if you don't get satisfaction, go to a noticeboard. See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which is indeed in WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genetic engineering. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Behavior at Genetic Engineering

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

In addition to edit warring warning above, this diff appears as pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on your part. It's generally considered very disruptive to make a new edit, have it reverted, and refuse to reach consensus on it by instead trying to edit war it back in. The onus is on you to justify the new change. In such a case when your edit is reverted, you need to go to the talk page to convince other editors it should be made if you really want to push forward with the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no attachment to the sentences and have no desire for a "battleground". I didn't restore them because I feel a strong need for them to be in the article, but only because they were deleted without a valid reason and without any mention on the talk page. It was my understanding that if you choose to revert without a valid reason in the comments, you MUST provide an explanation on the talk page, and that without it, the user can safely revert it back until a valid reason is given or the matter is discussed. Perhaps, I misunderstood the rule. And if so, I'm sorry. Now that Jytdog has followed what I understand the process to be--of bringing a valid objection for the material--I am fine with it being omitted. I think it is important that we collaborate rather than to have one side reverting without giving any Wikipedia reason for the reverts. David Tornheim (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

my edit note read "not accurate. ancient source" which is shorthand for what I wrote at length on the Talk page. here. you continue to misrepresent me, which is yet another violation of the WP:TPG, which says (bolding from the original) "Do not misrepresent other people:" Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the new allegations? I did not misrepresent you. I said you did not give valid reasons and I stand behind that. Saying an RS is "too old" is not a valid reason to reject an article if you do not offer to add a more recent source that is more to the point. Sometimes an old RS is the only thing available or is the best RS. Saying it is "not accurate" is not a valid reason either. That is little more that WP:OR. If you are going to say it is "not accurate", you have to back that up with a convincing argument that is supported by RS. I don't understand why you wish to continue to argue and lodge new allegations. I don't see what purpose that serves. We seem to have come to an agreement that I will be more specific about an RS I intend to add, and you will not simply revert new material without giving a valid reason for rejecting it. That is collaboration. Why don't we move forward and focus on making the article better rather than create new allegations and drama over a matter that is settled? David Tornheim (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No new allegations. i consider the matter done. but i always write edit notes when i am editing articles, and i try to be communicative in them; the reason i put in my edit note is the same reason (more briefly stated) i gave on talk. I gave a valid reason - the reason you ultimately accepted - in my edit note. You have now written a number of times that I did not give a valid reason in my edit note. I chose to respond to that, and i name it for what it is - misrepresenting what I wrote and what i did. you went there, i responded. i am done. If you edit war again, that is on you. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Public relations

I hope we can all take seriously the continuing and expanding problem of industry PR and work together to address the problem before we lose even more honest unpaid editors and the public starts to lose confidence in Wikipedia for failing to keep this COI behavior in check.

It's not very helpful to discuss and tackle such large problems. Stick to the small ones, and if the little problems become little success stories, then you'll get one large success, which is what you want. So start small and work on a micro level. One thing you don't want to do is start off by shooting yourself in the foot. In other words, don't cite people and things like Sharyl Attkisson (an anti-vaxxer), TEDx (zero credibility, as anyone can participate), or Michael Crichton (a climate change denier). So you guys have pretty much done more to shoot down your own argument than anyone else. Don't just vet your sources, vet your own arguments. If it doesn't pass the smell test, then discard it and start fresh. And as always, follow the money. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Did you watch the video? She really isn't an "anti-vaxer" as far as I can tell. David Tornheim (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, she personally uses the tag "anti-vaccine" on her blog posts.[2] Let's not argue about the silly stuff. She's clearly anti-vaccine, whether you agree with or disagree with her position. And why the heck is she even being used here? Like I said, vet your sources and your arguments. Then, when you come to the table for an argument, you'll be prepared. Before arguing with other people, argue with yourself. Furthermore, complaining about public relations on Jimbo's page is a waste of your time. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

some good advice, V. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, i just saw what prompted you to write that. oh my. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Viriditas. I looked over all the drama on her talk page accusing her of being anti-vaccine, and her responses from her agents strongly saying she is not, even calling it "libelous", which got her agents IP addresses blocked for indirectly threatening legal action. I did read someone say her blog said "anti-vaccine" but I don't think they pointed to the blog, so I thought they just made it up. Although I tend to think the benefits of vaccines generally outweigh net dangers, I don't think anyone who has concerns of possibly side effects, etc. should be immediately repudiated as a quack, WP:Fringe, "loon", "conspiracy theorist", etc. Many medicines have negative side effects, and I have no reason to believe vaccines are any different, and just because the potential benefit is very high, that does not mean all risks, no matter how bad, should be completely ignored and the makers of the vaccines are able to produce them with complete impunity. So, in a sense, it's really the same problem. We need an honest assessment of the risks, not a rhetoric that "vaccines are always good" or "vaccines are always bad" kind of false-dilemma... David Tornheim (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I struck out that part above, as I'm not interested in whether she's anti-vaccine or simply covers anti-vaccine stories. That someone was Paul Offit and his comments on Democracy Now! several weeks ago put the issue to rest.[3] We need people to get vaccinated. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Genetically modified food controversies. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

difs:

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

Please stop canvassing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• As a canvassed party, whose response thus far has been only to supply information, and who furthermore watches the pages in question anyway, groupuscule must suggest that this "Warning" comes across as unnecessary and unduly threatening. David Tornheim posted on the pages of four users, all of whom are already deeply involved in the exact discussion at hand. On a related note: If the talk pages for articles about genetically engineered food weren't Archived so often, there might be better continuity of discussion on those pages, themselves, and the decentralized communication on people's talk pages might not seem as necessary. ☮ groupuscule (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss archiving on any of the relevant aticle's Talk pages. With regard to canvassing, it is a breach of WP's norms. None of the users who were canvassed have been involved in the articles for quite some time now; groupuscule's (you are really going third person now! :)) description of them as "deeply involved in the exact discussion at hand" has not been true for a long time now, and the canvassing is a clear effort to revive old disputes that were settled a long time ago by contacting people who argued for the kinds of changes that David wants to make now. My response carefully follows the recommendations in the guideline:

"The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary."

That is what I have done. And if David continues, I will take the next steps, as described in the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This dif is further canvassing, in my eyes. I am bringing you to ANI. You will receive a notice when I am done writing it up. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_hounding_with_allegations_of_bad_faith_on_GMO. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)