User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tryptofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

December, 2015 – January, 2016

O how right you are

I'd sort of been vaguely following the Arbcom GMO case and noticing your thoughtful contributions, and just now I see this RfC, and it makes me think some of your comments have been ... prescient. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG, what a total clusterfuck! Well, thanks for the kind words. I don't know whether I would rather hide under a rock, or get popcorn and watch. Either way, it's awful. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Both are plausible options at this point in the sense I think it's best not to even touch it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will take my popcorn under my rock. All peacefully inclined editors are welcome to join me. And I've just archived everything above, so it's time to start a new day! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Huh?" section of the ArbCom noticeboard talkpage is shaping up as one of the most wince-inducing things I have ever seen. It makes me regret that the "facepalm" template is at TfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a favourite type of hand cleanser? -Roxy the dog™ woof 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roxy. I'm not sure that I do. Perhaps it's more apt for me to refer to tissues to wipe tears from my eyes, because that's the way that I feel about today, about the editor who got blocked. I feel utterly awful about it. It's like the GMO case closed, and I wanted to put it behind me, and yet every day I log in and find a new mini-crisis that has grown out of it. Editing here is supposed to be a hobby, and therefore to be reasonably enjoyable. It hasn't been for me, lately. Anyway, let's be very careful about not grave-dancing over what has happened (not that you were). There is nothing to celebrate here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at you

Just in case you're wondering - my link to WP:ARCA wasn't directed at you .. or anyone else really. It's just that there seemed to be questions regarding genetic modifications, and what was and was not covered by the GMO remedies. Actually - I wasn't even finding fault with Arbcom; mainly because I didn't follow that case. I was just throwing out the link because I thought someone/anyone who had questions might want it. Just wanted you to know that the link wasn't aimed at "you". :) — Ched : ? 20:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I never thought that it was aimed at me. Please don't worry about that. I thought that what you said was perfectly clear, and perfectly relevant. Please let me know if I should clarify that there. I just wanted to say what I said, and I thought that it would make sense for it to follow you. Thanks for thinking of me. (And also please don't feel bad about DrChrissy's talk page. I saw what happened, and I just thought that you were trying to be helpful, but DrChrissy is very understandably going through a stressful time.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand - and thank you. (no need to clarify there) — Ched : ? 20:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I predict this will end with Le Poisson de Trypto being a minor character in a made-for-TV movie about a serial killer. Recommend giving this a pass. EEng (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If so, it would be typecasting. See that, I try to archive everything on my talk page, and then it starts to fill right back up. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mode or mechanism

I hit enter halfway through this so thought I'd explain some more. This for example uses mode and a google scholar has much more hits for mode and glyphosate than mechanism. Even articles describing what we call the mechanism of action use mode of action. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI, mode of action is the formal terminology we use in pesticide literature as well. At least it's not as bad of a finicky choice of terminology as I've seen some other disciplines used in other areas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that "mechanism" is really more appropriate, given that the page section says specifically that it works by inhibiting a particular enzyme, as opposed to just altering the gross structure of plant cells. But I also do not care that much, and you are certainly correct about those sources. PS: Given what KofA said, I guess that as a finicky biochemist/pharmacologist/neuroscientist (who winces at "mode"), but not an agricultural scientist by a longshot, I'll defer to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes agricultural scientists also don't know that mechanism of action means something specific either (the danger of discipline terminology). In most cases a mode of action section of a book will have a subset of content on mechanism, so as long as it's covering both effects of the organism (mode) and molecular (mechanism) we should be ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I'd never heard of 'mechanism of action' until today in any form but then this isn't really my area of research. I think the section should describe the mode in general though so I hope it's accurate now. SmartSE (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think of the Cole Porter song Let's Call the Whole Thing Off. I spent much of my professional career dealing with "mechanisms of action", but until today never really thought in terms of "mode of action". But if that's how the pesticide literature says it, then I'm happy to call the whole thing off. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Thanks (albeit I cannot pronounce it)! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't miss out: [1] ! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (and the first word is just as it looks!)

Thanks, so LL means S! I think I coughed up a hairball saying it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"OMG". You're in good company, although Radio 4 tends to routinely give us Claneckly and Clanroost, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Tryptofish: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, 'Fish

May your days be merry and bright . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And the same to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this edit[2]. I think it will help cool things down a lot.

I remember our first interaction[3]. I was very new and I think it was one of my first with an established editor. My reply came across a little snarky[4] and it could have easily been replied to in a similar fashion. I think your response was classy[5] and I have held you in high respect ever since.

When you became actively involved in the more controversial GMO articles things were a little tense and you brought a level, calm and knowledgeable head. It helped a lot. Due to real life I have been AWOL the last few years and things seem to have escalated a lot over that time. While in some ways I am glad I missed the drama I do feel bad that I wasn't there to support you. I still do not have time to do these articles justice, but have added them back to my watchlist and will try and help out when I can. Maybe I can return the favour of a few years ago.

Have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the holidays. AIRcorn (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! You really made my day. I had completely forgotten those long-ago edits about GloFish. But I did remember the very helpful comment you had made much more recently, about the gravedancing comment that was reverted from the Arb case page but then copied with much mockery at a user talk page. As for that self-revert that I made, my reasons are really very much what I said then. It means a lot to me to at least try to be an editor who decreases drama instead of increasing it, and the past several months have sorely tried me in that regard, but then a message such as yours makes me feel so much better. Thanks again, and all the best of the season to you too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

227 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown Looks like it was a busy Christmas. At least I have something ~~good~~ to read over the New Year. AIRcorn (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And if you can get through all of that by the summer, you'll see that some of those revisions are mine – and even I am having a hard time keeping track of it! Small consolation: no more than 1 revert per day. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! (Even if it's a year I'd like to put behind me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sleigh bells are ringing

Happy holidays to you!

– Corinne (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! It sure feels like this has been my talk page's lucky day! And the same good wishes to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Except you, Arizona.[6] Just what will they think up next? Appointing oil and coal executives to the environmental management panels? Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and that is truly a Viriditas-style message! I'm pleased that I live in a "blue" state. And all the best of the season to you, too! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Award

	The Great Human Being Award
	Thank you for your tireless contributions, enthusiasm and patience! — *Keithbob* • Talk • 21:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob! My talk page is starting to make me blush! And thank you for all the help you provided with that lengthy mediation. That cake looks delicious! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a ~~Charlie Brown~~ Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw ^(talk)

Thank you so much! And very much the same best wishes to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Something that might interest you....

Just copy the code: , and . Think I covered all the necessities. $\S/$ Atsme^📞📧 22:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you yesterday, so thank you now! I'd say that covers most of my moods in a typical day! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

COI stuff

Hi Trypto. After reading this post, I'm kind of curious how you would consider a former employee (especially many years removed) to have a COI? There shouldn't be a financial connection at that time, or really any other connections. Some people subscribe to a "tainted for life" mentality that is kind of mired in politics that goes down a rabbit hole pretty quick in these topics. I'm not suggesting that's your thinking at all on it, but I am curious what your thinking is when it comes to this specific COI question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to changing my mind. And I'm also struggling to find middle ground at that page. The presumption is that someone who was a long time employee of that company (assuming that they didn't leave angry) would be loyal to that company, and might be predisposed to present information in a way that is sympathetic. But I'm also concerned that the COI-hunting is a mask for POV-pushing. I think that the best approach to take is to accept alternative sources if those sources are good enough and not objected to, but to disagree when material is being slanted in a POV way. If you find where the Vlaams source is discussed on the talk page, it's a very good source, and most editors seem to be OK with using it, so we probably are not dependent on citing the sources to which some editors object. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been a bit wary of editors objecting to sources and that's enough to exclude them. The current trend is looking like trouble brewing, but I'm not sure of the best way to handle it all either except that it's probably better to try to deal with the general issue now rather than wait.

Just for my overall take, I think the main distinction for me there is that the favorable view of the company is not forced in some manner (monetary, job security, etc.). They no longer have obligations to the company, and that is the key here. Being proud of a specific company, whether as a customer or former employee, wouldn't be in COI territory anymore. Otherwise we get into the territory of calling COI on people for having a preferred lawn mower brand they use, a sports team, etc. I don't think we'd consider a retired steel-worker to have a COI in that regard, or someone who grew up working on a farm for 10+ years before graduating high school. There can be potential for predisposition for certain points of view, but in this case we'd be wandering more into the territory of points of views held by experts (which is fine under NPOV) rather than a true conflict of interest. WP:INDY covers this a little bit.

What I would really love is for a journal or organization to spell out in writing the former employee aspect for us here. In general (this is just from my interactions), journal editors tend to have a 5-year rule for selecting peer-reviewers that had past personal affiliations with a person or organization. As an author (or even just university reporting) previous employment becomes irrelevant to conflict of interest statements in a similar amount of time. If they had an affiliation within the last year or two, then questions are sometimes asked if there are loose ends, but that drops off as the former work relationship dies off. That's all unfortunately in the back end of journal and university ongoings that don't get put out in nice sources for Wikipedia. If someone lists a former employer from 10+ years ago in an academic setting though, no one is going to bat an eye if the financial relationship is gone. The same thing happens with company to company hires, which actually happens a lot that would reduce some company loyalty effect. I think the general public forgets that when people leave these jobs for another one, it's often just another job for them. Just because it's Monsanto doesn't make that aspect different. That's why direct financial COI such as current employment are going to be the main thing to look for instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

One thing I'm keeping an eye on is whether all the skepticism about sources is only directed at sources critical of Seralini. But I think it's important to understand that for many editors, once one says "Monsanto", the issue is over and their ears are closed, and no amount of discussion will change their minds. One can feel that this is wrong, but it's reality and one cannot wish it away. You need to be prepared for some very well-practiced and well-honed wikilawyering. You won't get anywhere with trying to point to how academic journals set time points.

I like where you said that there is a difference between COI and bias. I think that's a productive approach to discussion. A former employee may no longer have a real COI, but we can still go along with saying that there is still a potential bias. And that moves things closer to what we really are dealing with, which is POV.

But again, the Vlaams source is one written by experts, and all the editors seem to accept it as being free from COI/bias/whatever. And it's excellent for representing the mainstream expert view, so it is a good idea to make use of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Monsanto problem is just that. I intend to push back against that to some degree, not from a WP:RGW perspective when it comes to editor behavior, but to at least put pressure on those resorting to fallacious arguments on Wikipedia. It's a fine line, but letting a lot of these things go unchecked and dominate talk pages and you've seen.

On bias, I intended my use of the term to be below a baseline level of bias we consider problematic. Every source has biases, such as scientists focusing more on their own discipline and maybe omitting information a scientist in another discipline would have been better able to contribute instead. A former employee may have more background on the company's stance on an issue, but that isn't a problematic bias without the close and current professional/financial ties. As Jytdog alluded to, the problem is when there is a bias from a source not being WP:INDEPENDENT. Someone removed from employment for a sufficient amount of time would be considered independent in that case. That's a real world concept that's really hard for some to grasp, especially when politics enter in the picture. I do agree with you on trying to find things to minimize drama prone editors on the topic, but there's also the balance of not bending over too far backwards. I don't intend to let all that get the better of my sanity or general civility though.

As for citing sources on when COI ends, I don't plan to get into those details on articles, but the NIH is [grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer_coi.htm one example] where they give a 3-year threshold for professional relationships before they are no longer considered a conflict of interest. The topic has re-tweaked my interest though, so I might work on expanding some relevant guidelines or essays with sources someday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

[7] Tryp - the COI doesn't end when the employment ends. Just a brief FYI and I'm outta here. Grandkids have hover board issues - what a nightmare. Atsme^📞📧 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hover boards! I've been hearing awful things about those. I wish you and your grandkids a safe new year! And KofA, see what I mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes...oh, hover boards is right! Thousands have been recalled by their respective manufacturers because the batteries are blowing up and burning down homes, not to mention the riding hazards. Oh, and a quick comment about the COI issue - based strictly on my own experience - if you'll recall, even though I was retired (emeritus) from EWS, the fact that I was a founder has tethered me to that organization for life despite it being an all-voluntary organization with no financial interest. I would imagine a financial interest in any company or organization after retirement - especially a pension plan with stock options - may be considered an undeniable COI, but I'm only one opinion. I agree with you in that (basically) an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and going with high quality RS helps eliminate potential problems. Smart thinking on your part. Atsme^📞📧 20:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that shows a case where the COI ends after employment. The company matching would only occur during employment (or to year-end). In those kind of plans, the company has no role in the retirement account after employment. It can be a different case if you're dealing with something like a more traditional pension where your retirement plan is dependent on the continued financial stability of your previous employer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would think owning stock in the company would make one dependent on the continued financial stability of the previous employer as would many pension plans, [8]. Atsme^📞📧 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

just a quick note that is general, and not about the subject article which I cannot and will not speak to. In WP, we generally discuss "COI" with regard to editors, not with sources. With regard to sources, we discuss whether they are "independent" or not (COI can play into it, but it is in the context of independence) WhatamIdoing has done great work thinking through this sort of thing, and this essay is some of the fruits of that. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and I'm glad to see you back. I hope that we will be able to edit together in the future, in some non-contentious subject areas. (And a note to my talk page stalkers: I don't want to see any negative comments in response.) Anyway, I've also been thinking along the lines that editors are making an error in applying the editor-standards of COI to source authors. On the other hand, there is a valid argument that, when an author has what we call a COI, they will consequently have a POV or bias, and therefore should not be considered NPOV sources. That's a serious argument, and a discussion that needs to be navigated with an open mind. But I see some indications that, by starting to paint sources as having a COI, that can be used to, in effect, cast aspersions on the source authors. Such arguments can have emotional weight that exceeds their legitimacy on the merits, because they play to editors' shared values. In that way, they can be a skillful method of civil POV-pushing, and it's something that I've been trying to push back against. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My shackles

I can give advice, but I cannot force anyone to follow it. I wash my hands of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Trypto, thank you very much for your support over at the ArbCom clarification page - this is very much appreciated. I should perhaps explain why my edits at Genetically modified fish might appear POV and even anti-GMO. The benefits of GM fish (and many other GM organisms) very often relate to human health or medicine. You are probably aware I am topic banned from human medicine articles. I am extremely fearful that by writing about GM fish in relation to human health, I will be in breach of my topic ban. So, in some ways, I am actually shackled from producing a totally NPOV. This is very frustrating because I know I am writing/editing articles and leaving huge gaps in them which someone else has to fill. I hope this makes sense.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and I really do think that you are getting a bum rap over there. I haven't gone deep into the sources at that page, because I simply do not have time, but the feeling that I get from a first read is that you are trying too hard to include every primary source that you can find. It reminds me of undergraduate term papers where the student thinks that they can impress the professor by cramming in every source they could find in the library. OK, what I just said was over-the-top and kind of too-critical, but I figure at least that it can provoke you to think about it. What I think is happening is that some editors are looking at your edits and thinking that you are constantly adding anti-GM sources. In fact, I saw today that you added a pro-GM one, but you are vulnerable to being stereotyped. My advice would be to slow down on the adding of material about the harm of GM to the fish that are being GM'ed. Just take it slow. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying. I have added mainly newspaper (secondary) sources over the past 24-48 hrs to redress this "overuse of primary sources" problem. Unfortunately, as a scientist, I absolutely hate this idea that newspapers are somehow seen as more reliable than scientific publications, but, I realise that this is the way that WP wants to operate. I also have a tendency when researching subjects to look first at very recent publications so that content is up to date. This means the findings of the primary source are often not in secondary sources (books), and so I fall into the overuse of primary sources again. You commented that you disliked my "there are no other sides" statement. I feel that we are probably thinking about totally different aspects of content here. If I make a statement that over-expression of growth hormone can cause a change in body shape and reduce swimming ability, I do not know what the other "side" of this is. I accept that some/many statements are not like this. For example, comments regarding the probability of GM fish escaping need balance because some sides will argue there is no possibility whatsoever, whereas others will state there is a slight possibility. Perhaps this is our difference here. Once again, thank you for your help.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good. As a scientist myself, I find that I have to edit Wikipedia as though I am in a completely different setting than if I were writing something academic. It's an introduction for the lay public, not a review article, after all. As for the "side" thing, it's all about how it sounds. Certainly, there is no legitimate other "side" for the atomic weight of barium, but everyone reading at the ArbCom page is going to assume that you were talking about benefits versus harms of GM animals, and they will think of it in terms of WP:NPOV. If someone accuses you of being a POV-pusher, it's never a good idea to deny that there are two "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Another point occurred to me. Where you talk about using newspapers as secondary sources, there can be a pitfall there, as well. Newspapers necessarily are going to focus on controversy, and report things in the immediate present, without reflection over time. In matters that are largely scientific, a more appropriate kind of secondary source would be review articles in scientific journals, especially reviews by authors who are independent of the authors of the primary sources (yes, I already know that reviews are written by people active in the field, etc.). That is also a good way of knowing whether a particular problem with a GM animal is of sufficient significance to be included in Wikipedia. If a scientific observation has not yet been followed up on by other investigators, you probably should not be adding it to the page. I think that may be where you are running into issues of having added too much material that looks POV to other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Trypto! Once again, thanks for the valuable advice above. During the GMO case, you demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of how ArbCom operates. I was wondering whether you know if it is usual for new arbitrators to become involved in cases that were raised before they take up their post - as is happening now over at the Clarification page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you too! It's entirely normal for there to be that kind of overlapping between incoming and outgoing Arbs. There is nothing out of line about any of it. Now that said, I can see that the Arbs have made up their minds, and regrettably, I cannot think of anything more that I can say to change their minds. They have focused specifically on the sources that you added (so the fact that there was no edit warring ends up being irrelevant), and they are inevitably going to extend your topic ban. There is no stopping it now. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see it the same way that you do. And I fear this will mean the departure of yet another editor over this whole GMO fiasco. The bastards (not ArbCom) are winning.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As you know, I too seriously considered retiring from Wikipedia as a result of this very same ArbCom case (but obviously I decided to stay). You have, in my opinion, good reason to feel that you have been treated unjustly. (And indeed, on the same page, the Arbs are in the process of extending 1RR to any page that is about any ingredient in anything someone can buy at a grocery store.) The fact is that there are several editors whose most recent conduct is genuinely bad in ways that your conduct has not been bad, and no one has yet done anything about that, nor have those editors lifted a finger to help you. But I sincerely hope that you will stay around. There are still plenty of animal, animal welfare, and veterinary topics that have nothing to do with anything GM, and I know for a fact that you have much to offer Wikipedia in those topics, and Wikipedia ought to be grateful for it. Take your time, think things over, and please know that there are editors like me who do not want to see you leave. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The bleed-over is sad, especially when it effects experts like DrChrissy; a travesty which is further validated by the following: Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context. [9] Atsme^📞📧 23:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Happy New Year, Tryptofish!

Happy New Year!

Tryptofish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Liz! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)