Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 4 July 2007

Citizen Don's statement

(copied from RfC) The instructions at the top of this page state "Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Since Citizen Don already signed two of the outside views below, it seems that he should not be editing this section. Can someone please confirm this. Rhode Island Red 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the only thing that should be on the RfC are statements and endorsements. I've moved Citizen Don's statement down to its own section, and Red's related comment here (above). This probably handles things, though if anyone disagrees, please let's talk about it here. --Elonka 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, it is inappropriate to frame this comment by Citizen Don as an outside view because it contravenes the instructions for comments on the RfC. Citizen Don is a signatory to and primary complainant in the Statement of Dispute in this RfC. As such he is not supposed to add addtional comments in the Ouside View section. The instructions state: "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." Since Citizen Don is involved in the dispute, his comments should only be posted on the discussion page. Citizen Don's orignal comment follows. Rhode Island Red 13:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on my attempts to improve the Juice Plus article with RIR. I've made consistent efforts to suggest improvements to the article over the past four months. I've spent hours and hours researching the references and I've made 0 edits because of RIR dilligent efforts to control the supposed neutrality of the article. I respect the consensus and I think all of the regular editors on the Juice Plus page are extremely frustrated with RIR. Most editor say they just want a good article while RIR has made this impossible. RIR has become a gatekeeper of sorts, ignoring all opposition with a barrage of verbose responses and threatening language. In my short time as an editor on the Juice Plus page, I've received multiple warnings on more than one occasion on my talkpage and the Juice Plus talkpage from RIR. I consider this to be quite rude considering my repeated attempts to treat RIR with civility. I've seen RIR repeatedly call other's POV into question while rebuffing others attempted to understand why RIR spends what must be hours a day on this one article. Despite all this effort on RIR's part, RIR was the sole person to decline Mediation in a recent attempt. I don't sell Juice Plus but I know enough about it to know it's not being accurately represented. With RIR's continued and dominant presence on the Juice Plus page, I question the long term quality of the article. I suspect the problems with the article will only get worse.Citizen Don 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not framed as an outside view, it is framed as a View. And Rhode Island Red, it is completely inappropriate for you to be deleting other people's comments from your own RfC. Please try to stay out of the process here, and just follow it without trying to direct the discussion. This is an opportunity for you to listen to what others are saying, not to argue about process. It is also bad form for you to be endorsing statements. I'm not going to be deleting your comments, but please be aware that to outside observers, these kinds of edits of yours are not helping your case, and if this situation proceeds to ArbCom, any disruptive behavior here at the RfC will be used as evidence. If you have concerns about process here, the proper thing to do is to bring them up here at the talkpage, not to take any action yourself. --Elonka 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I would argue that as a primary complainant in this RfC it is completely inappropriate for you to reframe another user’s comment as an Outside View when it was not originally posted as such. And to correct you, you most definitely did re-post Citizen Don's comment in the Outside View section. Furthermore, and most importantly, the instructions on the page are very clear that those who are directly involved in the dispute and are signatories to the complaint (i.e. signed the Statement of Dispute) should not be adding additional comments in the Outside View section of the RfC. The Outside View section is for other editors not involved in the dispute to comment. I noticed that you removed all other comments from other users and moved them to the discussion page, while you highlighted Citizen Don’s comments as an Outside View. The instructions are clear. Kindly remove Citizen Don’s comment from the Outside Views section. Rhode Island Red 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is excessively bureaucratic. The truth of the matter is that Citizen Don had nothing to do with the framing of the original language of the RfC, and as such, I think it's completely appropriate that he be allowed to post his own statement. In terms of where his signature is, it's currently under "Users certifying the basis of this dispute." If we move his signature down by two lines to under the heading that says, "Other users who endorse this summary," then will that make everyone happy? --Elonka 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would not matter whether or not Citizen Don was directly involved in writing the text outlining the dispute, since he is directly involved in the dispute itself. As such, his comments do not belong in the Views section. The WP instructions are completely unambiguous in outlining that editors who are directly involved in the dispute should not add comments to the Outside Views section, which is reserved for comments from outside editors. The instructions for the Outside Views section state:

"This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view."

A user conduct RfC is a guided forum that has specific rules governing how arguments are to be presented, and the template should not be altered on a whim. It seems highly inappropriate for Matthew to arbitrarily create a new “Inside Views” section to highlight Citizen Don’s comment. This section should be removed and Citizen Don’s comment moved to the Discussion page. Such a clear cut issue really should not lead to this much arguing and edit warring. Rhode Island Red 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, Rhode Island Red - From these and other recent interactions it appears that you are having difficulty working together or even discussing things productively. Maybe a little break from dealing with each other would help? Shell 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Shel, I agree that this discussion has been sadly unproductive, and I wish to heed you advice to disengage, but this issue appear to be so straightforward and unambiguous that I cannot for the life of me figure out why any argument was necessary. My reputation is on the line and all I am asking is that the other users involved in the conflict that led to this RfC play by the rules and not cheat to make their case. This is not an issue of being excessivley bureaucratic, as Elonka claimed, but rather a simple request for participants to follow normal established procedures. The instructions for the RfC are straightforward and explicitly stated on the main page; comments from those who are involved in the dispute that are not part of the Statement of Dispute or Response belong on the Discussion page…end of story. Aside from the Statement of Dispute, there is no section in the RfC project page template for comments from users directly involved in the conflict. Furthermore, I looked through more than a dozen examples of past RfCs and could not find a single instance where a participant arbitrarily created a new section, such as Matthew did when he created the Inside Views section to showcase Citizen Don's highly negative comment against me. Unless someone can cite a precedent for making such an arbitrary change to the RfC template, this issue seems totally cut and dried -- the comment should be moved to the Discussion section immediately. This seems to be bordering on a violation of WP:NPA. Rhode Island Red 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, on a Request for Comment, the main rule is, that everyone gets their say. Don was not part of the original drafting of this RfC, and as such it is completely appropriate that he be allowed to post his own view. This isn't a case of a vote or quantity of text, this is a case where everyone gets to comment, including you, in a structured format. If you've looked through the archives, I'm sure that you've seen that there are variable styles. Some people write "outside view," some write "inside view", "Semi-involved view," "view," etc. The exact heading is not that important, really. If you want precedent for an "inside view" format, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus. It doesn't have perfect formatting either, but the goal of an RfC is not to be perfectly formatted -- it's to let people try to hear what each other are saying, and to get a sense of who agrees with whom. And, in a truly ideal situation, someone would post a view that both sides would be able to agree with. So please, just let the RfC run its course, and try to listen to what people are saying, with an open mind. --Elonka 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

*waves a white flag* Rhode Island and Elonka, please consider the fact that you are now edit warring over an RfC. It may be time to try to take a step back and investigate what is causing to two of you to be incapable of working together at the moment. It seems that this discussion has become very unproductive and is causing more ill-will rather than resolving the difficulties encountered over the Juice Plus article. Shell 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon Statment

Shell edited out "How pathetic that Rhode Island Red is the only person who agrees with positive comments about him/her/it. Time to put the issue or editor to rest" because she had concerns. Or is it that Shell and Toothbar are the only two people in favor of allowing ONE single subject editor to control an article. Concerns Shell? The only concern should be to protect the neutrality of wiki. my comment should stay and be considered when sanctioning Red! don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.28.186 (talk • contribs) 14:08, June 20, 2007 (UTC)

I support Shell's deletion, because the comment was a violation of WP:NPA and was placed by an anon single-purpose account. If you, 65.71.28.186, can figure out how to phrase your comment in a more civil way, then you're allowed to comment. Or if you're actually willing to identify yourself, that too would give your comment more weight, but to be honest, using the word "pathetic" is just going to make most people ignore your comment anyway, so it doesn't really matter if it's deleted or not. Comments from anons and SPAs are also usually given very little weight. For best results, try to keep comments calm, civil, and articulate, as those have much more weight on Misplaced Pages. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ to datestamp them, thanks. --Elonka 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments like this anonymous IP's insulting and un-civil language do not help the position that s/he is advocating. I will consider your comment, 65.71.28.186. I have mentally noted it as, "anonymous, rude SPA feels that all those who disagree with their position are biased." When discussing the issue of sanctions such as these - removing an editor from an article, and letting other people edit it instead, the accused editor's actions are important to consider. However, I will also look at the context and the other editors. If, say, one editor looks bad but the other editors look worse, removing one editor wouldn't fix the problems. In this case, 65.71.28.186 looks to be the sort of editor that I would not like to see working on this article. Bhimaji 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Salaskan's view

The 9 other edits to which Salaskan referred were on the WP article on oxidative stress and did not include any "negative comment about Juice Plus", or for that matter, any comment whatsoever about Juice Plus. Can you please acknowledge this error in your previous statement? Rhode Island Red 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my apologies for not thoroughly looking at those edits. I still stand by my point that you are way too focused on the Juice Plus article, though. SalaSkan 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Shell's endorsement of Rhode's response

This better explains what I meant by misleading statements used to open this RfC. The claims made are highly dramatized and the hysterics by Mike Halterman below just add to the atmosphere. Shell 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree with my comments, and that's fine, but I backed them up with a diff so please do not try to discredit me by calling my comments "hysterics." It's not polite and I do not appreciate it. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe we strongly disagree on the meaning and contents of the diff you provided. Using hyperbole like "revenge RfC" and "deplorable" in your statement was what I was referring to as hysterics. I apologize if the characterization offended you. Shell 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Shell's outside view

Shell, I would like to comment on your statement that "There also seems to be a push to revisit issues discussed very throughly in the previous months; since there are now more proponents of JuicePlus on the talk page, a great deal of the text is being systematically white-washed and even removed all together."

I view this as part of a cleansing process. Many of RIR's edit over the past year have led to a biased feel to the article (I have just documented in some detail the SN/AEMS example on the Juice Plus talk page), so it is only natural that some issues are going to be revisited. It's not a matter of white-washing, more a case of the pendulum swinging back towards the middle - a healthy process, surely?

We also need to ensure that it doesn't swing the other way! This is why I have not endorsed the call for a ban on RIR from editing the article. If the RfC results in a change of attitude (i.e. editing practice) on RIR's part, then it will have served a useful purpose. TraceyR 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gender

I see that I'm referring to Rhode Island Red as male, and Tbooher is referring to Rhode Island Red as female. If I have RIR's gender wrong, I do apologize. RIR, would you be willing to confirm your gender, or at least indicate which types of pronouns that you would prefer used, in reference to yourself? Thanks, Elonka 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Tbooher was RIR's sock-puppet? or meat-puppet at any length. Matthew 08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Red, I see that you still haven't replied to my "gender" question. Would you please do so, or at least explain why you don't want to reply? Thanks, Elonka 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting completely out of hand. Please do not make drive-by sock/meat puppet allegations that serve to do nothing other than inflame a situation that is obviously not being resolved by this RfC. And it should be pointed out that Misplaced Pages, in general, strongly discourages attempts to force contributors to reveal private information. This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. Shell 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of forcing information out of anyone. I just see that I'm using masculine pronouns, and Tbooher is using feminine. If Red has no preference either way, then I guess we'll just continue on as we have been. My intent is to make Red more comfortable, not less. If I've been getting the pronouns wrong, then I apologize. I really don't see it as that out of line to simply ask someone, "Which would you prefer?" Other than that, I'll drop it. --Elonka 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the statement, "or at least explain why you don't want to reply?" was inappropriate. I think that a polite question about a pronoun preference is entirely reasonable. However, a demand that somebody explain why they won't express a preference is out of order. At least from the people I've known, if somebody has a reason they don't want to discuss preferred pronouns, it's highly likely that it's a personal issue that they don't want to talk about. I would expect somebody to be willing to discuss pronouns long before they're ready to delve into the personal details about why something that is, for most of us, simple and straightforward, is an issue to them. Bhimaji 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that my question was coming across as a demand. It was intended as a polite request, and genuine curiosity as to why Red was silent on this issue. My genuine intent here was to treat Red with courtesy, as I personally would find it rude if someone referred to me with the wrong pronoun. I apologize for any misperception and, as I mentioned above, am willing to drop the matter. --Elonka 02:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If gender pronoun usage was an issue for me, I would have said so without being prompted. My silence on the issue should have made it clear that I consider the question to be irrelevant and an invasion of my privacy. Given that we have so many other pressing issues to contend with, I am amazed that this question was asked at all. To then be asked for an explanation as to why I chose not to reply just added insult to injury. Am I going to be asked for my religious and ethnic background next? Let’s just stick to the issues and lay off the intrusive personal questions. I also second Shel’s comment with regard to Matthew’s sock puppet/meat puppet remark. It seems beyond reckless to make such a personal attack on an RfC page, where the behavior of all editors involved in the conflict is under scrutiny. Rhode Island Red 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

so, unac works for you? or heshe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.59.2 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, I am switching to a usage of feminine pronouns in regards to Red. This is in line with the pronouns that Tbbooher has been using, since Tbbooher's statement seems to indicate that he knows Red's identity. Red, please accept my sincere apologies if I have been referring to you incorrectly. It was not my intent to treat you with disrespect. --Elonka 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Juice Plus Representative

Despite my previous reminder to user CHT9 (aka Cindy Hofmeister-Thomas, who claims to be a Director of the company that markets Juice Plus) she is still flagrantly ignoring WP:NPA. This user’s accusation that I have “competitive ties” and am using the site for “commercial advantage” is unfounded, libelous, and in clear violation of WP:NPA. As an official representative of the product whose WP article (i.e. Juice Plus) is under dispute in this RfC, they have an obvious conflict of interest. Not only does this users spiteful comment violate WP policy, it reflects poorly on the product that they are apparently here to defend, and it serve as evidence of the unscrupulous tactics and nonstop harassment that I and several other editors on the Juice Plus page have had to contend with. Rhode Island Red 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the truth an attack? Since when is pointing out the obvious against wiki policy? your privacy, as you say, is another word for hiding your bias -- unsigned comment by 12.198.59.2

Well, since your accusation is without any actual, you know, evidence, I think you'll find that it is against Misplaced Pages's policies. Instead of calling his conflict of interest 'obvious' and 'the truth', perhaps you could actually do something more productive like help us find more actual research backing up JuicePlus's claims? Bhimaji 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

RIR:I would like to address some of your comments in your last entry in an attempt to clear up any misunderstandings.

Comment #1: "...aka Cindy Hofmeister-Thomas, who claims to be a Director of the company that markets Juice Plus+"

I would be happy to have a one-on-one conversation with you to assure you that I am who I say I am, the Director of Interactive Marketing for Juice Plus+®. Please feel free to contact me directly via e-mail (as posted on my User Page). Or, we can chat by telephone. I find it curious that I have been willing to fully identify myself, which you have yet to do, despite requests to do so by other editors. An accomplished scientist with no professional or personal competitive ties should be especially willing to self-identify and direct other editors to publications that help demonstrate and validate one’s credibility (i.e. published articles, a web site, research affiliations, etc.)

Comment #2: ...and in clear violation of WP:NPA (Misplaced Pages: No Personal Attacks)."

I apologize if you view my entry as a personal attack. I was simply responding to a Request for Comment about you. As a representative of the company, I am just commenting on the content that you are proliferating, not on you personally.

Comment #3: “…it reflects poorly on the product that they are apparently here to defend…”

I fully understand that I have a COI. I am merely interested in helping to create an environment on the talk page that allows the other Misplaced Pages editors to weigh the facts for themselves.

Comment #4: “…serve as evidence of the unscrupulous tactics and nonstop harassment that I and several other editors on the Juice Plus+® page have had to contend with.”

I don’t understand this comment at all. I have not used any unscrupulous tactics and have been very mindful of the Misplaced Pages rules. As for “nonstop harassment,” I’ve only posted once (after being personally invited) and have directed my comments at only one editor -- you. CHT9 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)CHT9

CHT9 wrote:

"I apologize if you view my entry as a personal attack. I was simply responding to a Request for Comment about you. As a representative of the company, I am just commenting on the content that you are proliferating, not on you personally."

I'm very confused here. Did you forget what you wrote on 22 June? Let me remind you:

"We are convinced that this contributor is a detractor with competitive ties who is hiding behind the anonymity of Misplaced Pages in an effort to use the site for commercial advantage."

That reads like a personal attack to me, and doesn't relate to the content in any way that I can see. Or, maybe you're saying that you've only done personal attacks in other parts of Misplaced Pages? I don't know. I'm confused. I would appreciate it if you could clarify if you didn't think that your prior statement was a personal attack, or if you were limiting your claims of no attacks to this specific page on Misplaced Pages, or what. Bhimaji 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible COI

(moving from RfC)

The above user is affiliated with the maker of Juice Plus. I believe she may be violating WP:COI by participating here. Jehochman 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My own understanding is that though those with a COI are advised to use caution when participating in such debates, that they are not prohibited from offering their opinion. In the case of CHT9 (talk · contribs) she has clearly and respectfully self-identified herself as having a COI from her very first edit, and has acknowledged respect for Misplaced Pages procedures. In my opinion, I think she should be allowed to have her say, just as we let other SPA accounts post on these things, as long as they are not being deliberately disruptive. --Elonka 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is likely more an account created just for this purpose issue as opposed to conflict of interest. Typically accounts created only to participate in a particular discussion aren't given much weight, but there's no real rule against them participating. In fact, a template exists which is used to mark editors who appear just to comment in a AfD, RfA, RfC, straw poll, etc. Shell 04:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since CHT9 accused me of having “competitive ties” and using the site for “commercial advantage”, it does not seem that they are showing any caution at all. This was an unwarranted and unfounded personal attack and their accusation is simply untrue. Rhode Island Red 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, it would help if you could explain why you are so intensely focused on just the Juice Plus article? You've obviously spent many many hours on the subject, for over a year now, but you're not participating on other articles on Misplaced Pages. Not even the JP-related ones such as National Safety Associates, John A. Wise, and Natural Alternatives International, which you did do research on for the JP article, but you haven't made a single edit on any of the others, despite writing thousands and thousands of words on Juice Plus and the related talkpage. Also, you didn't just "wander in." From your very first edit you were intensely-focused. Which is again quite unusual for a "new" Misplaced Pages editor. Quite simply, this kind of narrowly-focused behavior on Misplaced Pages is usually indicative of someone with a COI. That, plus the fact that you have refused all methods of providing your true identity. Can you see why this looks somewhat suspicious? In other parts of Misplaced Pages, this kind of behavior would either be the marker of someone with a commercial COI, or someone with an academic or personal axe to grind. For example, if you're one of the academics who's worked on one of the "debunking" studies, you would have a COI here if you are trying to make sure that your study's results were given more weight than anyone else's. I'm not trying to pry into your personal life here, but it would help if you could give a rationale as to why you're so focused on this one article, to the exclusion of all else. It would also help if you could articulate why you are so insistent that the Misplaced Pages article reflect your personal vision, when you could quite simply make a webpage and post anything you wanted. --Elonka 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, it seems apparent that RIR has made webpages to post anything he/she/it wanted--mlmscam, quackwatch, etc. This person is hiding behind wiki's rules of anoymity but it totally using the system to promote he/she/it's personal agenda. Makes those of us who are real wiki's laughing stocks and takes a hit at our credibility. Red wins everytime, and it really isn't right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.165.98 (talk • contribs) 17:39, June 29, 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that you are implying that Red is Stephen Barrett. Do you have any proof of connection, aside from the fact that they are both anti-Juice Plus? --Elonka 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think RIR is acting in a way that does not promote trust. It is highly unusual for an editor to focus like 75% of their total edits on a single article, and to be entirely negative (or positive). When I edit articles, I am both negative and positive, as are most editors. RIR's pattern of edits is suspicious looking. RIR, would you consider editing other articles? It might help you gain perspective and make your involvement here more rewarding and less stressful. Jehochman 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider it to be a malicious personal attack when someone suggests (falsely) that I have a COI. I have already stated, on several occasions, that I do not, and no evidence can or will be presented to the contrary. So please, just drop this tactic already because it is getting offensive and annoying. I am a productive editor, albeit a narrowly focused one for now at least, and campaigning to drive me away or otherwise portray me as having a COI or of being Stephen Barrett in disguise (not to mention making an issue of gender pronouns and SPA tags) is uncivil and inappropriate. It is also inappropriate, Elonka, to continue to harass me for personal information (e.g. “you have refused all methods of providing your true identity”). You were already cautioned (by an admin) that soliciting other editors to reveal their personal information is, at the very least, strongly discouraged. But not only did I not refuse to provide my true identity, I was never even asked such a question.

I have been patient, maybe overly so, in indulging this mudslinging but if it persists, I will take it up with ArbCom.

Furthermore, with regard to my POV, I do not appreciate being characterized as biased or anti-Juice Plus, nor is such a portrayal defensible. My contributions to the article have not included slander of the product but rather a well-researched, balanced, and well-referenced portrayal of the research and the opinions of outside commentators. Many of the SPA editors who have commented against me in this RfC have shown far less neutrality (glaringly so) in their contribution and editing histories than I have. And yet, ridiculously, this libelous campaign against me continues, apparently on their behalf, while ignoring their histories of POV pushing. No one is even attempting to present evidence that the article is biased, but instead they are merly claiming this to be so without proof. The Juice Plus article has evolved as a result of the input of a variety of editors, and it has continued, for the most part, to withstand scrutiny. Outside criticism of this product has come from a variety of secondary sources that meet with WP policy for inclusion. In the past year (since this article was first written by another editor), no one has yet been able to find a single secondary source that comments favorably on the product and which would satisfy WP policy for inclusion. This simple fact alone indicates that the Juice Plus article is fair-balanced and that arguments portraying me as a “detractor” are simply unwarranted, malicious personal attacks. If anything, the article is overly kind to the product because details were not elaborated from the 7 references that criticized it (i.e. references in paragraph 3 of the Criticism section); instead, these 7 references collectively were given only 2 brief, non-detailed sentences of text. Rhode Island Red 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RIR, I think you lack perspective because all your editing focuses on this article. Because you don't have a diversity of experience, you don't really understand how Misplaced Pages works. The evidence in this situation points strongly to an undisclosed COI, or at least, heavy POV pushing. You're editing tendentiously. Whenever somebody opposes you, you don't consider the validity of what they say; you reflexively resist and attempt to discredit them. Maybe, just maybe, these people are complaining because you actually have a problem with WP:NPOV. The shrillness of your reply above convinces me that you need our help. Have you considered that you might be in the wrong? It's easy enough to back down. Do you really want to keep going in this direction until you get blocked or banned? I hope you will accept our help and put yourself on a better course. Jehochman 01:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate any genuine advice or offer of help, I beg to differ with your assessment above. Even though the range of subjects to which I have contributed has been narrow, I have read hundreds of WP articles and many of their associated histories and discussions, and I was able to learn much about procedure, editing style, etiquette, and WP policy. Merely having actually edited a wider range of articles ould be no guarantee of a better understanding of these areas. A case in point is the unfounded accusation that I have a COI; e.g. the erroneous statement that “evidence in this situation points strongly to an undisclosed COI”, when in fact there is not a single grain of evidence that I have a COI.

With regard to SPAs, Wkipedia policy states: "This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." I have stated in no uncertain terms that I have no agenda here, so it would be fair to assume good faith, in keeping with WP policy, and that my presence on the page is “perfectly innocent”. In any case, much of the discussion to date does not seem to be “gentle scrutiny” but more like a witch hunt.

Regarding the suggestion that my editing may have been tendentious or non-NPOV, the flipside to that opinion is that a significant proportion of contributing editors on the article disagree with this assertion, particularly those editors that are not SPAs and who have had longstanding familiarity with the article and its history. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the people that have complained the loudest about the article are doing so because they sell the product (as do thousands of independent mom-and-pop distributors) and/or are biased product advocates with their own agendas? Again, several of the experienced non-SPA editors on the article have noted exactly this pattern. It seems like a far more plausible explanation for the current conflict than the idea that I work for a competitor. Is the scenario being proposed that Merck, Pfizer, One-A-Day, or one of the "big" supplement companies is sending vigilantes out to WP to say bad things about Juice Plus? Aside from other flaws in this scenario, just imagine what an infinitesimally small percentage of total US supplement sales that Juice Plus accounts for; in the grand scheme, it is a trivial and insignificant small-fry product whose market share would barely be a blip on the radar. But regardless, such conspiracy theories and accusations about motives seem to be quite out of place here. I don’t have a COI, there is no evidence that I have a COI, and no one should be suggesting otherwise, in keeping with WP:NPA and WP:HAR.

It is fair and reasonable to assume innocence and good faith on my part, and no WP SPA policy supports a ban under the present circumstances. WP policy calls for “gentle scrutiny’ but the gentleness line has clearly been crossed already, so please stop making further COI accusations. Rhode Island Red 01:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah the irony. Red, your first reaction when you saw me editing the Juice Plus article, was to claim that Havey and I were "colluding." Would you say that your reaction then was a personal attack against me, and/or a "witch hunt" of suspicion of COI? What about when you said "Havey has been nothing short of a menace on Misplaced Pages since she first appeared." Would you say that that qualifies as a personal attack? What about when I brought up the concern of personal attacks to you, and you just deleted it off your talkpage without response? I tried again, and you deleted that too. Do you feel that your behavior was appropriate? What about when you made this complaint at the COI noticeboard, accusing an editor of "an alarming pattern of vandalism, spamming, self-promotion and hectoring of other Wiki editors." You wanted to see anyone associated with the product, blocked completely from Misplaced Pages. From my point of view, you have launched an expansive series of personal attacks at multiple editors, particularly focusing on those involved with the Juice Plus product. You have refused to take any responsibility for those attacks, and instead respond with counter-accusations at everyone. This is why this RfC was launched, was to take a good look at your actions on Misplaced Pages. It would be helpful if instead of reacting defensively, you could actually take a clear look at your behavior, acknowledge the past problems, apologize, and promise to do better. --Elonka 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

Per the above thread, I propose that we tag all single-purpose accounts who are offering endorsements on the RfC. By "single-purpose account", this would be any account for whom the majority of their edits have been on Juice Plus or related talkpages (which would include Red). The endorsements would be tagged with {{spa|<account>}} at the end of their signature, which would put the following small print disclaimer (modified as necessary per account): " This template must be substituted." It is a standard method that we use in deletion debates and other processes on Misplaced Pages, per WP:SPA. This way it's clear which comments are coming in from established editors, and which ones are those with a potential COI, but it still allows such people to participate. Accounts that I propose tagging:

• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• CHT9 (talk · contribs)
• Citizen Don (talk · contribs)
• Dr sears (talk · contribs)
• 65.71.28.186 (talk · contribs)
• 12.198.59.2 (talk · contribs)

Bhimaji (talk · contribs) is borderline, I could go either way. His edits this month have been focusing on Juice Plus, but he has worked on a few other articles, mostly related to the MVDDS dispute and the Kuwaiti al-Sabah family. He also has only 150 edits total and just started in April. This implies that he was asked to come in and participate, but it's not entirely clear. Bhimaji, perhaps you could help clarify your exact involvement? If you've been asked to offer an opinion here, you're definitely allowed to do so, but for clarity's sake it would be ethical to identify that you have a prior relationship with the subject. If I am wrong about you, I apologize, but I hope you can see how COI is a major issue on this particular article.

Anyway, how does my above proposal sound? Does this sound reasonable to everyone? --Elonka 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Facts are friends, and all this info is available already. We're just making it quick and easy for people to inspect the relevant info. Jehochman 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not how the SPA tag is supposed to be used. Established editors, such as Rhode Island Red, should not be tagged as SPAs simply because they choose to focus on one area of Misplaced Pages. Tagging anyone for SPA is unnecessary at this point. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an SPA, nor is there anything intrinsically wrong in focussing on one area of Misplaced Pages. The problem in this case is not just the focussing on one article, but also the negative POV consistently pushed by this editor. Were he/she objective this whole issue would not have arisen. I therefore consider it a useful indication for the casual reader and support the use of the SPA tag in RIR's case. --TraceyR 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been asked to come here by anybody. I don't know any of the editors involved, although User:Shell_Kinney has edited some of the articles I was previously involved in. If you look at my edit history, you'll note that I tend to be very narrow in my scope. Every now and then I look at an article that is interesting, and look at who edited it, and look at what else they edited, and see if there's something interesting at the other end. I generally look for articles to get involved with when the one that I am currently paying attention to gets quiet, as a way to (hopefully) avoid spending too much time. There's been enough constant activity on my watchlist here that I haven't felt the need to add anything else. That, and poking at my iPhone to see if it has any buffer overflows has been taking up my time.

Regarding the definition of SPAs, I've always thought of an SPA as somebody who joined Misplaced Pages for a particular purpose. I think most people coming to the article will interpret the SPA tag to mean "This editor is probably biased and shouldn't be taken as seriously as other editors." I know that's not what SPA formally means, but that's what I fear. Bhimaji 17:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.  :) --Elonka 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Long established editors is not what the SPA tag is for. The tag is used for new accounts or fly-by editors who show up only to participate in a particular discussion, thus adding undue weight to one viewpoint. CHT9 and the two IP addresses would fit this pattern, however, IP addresses are not accounts and are generally not given any weight during community discussion anyways. Tagging accounts wouldn't add anything to the discussion at this point. Shell 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Shell, being a "long-established editor" is no guarantee of quality, balance, NPOV etc. It is also claimed (by RIR him/herself) that he/she is an academic scientist; this cannot be verified, nor is it relevant here. All we have to go on are his/her article edits and what he/she writes here and on the talk page. What has been established above is that RIR has a record of consistent activity on this one article (with very few and minor exceptions), with a consistently negative POV. It seems fully justified to warn the uninitiated that 'contributions' by RIR are to be taken with a pinch of salt; the SPA tag would serve this purpose. --TraceyR 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, so in our quest to vilify an editor, let's throw out Misplaced Pages policy. Shell 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Shell, no one is trying to "vilify" here. Some of us do though, in good faith, feel that it's worth tagging certain accounts on the RfC, to make it clear to someone who's not familiar with the participants, which ones are established editors and which ones are editors with a very narrow editing focus. I personally am not trying to tag the "pro" or "con" editors, I want to see all of them tagging equally. And even so, the {{spa}} tag doesn't say, "This is a bad person," it simply says, "few or no other edits outside this topic." If the consensus is to not use the tag, okay, but I still think we should find some other way of flagging the "probable COI" accounts, especially if they are self-admitted as having a COI. When you or I or Tracey look at the RfC, we can quickly identify who the editors are from in this dispute, and who's from outside the dispute. But to third-party observers, it's not so obvious. And to be honest, it would probably help Red more than hurt her, to show how many SPAs have participated here. --Elonka 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the difference between your opening statement and the comments by Tracey which I was responding to. Shell 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Probably I am just dense, but can you spell it out? "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." (emphasis added), from WP:SPA an essay that doesn't constrain anyone's behavior. Per WP:DUCK if it's a single purpose account, what's the harm in tagging it such so that anyone looking at the discussion can rapidly know the position? What benefit is there in obfuscating the status of these accounts? Jehochman 03:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question: Using this tag here might be unnecessarily inflammatory and make this conflict worse. On the one hand Misplaced Pages:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them, but I am thinking that we probably should give these new users some slack. What we want is for the POV pushing to end, and for everyone to edit harmoniously. Slapping tags on users is likely to make them less cooperative, so let's not do it. Jehochman 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Shell, I think that your reply to my comment is totally uncalled-for. Would you please explain how it 'vilifies' RIR or recommends throwing out the rule-book. I'm rather taken aback and disappointed by such an attack from you, also a "long-established editor".

I quote the opening sentence of the SPA article:

"A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny."

RIR's editing practice satisfies this criterion 100%. His/hers is indisputably an SPA. Since RIR has been shown (by others) to be pushing a (negative) agenda, SPA would appear to be justified by wikipedia policy. --TraceyR 09:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From this RfC, it seems like every contributor at Juice Plus is an SPA... I propose that we ban all the SPAs from Juice Plus-related articles, not just RIR. This issue seems to be a lot bigger than I thought. SalaSkan 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Salaskan: It would have been so refreshing (and actually the least one could expect) if you had checked the facts before making such a sweeping statement. Please do so and report back with your findings, e.g. on the numbers of articles edited, the numbers of original articles written, the percentage of total edits over a given time period on the Juice Plus article etc etc. I appreciate that this might take some time, but it would have been the proper thing to do before writing what you did. I'll give you some data to start you off: on a rough manual count, 14% of my most recent 500 edits were related to Juice Plus, Juice Plus Talk, the abortive Juice Plus article Mediation attempt (which failed because it was not supported by RIR) and this RfC. OK, it's not exhaustive and perhaps not 100% accurate, but it does contradict 100% what you wrote. I await your analysis with interest. --TraceyR 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did never claim you were an SPA, nor do I believe so. I just said that from the discussion here, it seemed like every contributor at that page is an SPA, i.e. I meant that there are many SPAs involved, not just RIR. Please don't take my words all too literal ;) SalaSkan 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I think Salaskan misspoke with the term "every" and that "many" would have been more appropriate. But as for the suggestion, which I greatly value because it comes from someone completely outside this dispute, I think it's quite worth considering. I too would support a ban on any SPA accounts (from either POV) editing the Juice Plus article. They would all of course be welcome to participate at the talkpage, but actual edits to the article should come only from established editors for awhile. I think that there would still be some disagreements, but that this would help de-escalate the dispute. --Elonka 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Salaskan, I'll let you off your homework this time :-) --TraceyR 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Since this RfC has gotten far afield of its purpose, I thought I'd try to summarize some of the issues at hand. There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing going on and very little consideration of the whole picture. There have been some serious differences of opinion over the way information in the article is presented. The point has been made that Rhode Island Red has been heavy-handed at times with the article; this is something that she needs to work on - allow other editors changes to be incorporated and be slow to revert. However, this can also be said of a number of other editors who participate heavily in the article - TraceyR, Elonka and Matthew for example have been fast to revert and quick to claim consensus on the talk page with very little discussion in the past few months. I think we could all agree that even so, the article has come a long way in that time .

The claim has also been made that Rhode Island Red is incivil, again though, it looks like everyone has lost their temper at times throwing around accusations of vandalism, bias and other unsavory comments about each other. I've always found Red to be very responsive when I've pointed out something she's doing is being taken poorly. The same is also true of the other editors on the page; I don't believe we have any habitually rude editors working on the article.

To look at the big picture, I think everyone came in to this article with the best of intentions. We have a lot of good editors here trying to do the right thing. The subject is apparently more controversial than one might imagine and its lead to some strong feelings about the article's content. If everyone involved could agree to mediate more, argue less, remember that consensus means finding a path everyone can agree on and above all try to have a great deal of patience before reverting or giving up on discussion, we could resolve this issue. Continuing to try to find blame without an eye to solving the problem is just going to poison the well further. Shell 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Shell, would you please document your allegation that I have been "fast to revert and quick to claim consensus on the talk page with very little discussion in the past few months". --TraceyR 09:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)