Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy/Archive 1

One person from each side please place a summary of your position under the summaries header and under a subheader. Everyone, please discuss the issue under the discussion header. Now let's get ourselves some consensus. Tealwisp (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Where we are now is at the point where we need to start 'with a clean slate', the fact that it is understood to be a 'medical controversy' seems to be a recurring reason given for excluding minority view claims. There seems to be a failure to realize that minority view articles are actually about the minority view which should then be countered/tempered by majority view positions on those positions. Unomi (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Verbal

My position is that the sock/meat puppetry should stop and the accounts be blocked. See the sockpuppet report for just a sample of the evidence: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unomi. There is ample evidence that there are at least two active sock puppets (Immortale and Karloff), and a probable 3rd. When that issue is sorted out, then there will be clear air. I'm not sure about the "one person from each side" thing. I can only speak for myself, and for myself I'm trying to keep the article to WP:NPOV, guided by WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, using WP:MEDRS as the best sources. Making it about "sides" seems to be promoting an adversarial battleground, which isn't how wikipedia works. Mediation seems pointless until the sockpuppets have been blocked. Verbal chat 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is 'ample evidence' is decided by the investigators at the appropriate venue.

I agree that 1v1 might not be appropriate.

I welcome your support for WP:NPOV and I take it that means you also abide by Information suppression, Things to avoid and wish to apply the most important lesson. Unomi (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time, please close. This is not the appropriate juncture. Maybe after sockpuppets blocked, but then there will be no dispute. Verbal chat 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All of that evidence is circumstantial, and none of it definitively proves that the three are sock puppets. WP:SOSP even says that it is not definitive. Besides, as long as there is no abuse of them, there is little problem aside from the tackiness of using false ID to support yourself in a meritocracy. Until the investigation is brought to a close, please assume good faith for civility and discussion's sake. As for asking about "sides," the Cabal was asked for a mediator, which is usually done when there is a conflict between two or three editors, and I don't want to jump in the internet without a browser, so to speak. Tealwisp (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't find this uncivil, but I find your apparent naïvety both touching and amusing. However, it is not good for the project. We are awaiting the checkuser, and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; and note that most SP requests are decided only on circumstantial evidence. What other evidence can there be apart from the checkuser, which is itself not foolproof. These socckpuppets are causing damage to the project, an example being the abuse of the good faith of a member of the mediation cabal. There has been other abuse, such them making and backing up each others ridiculous COI attacks on respected long standing editors. If this is the way mediation usually goes then it could do with input from some professionals - I believe one has just been elected to arbcom. If I were to take this process seriously it would be a huge waste of not only my time but yours too, as the sockpuppets would be removed anyway, irrespective of their arguments (which are also, not coincidently, flawed). There is no "real" dispute, just smoke and mirrors advocacy. Verbal chat 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I find your bold comment below to be highly inappropriate, especially from a mediator. The language "you will be x" is an anachronism even in public schools. Verbal chat 22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

Unomi is a POV-pushing sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. This mediation should be immediately closed, and we move on from wasting the time of the project. The only mediation should be whether Unomi is blocked forever or community banned. Not sure I care which. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you will be civil during this discussion. This is not the place for discussing whether a user is a sockpuppet, and you haven't even said what POV Unomi is pushing. Stay on topic. If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, then do not. Tealwisp (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried asking OM to be more sensual in his editing, but it didn't work out very well. Have you read the talk page? Verbal chat 21:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, should I waste my time? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tealwisp, you are not a teacher, so leave the BOLD lettering to yourself. This is a waste of our time, and you should be ashamed that you fell for Unomi's behavior. There is NO NEED FOR MEDIATION, BECAUSE ONLY A POV-PUSHING EDITOR HAS COMPLAINED.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that no NPOV science editors participate in this silly activity. It was an attempt by Unomi to circumvent the prevailing consensus regarding WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV, and to continue his useless ranting on the discussion page contravening WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. And the evidence of sockpuppetry is clear and their behavior was abusive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the mediator, which means that I am here to help things go smoothly. Now, what is the POV you say that Unomi is pushing? Tealwisp (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, is that how it works???? You're the teacher, and I'm the child????? ROFLMAO. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you won't discuss the issue at hand, especially civilly, I will ask an administrator to intervene or simply remove any disruptive comments. I am not "teaching" anything, I am trying to help everyone resolve this issue and come to consensus. Tealwisp (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon

I agree with OM and Verbal, and to the extent there's a real argument here, it's between those who feel that Wikipedia guidelines are important and those who feel they take a back seat to a point of view, namely, the late night AM radio conspiracy theory that Aspartame is dangerously toxic and the research into it covered up, etc. Users such as Karloff, Immortale and Unomi are united by a reliance on primary sources and unreliable sources, and wish to write their own syntheses, with expansive weight, of what they feel those sources say. The talk page has been misused repeatedly to advance a POV and to make potentially BLP-violating remarks about (named) individuals who are allegedly a part of an international conspiracy. In response to my edits and comments in particular, these users have responded with what they seem to think is retaliation. For example, user Unomi reported me to the 3RR noticeboard for reverting one of Unomi's actually 3RR-violating edits. User Immortale began a frivolous sockpuppet investigation of me, apparently in response to the suspicions by Orangemarlin, Verbal, and others (which I happen to share) that Immortale is a sock or has recruited others to the page. The present to-do about this article is being fueled almost entirely by this sort of behaviour, which is damaging and disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear from the link that keepcalmandcarryon provided that I was at that point unsure of what the noticeboard was for, I used it to try to draw attention to an editwar. If that was an inappropriate venue, then I apologize. Also please see this and this. The perceived syntheses, POV re source information etc are exactly why we are here. Lets talk specifics. Unomi (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Immortale

Keepcalmandcarryon, OM and Verbal don't believe there's a controversy. That's POV. A food additive that wasn't approved when it came on the market, a food additive that had 2 Congressional Hearings during the 1980s, a food additive of which independent scientific peer reviewed research keeps showing negative effects, to name a little bit, is already enough for an article named Controversy. This whole sockpuppet thing is ridiculous. These editors have admitted they don't read up on the research, references and others sources regarding aspartame but feel like they have to participate in this article because they are convinced there's no controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon acts like the editor-in-chief of the article, warning me of not playing by the rules and gets upset when I pointed out that he has been looking for meatpuppets on another forum for another article. The prestigious Ramazinni group is in no way connected to AM Conspiracy radio and this is an excellent example of the way these editors push their POV and turn it around and accuse their opponents of the same. Immortale (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

SV Resolution

I think there is a disagreement between those who felt the article should be a medical article -- present the "medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies", and those who felt the article should be a Controversial article about the history and current state of the controversy, and all the controversial views "no matter how misguided or repugnant".

In a medical article, all those controversial views should be severely deweighted or entirely suppressed. In an article about a controversy, that deweighting and suppression would be inappropriate.

Maybe we need two articles? Both topics are notable. I think that there is a solution, and Wikipedians of good will can work together to find it, even if they have different POVs on the safety of Aspartame. --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Now this is discussion we should get onto. Is everyone in agreement that this is the conflict? Tealwisp (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict. No one is participating. OH, by the way, I have nearly 25,000 edits. You have...what. A thousand. Your condescending remarks throughout this stuff is rather humorous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Understand that I am not trying to be condescending, and according to SV Resolution, Onimu, and others, there is a conflict. Furthermore, edit count makes no difference to the Cabal or policy, nor should it to you. I don't intend to discuss the merit of edit counts any further, as this is not the place. Tealwisp (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All NPOV editors aren't participating. But the socks have been blocked, life moves on. And yeah, edit counts matter, they establish a certain amount of respect. All you need to do is see my opposes in RfA's, and if someone isn't around 5000 edits, I consider them amateurs. You act like an elementary school hall monitor with your bolded statements and lack of understanding of the issues. Mediations work when there's a dispute that all parties choose to participate in. Every significant NPOV editor believes it's just POV pushing, which isn't a mediation issue, it's an administrative one. The POV editors are blocked, and the only issues with this article will be when more POV pushing editors show up, which will probably be in a few weeks, given the history of these type of articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't been told what POV Immortale is supposedly trying to push. Once more, if you do not wish to participate, do not. Also, if you want to attain respect, be civil, and treat others with respect, and don't look down on those with lower edit counts, especially in certain cases. You have what I believe to be a naive way of judging quality and experience. If you really want to discuss it further, just hit me up on my talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

unomi

So I guess the question is what do we do now? If we refer to [Manual of style] regarding medicine related articles I don't see any of the recommended sections that seem to be pertinent to the Aspertame Controversy article in its current form. This superficially seems to indicate that it might in fact not fall in that category, I believe that it indeed does not.

The very first paragraph of the executive summary of GAO HRD-87-46 states :

“ Since 1974, aspartame, a food additive marketed under the brand name

NutraSweet, has been the subject of controversy.
Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public.

”

Again, I wish to reaffirm that I believe that GAO reports are WP:RS and that I believe I have the support of WP:RSN in this matter. I realize that Verbal, Orangemarlin, and others have consistently made claims that GAO is 'not relevant', to put it nicely.

I am not entirely convinced that it needs to be 'split' but perhaps reassigned in terms of categories if it truly is the case that its current category disallows coverage of the wider aspects of the controversy than 'is aspartame bad for you'.

Perhaps the solution would be to create an additional article that consists of the most recent research on aspartame and this one is left to deal with the controversy narrative. Unomi (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientizzle

My involvement in this article has dipped recently (almost nothing since January) due to real-life considerations, but I thought I'd drop in to offer an additional perspective...

• This article is about the controversies, real and manufactured, regarding the safety of aspartame. There is legitimate scientific inquiry into the safety of aspartame, some of which has negative implications for the additive; there is seemingly substantially greater & louder anti-aspartame activism based (sometimes loosely) on the (often cherry-picked) negative data, with added conspiracy theories and some outright misinformation & lies. All this is pretty typical stuff, with much in parallel with the various vaccine controversies, for example.
• It's easily understood that the "mainstream" point-of-view is that aspartame is generally considered safe for use within recommended consumption limits (notable exception: phenylketonuria). This is the established position by every major food/drug regulatory agency in the world, which they hold based on their respective interpretations of the relevant scientific literature. Naturally, this doesn't mean that this position is wise, was uninfluenced by nefarious agents, or will never change, it just means that current minority positions (i.e., that aspartame is a cancer risk) need to be weighted accordingly as laid out in WP:UNDUE.
  • This means that it is necessary to use high-quality sources to accurately explain the concerns about aspartame safety, but to properly balance such claims with similarly accurate and sourced explanations about why these claims are generally unrecognized or rejected.

    In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.^WP:UNDUE

    We should consider this article as "specifically on the minority viewpoint". A well-written controversy article will clearly explain the notable claims while providing an unambiguous mainstream perspective.
• Because the over-riding issue in this article is the safety of aspartame, and because this is specifically a medical question, WP:MEDRS should be the guidance for all sources dealing directly or indirectly with any medical/chemical/nutritional claim. Other aspects (i.e., hoax websites and such) can use the less-stringent WP:RS.
• Among the biggest problems I see in this article is a large amount of original research. Anti-aspartame editors (let's not mince words here—there are clearly editors involved here that hold heavy POVs on this subject) have relied heavily on interpreting primary sources (research articles), often violating WP:SYNTH, to buttress arguments and even to formulate arguments that can't be properly sourced. I'd offer this general direction: if one cannot find the conclusion and logical chain of an argument explicitly laid out in a secondary source (literature review journal article, high-quality new report, etc.), that argument should not be cobbled together in a Wikipedia article.
• Another substantial problem I see is the commonly implicit, often explicit, allegations of conflicts of interest and even scientific fraud. Any claims made in this vein need to be expertly sourced for blindingly obvious reasons, and any reliably-sourced counters to these claims should be amply clear; furthermore, talk page discussions need to keep a higher standard as well.
  • Example: there is a recently-published review of the literature that concluded that the recognized safety of aspartame is well-supported by the medical literature and that many negative findings have suffered from serious deficiencies in research quality. This review was supported by funds from an aspartame manufacturer, but there's also reliable sourcing that states that the manufacturer, review authors, consultancy firm, and journal took steps to counter COI and improper influence concerns. Read the article talk page now, however, and you'll find no shortage of statements impugning the motives and reputations of those involved in this publication. I can't state if these implications are accurate or warranted, and I tend to be personally wary of industry-sponsored work, but it's clearly not in the best interest of collaborative editing or Wikipedia's legal department to have these types of comments.

These are just a few of the issues I consider important in this dispute. I think many of the fundamental issues could be resolved (or at least mitigated) if those editing from an anti-aspartame POV are willing to understand that Wikipedia policies and guidelines dictate that the mainstream stance must be unambiguous and well-represented throughout the article. Much of the underlying hostility seems to stem from basic reactionary misunderstandings: it's not propagandist fear-mongering to accurately report the concerns of anti-aspartame activists and the justifications upon which they base their views; it's not a "whitewash" to exclude poor-quality sources, excise synthesized claims, or provide abundant "mainstream" opinion. — Scientizzle 16:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I unequivocally agree. Unomi (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

re: No one is a sockpuppet unless proven through checkuser

Most sockpuppet cases are not decided by checkuser. Verbal chat 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But in this case, the investigation is still open. I'll change the rule, but the spirit stands. Tealwisp (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Investigation is still open, but investigating as an independent uninvolved administrator, I have determined that behavioral evidence shows that User:Unomi was created as a sockpuppet by User:Immortale, was used for abusive sockpuppeting (two accounts supporting each other in talk page debates), and I have indefinitely blocked Unomi and blocked Immortale for a week. CU may or may not be performed to confirm or refute that conclusion, but they're blocked for now. I believe that User:Karloff was a separate uninvolved person, again from behavioral evidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us directly. Tealwisp (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, close this mediation, and you can apologize to me whenever you choose. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Following up - a checkuser was performed by Jpgordon and came back strongly negative, which leads me to believe that they aren't related and that the block was a mistake. I will be reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe that my case has been stated and that we still need orangemarlin et al. to state their side, aside from allegations of sock and/or meat puppetry. Good faith discussions are essential. Unomi (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that this witch hunt is coming to an end and Mr. Orange "I have 25,000 edits under my belt" Marlin feels like he has special privileges and can use the F word freely, bully anyone he feels like and get away with it, we can go back to the article. The sockpuppet allegations were unfounded and evidence showed that I have no other accounts. Orangemarlin owes me an apology and a bottle of wine. Immortale (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is trivially easy to set up a sockpuppet account that is impossible to detect via checkuser (email me for details). Per WP:SOCK, "it is important to note that checkuser cannot ever confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected. It can only confirm they are connected, or that at the time of checking there is no obvious machine-identifiable evidence of connection." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is trivially easy to make claims of sock puppetry based on the fact that the accounts indicted seem to have overlapping opinions on some issues. Unomi (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

and similar typographical issues, spelling issues, timing issues, grammar issues, style issues ... Verbal chat 22:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeout?

As there is indication that OrangeMarlin is to be the subject of an RfC I suggest we hold off further mediation efforts to allow orangemarlin time to organize arguments in that venue.

Hopefully the RfC will also provide further guidance that will aid our efforts. Unomi (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a permanent time out on the forum shopping and time wasting? As incredibly diverting as it seems, we should be writing an encyclopaedia here, not stalking Orangemarlin or anyone else. There have been several RfCs too many already, and far too much wasted time, all because a purportedly novice editor wanted to put fringe POV original research into a minor article and because Orangemarlin opposed it, attracting the usual stalkers and resulting in some nasty comments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This has gone on for far too long, especially since it has been propelled by the intense efforts of a forum shopping "novice" (who knows Wikipedia links, cases, policies, and intricacies that even I - a pretty experienced editor - didn't know of). Although the sockpuppetry charge hasn't been proven beyond a doubt, this user seems extremely experienced and knowledgeable and must be a reincarnation of some old user. One cannot AGF toward such a user, and it's time for Unomi to heed the repeated advice from many admins and users -- seek other pastures for awhile. Not only are you acting as a SPA, you're pressing the SPA issue in a disruptive manner, even to the point of citing WP:BATTLE [1], but failing to follow the advice therein. Instead you stubbornly refuse to treat Wikipedia and the subject as anything other than a battle, and you keep waging it. Take a break so we can all call a "timeout" on this contentious matter, which was relatively calm before you/Immortale/Karloff came along and insisted on making Wikipedia a conspiracy theory central. The article isn't going away, and it won't become perfect today, tomorrow, or likely ever (as long as we don't have a system to create stable articles). -- Fyslee (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Another forum? We'll have to invent some more or you'll have shopped at them all soon. Verbal chat 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, where is this RFC? -- Fyslee (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the RFC has not started, though I hope it does soon.

Honestly, you lot are the only ones I can see waging a battle. You are posting accusations and saying that your opponents are forum shopping. I ask you, kindly, to stop. If you don't wish to contribute, don't. As there appears to be "agreement," amicable or not, I will archive the discussion as it is, post a notice on the main discussion, then notify all concerned parties once it starts back up. Tealwisp (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

← I am going to take a break from editing wikipedia until it is more clear how the policies and guidelines are meant to be followed. It clearly is a waste of energy to discuss policy matters with people who admit that they have not read them and are not open to applying them once they have. I can only hope that the community gives guidance to them or myself. My 'suspect' knowledge of wikipedia policy come from nothing more or less sinister than intellectual curiousity coupled with reading comprehension. Anyone with the power to do so can see the server logs for correlation between me reading policy and 'pushing' for having it applied. If anyone wants to discuss this further I am on freenode as unomi which has been my registered nick there for more than 4 years. Unomi (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to accusations, I think I've received more than anyone else by the usual editors in this article, with newcomer Unomi as the new target. When you make an accusation, you need to come with specifics, details, not just vague verbal expressions of disagreement. For example, when Verbal cited a reference which was the opposite of the real conclusion of the reference, no one in the article responded. While I always believe in correct information and not deliberately misleading people, I reacted to that but the editors acted hostile. Only when I brought in the Neutral Third Opinion, they said I was right and they were amazed that Verbal actually had made such a statement. But Verbal didn't agree. So suddenly Keepcalm shows up and throws out everything that I and and some other editors worked on for 2 months. I follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, and they are GUIDELINES, not laws written in stone. I gave peer-reviewed scientific references, and they were not allowed. At the same time, a reference from the same peer-reviewed journal that was positive towards aspartame, was allowed. The whole idea about peer-reviewed articles is that they are peer-reviewed. Only citing one side is biased and misleading towards the reader, not even the referred journal did that. There was an agreement that we would cite the other reference, which comes from the same section from the same journal. But then comes Keepcalm with the support of his team and throws out the other reference. Now they try to make the impression that I was inserting conspiracy theories, which is to distract from the real issues in the article that I addressed: the refusal of real reliable, peer-reviewed sources. The logs showed that these editors seldom read or investigate the references. All I did was addressing the industrial disinformation that I don't want to see in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the people and by the people and it should always stay that way. What you did towards Unomi is beyond belief. Anyone should welcome a critical mind, but use arguments and not empty wikilawyer phrases, threats, insults, contempt and ridicule. Wikipedia is no place where bullies should get the winning hand. Don't turn it around and try to paint the picture that you and OrangMarlin are the victims here. In the end it's just about information, and providing that information in a neutral and balanced way, in cooperation with contributing editors. Immortale (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)