The Evidence/Workshop phase for this case has closed.
Any edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.
Proposed temporary sanctions regarding related discussions
1) Anyone can feel free to change the heading of this, of course, if it actually is as incompetent as I think it probably is. But there is at present a discussion involving at least one of the parties of the case, as well as other editors who have filed comments, at Talk:Vani Hari and WP:ANI#SageRad and, for all I know, other related discussions as well. Any chance of getting some sort of temporary stop to them so that those involved don't have to divide the amount of time they might give to the case? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
1) While I would agree with John Carter on temporary injunctions regarding any conversations related to this topic and involving the named parties - such discussions need to be part of this case - we're going to have to decide A) scope of this case, and B) what to do when parties not involved in this case continue to make edits that are relevant. Regarding A), it could be argued that Vani Hari, Tyrone Hayes, etc. are out of scope as they are broader than "Genetically modified organisms" would suggest. Alternatively, perhaps the title "Genetically modified organisms and food safety" would be a better fit for this case, which (I would argue) brings those pages in scope. Regarding B), other than the rather draconian suggestion of locking all related pages until this case is decided, which I would not support, I have no suggestions. I merely will point out the high likelihood than involved parties will "go at it" again if uninvolved parties make edits. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the scope of this case needs to be stated clearly. I think Vani Hari should be included in the scope as it seems to be another site of battleground behavior and agenda-driven editing. I think that the cluster of articles that show this conflict have to do with the agrochemical and chemical industry in general. I think there is a battle going on between those who wish the articles to all reflect most favorably upon the chemical industry, versus those who wish them to reflect most critically upon the industry, and in the middle, those who wish the articles to reflect reality as closely as possible, whether any detail happens to be favorable or unfavorable toward the industry in a PR sense. Wikipedia is not a PR service for or against anyone. I hope there is no temporary injunction against anyone, and i think that some articles are gradually improving and some editors are gradually learning how to work together even while this case is in process. SageRad (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Discretionary sanctions
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed, as a way to keep things under control during the case. The plethora of disputes that have erupted during the time before the case was opened indicate that this is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I very much support the better phrased version here, and offer Tryptofish my thanks for doing a better job than I did. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My wording is merely copied verbatim from previous decisions. I think your proposal above was aimed, instead, at closing redundant discussions at other noticeboards, but I think that they are already being closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal . Minor4th 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The scope of this issue needs expansion to include anything that RS show to be affected by the technology (Monarch butterflies, etc), and any bio of people who overtly support or criticize it. petrarchan47คุก 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has basically been done now, with the helpful addition of 1RR, with which I enthusiastically agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This seems prudent. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 18:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.
Oppose: I think the "atmosphere of cameraderie" is weasly. We could also argue about the term respect, especially when coming from a proposer with rapidly changing signature, including a "Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm", which was not funny during the time (oct 5 ff) when he used it, --see my evidence .--Wuerzele (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article, see comment by Jimbo.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Isn't this one, from 2006, and linking to a 2003 comment from Jimbo, a little bit past its sell-by date? Policy has moved on considerably since then and become more nuanced. Roger Daviestalk 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Oppose. I support the other Arb com definition of NPOV on WP:ARBPSCI- there were two, but Guy is ambiguous, doesnt tell us- Neutral point of view as applied to science: "a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience".--Wuerzele (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: your comment missed my point. rhethoric is not earnest. it is also off topic, this being the GMO page. i appreciate the attempt of a ping, but if you really wanted me to see (and reply? to) your message in this humongous depository, better use preview (where misspelling my name shows up in red). your frequent change in signatures, as can be seen on this page, is unhelpful too, IMO poor decorum of an administrator and drafter of a final decision.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not rhetoric, it's describing the problem. But whatever. And yes, I support the later wording you present. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuerzle:, I think you'll find that most of us on the pro-science side are entirely comfortable with representing significant alernatives to the scientific consensus, as long as it's clear that they are not science. I am also comfortable with representing significant debate within the scientific community, but again in the context of the prevalence of the view. There are a tiny handful of actual scientists who dispute global warming, I have no problem describing this minority view, but to present it as equivalent is as dangerous and wrong as giving parity to the views of Andrew Wakefield and Paul Offitt when discussing vaccines. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic coverage of science
3) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Is there policy this can point to? Otherwise perhaps roll up into the NPOV principle above, Roger Daviestalk 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Oppose: I oppose this weasley principle from Arbcom's 14 October 2010 decision on Climate change and suggest to at least to put alternate viewpoints on par. I suggest to write "overviews of scientific topics sourced with current reliable references" ( not "thought"- who knows thoughts ?!) "including alternate viewpoints" (significant is an ambiguous word). I am all for science, and opposed to fringe and pseudoscience, but I think that different people define these differently, and they are/have been in flux. what may have been fringe 10 years ago is mainstream today. Who defines "being in line" and "current mainstream scientific thought" in the subject at hand? The biotechnology industry or molecular biologists, or anthropologists or philosophers etc. who transcend "in-line" silos and see ecological issues ? --Wuerzele (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (minor ce --Wuerzele (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}[reply]
Okay: I have no objection to this language; however, see concerns expressed at Analysis of Evidence Presented by Semitrangenic, where editors attempting to include WP:RS and challenge WP:OR and WP:SYN are pejoratively and condescendingly labelled as including WP:Fringe material (or espousing WP:Fringe beliefs) and compared with evolution and climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This point, actually, seems to me to be at the hub of the discussion here, and in some other cases, probably extending beyond simply "science" and into "academia" as well, and I think it definitely deserves some attention by the community. I am far from sure exactly how to go about making a clear and unambiguous policy or guideline to address matters where there seems to be arguments from more than one side which have either significant academic support or where there might exist one or more "sides" of a dispute which, for whatever reason, do not seem to have their arguments specifically addressed directly by their opponents. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Importance of collaboration
4) Collaborative editing and the consensus model is a core value of Wikipedia. Controversial topics usually benefit from the input of editors with diverse points of view. The involvement of aggressive partisans tends to polarise content, and Wikipedia typically separates aggressive partisans from such articles through restrictions on editing such as topic bans.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This is a very good point. Opponents should try to find common ground rather than battling for their own corners. Roger Daviestalk 09:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment: of course i support collaborative editing. But I find the term "aggressive partisans" coming from the same can factory as " mainstream science". I think this is an unrealistic, too highly strung ideal for the issue at hand (GMO-suite of articles) where consensus has just not happened, if you look at the worst places (e.g. currently [[Talk:Monsanto legal cases or glyphosate), i.e. the same comment as on other proposals. Plus --Wuerzele (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support sentences 1-2 (only)
Oppose last sentence: The last sentence presumes that people with disparate (or strong) opinions are incapable of working together and incapable of finding common ground and consensus: This is untrue. The commendable model of Wikipedia is (as stated above) that "editors with diverse points of view" can work together in a civil environment where differences of opinion are treated with respect rather than contempt. The last sentence makes an assumption of bad faith and must be stricken. Editors should be banned for problem behavior and the refusal to follow Wikipedia rules/guidelines, such as that of Jytdog, not for having the 'wrong' or 'strong' opinions about the subject matter. David Tornheim (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wholehearted support for "aggressive partisans [tend] to polarise content" and for the idea that topic bans are a good response. petrarchan47คุก 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Social policies
5) Wikipedia's social policies are important but are not a suicide pact: it is not necessary to indefinitely attempt to appease obduracy.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support, with the understanding that civility and AGF should be the default behaviors - but they have limits, as dictated by common sense and reasonable interpretation. Minor4th 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we must not overlook user conduct which is the crux of this case. A preponderance of evidence demonstrates tag-teaming, own, bullying, use of profanity, abuse of warning templates to threaten editors, etc. See WP:ARBCC - section User Conduct - Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to adopt a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard.Atsme📞📧 17:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very accurate description of the vexatious abuse of process against Jytdog, and undoubtedly that conduct is material to the dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence of "vexatious abuse of process against Jytdog" which is a request that has been made by more than one editor. So far all I've seen is his vexatious abuse of process against others, the latter of which resulted in a couple of half-way apologies as evidenced by diffs we've provided. Perhaps I've overlooked it? Atsme📞📧 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: This is wiffle-waffle, redundant and bordering on the sarcastic, given the extreme wording of "suicide pact" (!)...to indefinitely attempt to appease obduracy", which I translate as 'always trying to placate buullheadedness'. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't even know what this jargon "suicide pact" means, even with the essay that goes with it. Nor do I know what is meant this fancy phrase "appease obduracy". It does sound sarcastic. I am not amused. This is a serious matter and ArbCom and those who are parties to this proceeding deserve to have it treated with respect. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dialectric: "appears to legitimize bad behavior". petrarchan47คุก 22:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this proposal is based on an essay and appears to legitimize bad behavior. Wikipedia will not fall apart because editors are expected to be civil to one another. The current policies offer plenty of recourse for editors who encounter problem edits or editors. If the policies are insufficient, work to change them rather than advocate breaking them.Dialectric (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is presumably proposed as the basis for core articles for discretionary sanctions. Roger Daviestalk 09:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, we don't normally include all the article links. Roger Daviestalk 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
I would add Agent Orange as i see some battleground behavior there. I am sure there are some more relevant article pages, and also many interactions on noticeboards would be relevant to the conflict as well. I hope that the locus can be broadened, specifically, because it is not just about GMOs. It also centers on the chemical and agrochemical industry in general. For example, the inclusion of Glyphosate as a site is correct, though glyphosate is not a GMO. It is related to GMOs but it is not that in itself. This conflict has more to do with the general issue of responsibility and liability of the chemical industry, and the fact that the history of the industry is not entirely positive, and that Wikipedia must reflect this as well as the positive contributions of the industry. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from my charts,[1][2] I think this sets up a good schematic for the various articles and how they relate. I think it's unlikely we're missing major articles that haven't had major disputes to date. If they were major, they should have shown up on at least one of the editors' top edited pages. Other articles made indeed need to be considered in scope for the future though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the crux of the dispute focuses on a pattern of behavior that is exemplified by the aforementioned topics, it is not confined there. The named topics are symptomatic of a much bigger problem in that the same behavioral pattern (bullying, own, abuse and malleability of MEDRS, advocacy, PAs, SQS, tag-team, POV railroad) has gained momentum and reaches into and beyond the periphery as well, including medical articles, BLPs, essays or wherever else that particular "team" of editors has taken an interest. Articles are static, editors create controversy, the latter of which almost always accompanies noncompliance with PAGs. When the outcome of "community consensus" trumps WP's 3 core content policies, the project is affected in the worst way. Atsme📞📧 22:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Atsme wholeheartedly. I have been reluctant to broaden the scope of this case to keep ArbCom's efforts to a minimum. However, I think an issue that several parties have encountered is the attempted implementation (railroad!) of MEDRS onto non-MEDRS articles. This has led to many vociferous interactions ending in antagonism and worse. Indeed, my own questioning of the implementation of MEDRS led to my topic ban, despite the fact that I have hardly ever edited articles had edited very few articles which are MEDRS regulated. I propose that the MEDRS talk page is included in this case.DrChrissy(talk) 23:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Atsme's observations too. However, the scope of the proceeding is already set on the GMO's to a more limited scope, even if behavior extends outside of them. Identification of specific articles to be affected by ArbCom decision(s) on this case will likely need to be listed in specificity for enforcement purposes. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add Monarch butterfly per this (TL;DR: Monsanto's Roundup is seen as responsible for decline in their population)[3], as well as WP:OWN behaviour and misuse of PAGs at that article by KingofAces (addressed in my Jytdog evidence). petrarchan47คุก 06:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pamela Ronald -- GMO proponent scientist and advocate, who makes her living studying GMO's at UC Davis and major voice in media claiming there is a "scientific consensus" on safety of GMO's
Árpád_Pusztai -- scientist whose research was vigorously attacked by industry and lost his job, because he suggested there might be reason to be concerned about GMO's.
I will add others if I can think of any. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy/JzG incorrectly explains the Seralini affair as "a dispute over a paper purporting to find a link between GMOs and cancer in rats." That is not what the study concluded. I discussed a similar misrepresentation of the conclusions, which unfortunately is still in the article's first line due to Jytdog's vigorous opposition to allowing me to correct the error: here --David Tornheim (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
With thanks to user:Kingofaces43, who missed only one of these (Monsanto legal cases). Guy (Help!) 18:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partially supported. Caveat (1): The articles listed are in-scope, but additional articles may be discovered during these proceedings that are deemed core or tangential; (2): the statement of the locus of dispute (genetically modified organisms, including biographies of living people) is accurate, but incomplete as it does not include corporation biographies and other chemical and food safety issues that are generally agreed to be major components of this discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that many disputes focus on the issue whether the genetically modified food may be harmful for human health. Yes, it certainly can - just as many natural foods. However, the actual question is probably different: whether the genetically modified products are in average more harmful than natural products? And the answer here is most definitely "no" - according to research in this area, at least to my knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad assumes bad faith on the part of those promoting the dominant scientific view in respect of GMOs and glyphosate, for example stating on his user page that: " as of late, there has been such a horrible level of vitriol and emotionally abusive dialogue, and lack of ethics and integrity on the part of an apparent gang of editors whose edits appear to be remarkably aligned with the interests of the chemical industry, that it's become clear to me that there is heavy POV pushing in the chemical industry area and Wikipedia does not currently have integrity in the articles in those areas due to being effectively captured by the chemical posse." This is an example of the "shill gambit", a tendency among advocates of certain points of view to falsely assume that all contrary views are (a) homogeneous and (b) motivated by conflicts of interest. SageRad has provided no evidence to back the implicit claim of conflict of interest. This extends to comments such as [5], [6].
Comment by Arbitrators:
This needs diffs to support all the allegations, Roger Daviestalk 10:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Well clearly i disagree with the characterization of me as wrongly pushing some activist point of view. I am quite honest in that i have seen the effects of chemical contamination on ecosystems and on people, and i do edit with an eye toward complete honesty in that regard, and i strongly believe that Wikipedia should reflect reality in that regard, and that nothing should be covered up in this realm. That said, i push for the best possible representation of reality. I am not pushing any "scare agenda" and i am not pushing to represent anything that is not factual within Wikipedia.
is engaged in off-wiki anti-GMO advocacy --> No, not really. I do research glyphosate as a personal interest, but am not outright engaged in "anti-GMO" advocacy. I'm engaged in many things in the world outside of Wikipedia, and one of those things is to question the chemical industry in general. I continue to learn about many chemicals, and about many aspects of GMOs, as well as about many other things in life. So? I have a voice and i use it. So? I am still able to edit on Wikipedia with a decent respect for guidelines and for others.
assumes bad faith --> No, i don't assume bad faith. When a person continually shows bad faith, then i begin to classify them as acting in bad faith. That takes many actions over a period of time, and i also allow space for people to change over time, just as i have. I do assume good faith on my first interactions with any editor. I come to know editors by their behavior through time, and if i see a consistent pattern of agenda-pushing or incivility by a particular editor, then and only then do i have an appropriate idea about them.
I have seen whole passages in articles disappear, without just cause, when looking into article histories, and have sometimes brought back content that had been deleted seemingly for agenda-oriented reasons (often with an excuse like inadequate sourcing, whereas the sourcing was allowable and better sourcing was easily found if the editor had the inclination to improve the article rather than to edit for an agenda).
Yes, i do see an agenda evident in the edit histories of many pages, and i simply state that outright on my user page which was quoted above. That does not make me a bad editor, for seeing that and pointing it out. It's certainly not an across-the-board condemnation of people who disagree with me on anything. It is a sociological observation that i have made in my active time on Wikipedia. I've read and seen and thought a lot, and have made this observation with a lot of reflection. Please don't shoot the messenger -- someone seeing a pattern does not make that person an enemy -- unless you are personally threatened by that observation being made.
I've made many edits here, many of which have to do with native history of the North American continent, and some of which have to do with microbial biology, and some of which have to do with PCBs in river that i grew up near -- and oddly in the diatribe against me it was not mentioned that i have also been investigating mercury contamination in the place where i grew up. Apparently that escaped notice because it has nothing to do with Monsanto and people are trying to frame me as an "anti-Monsanto activist" as if (1) it's wrong to be critical of Monsanto, or (2) an "activist" is a label that can be slapped on anyone who wants reality to be reflected in articles that have to do with a company like Monsanto.
Seriously, there is framing going on here, and there's a super-touchiness among some people about Monsanto. And they are projecting onto me.
The issue about Gorski was many moons ago, and i would appreciate it if that would be kept in perspective. My issue with Gorski was that he was being presented on his page as standing for free speech, whereas he had banned me from his blog-site for presenting evidence, and his bias is quite plain and clear. I presented only a screenshot or two that showed that he had banned me and admitted doing so. That is all i presented into the Wikispace. Editor JzG has -- in very poor taste and behavior -- decided to latch onto this, investigated me further apparently, and now is continuously painting me with a brush of "activist" and making accusations that i am something i am not -- and i have called him out and told him to stop this. It's WP:OUTING in spirit and leads to ad hominem attacking and it's so wrong -- and here continues again on this very page. I would ask him to be forced to stop this.
Anyway, i am committed to doing good work here on Wikipedia. I have learned a lot, and am quite open to learning how to improve my own behavior and mode of working. I'm seriously an asset to Wikipedia, and it would be a big injustice if i were banned from the topic area. That would tell me that Wikipedia has no integrity at all anymore, and is worthless as an information source about the whole topic area around the chemical industry. If people who edit according to the good principles of Wikipedia get banned for being a voice critical of the chemical industry, and wish to have things like PCB contamination in rivers be reflected in articles about said rivers, for instance, then there is no semblance of neutrality here anymore.
It is the tension between people of different perspectives, in good dialogue, working out our differences, clarifying our points of view, and finding the commonality that can be represented as our best attempt at reality, acting as checks and balances on each other, getting each other to back up our perspectives with evidence, that is the strength of Wikipedia in topics where there is controversy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a brochure for the chemical industry, just as it is not meant to be a site where anything goes in critiquing the chemical industry. It's neither a scare-mongering site, nor a pro-industry brochure. It's one of the places where integrity is supposed to win out. One of the few places where a clear-eyed assessment of reality can be achieved, but only if everyone will have integrity of dialogue and work it out, with intellectual honesty.
The twisting and misrepresentation of things by people is so ugly. The demonizing of myself and mischaracterization of my editing is ugly. We need to clean up this editing environment. If you blame me for the problems here, you're making a huge mistake. I stand for principles, and i don't obey the orders of people who are pushing an agenda and tell me to "shut up" essentially. And because i don't "shut up" they have issues with me and come here and try to paint me as a bad person. Don't fall for it.
I've learned a lot in my 6 months of editing so far, gotten more maturity here, and have a good knowledge of the guidelines, which i respect. I wish to see the guidelines fairly applied across articles and that is what i've been pushing for. Sometimes, in the face of nasty resistance that is unprincipled and keeps going ad hominem, i will continue to push, but that is not pushing a POV for an agenda, but only to push for integrity in ideals and principles. For instance, the inclusion of the case by Spokane, San Jose, and San Diego against Monsanto at the Monsanto legal cases page took over a month and about 100,000 words on the talk page -- for a single well-sourced sentence to simply state that this lawsuit exists. That's ridiculous, and the opposition to this inclusion was all sorts of ad hominem, fake lawyering, bad applications of guidelines, and then gamesmanship on the closing of the RfC by JzG (who is most certainly involved in this topic area and needs serious reining back) and then even further gaming and name-calling and all kinds of bad behavior among a small cabal-like group who seemed deadset on blocking the mention of these notable lawsuits on the page that is about lawsuits involving Monsanto. The extent of the absurdity of this is mind-blowing.
Please, arbitrators, come to this with open eyes, read all the dialogue you can stomache, and come to your own conclusions. Please do not come this with a prejudice against me. Please look at the water under the bridge, see what's been done and said, and decide for yourselves. I know that if justice prevails, i will be able to continue editing in a principled way, and others will do the same. The toxic environment needs to stop, and we all need to return to basic principles of good sourcing and good dialogue. Consensus needs to actually mean something and we need to be WP:HERE for common purpose, not to push an agenda, not to make this place look like the results of a PR firm trying to protect an image of an industry. Wikipedia is a resource for the human species, not for any particular subgroup of people. Well-sourced content should not take six weeks and 100,000 words to include. Editors should not be casting aspersions and making vile accusations at every turn. Respect and integrity need to be returned to this topic area. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*I'll admit that when I co-filed the case request, I fully expected to see problems with this editor. But I've looked very carefully at all the evidence that I can find, and I've at least partially changed my mind. And changed it enough that I'm going to oppose sanctions. I see opinions that I think are on the wrong side of this dispute, particularly at Talk:Kevin Folta. But I'm not seeing those opinions being argued in a way that has caused disruption. We should not sanction people simply because they have wrong opinions. Sometimes, the editor who continues to argue on a talk page for something with which the other editors disagree can be doing a good thing. (I have been that editor at some animal rights pages.) In stark contrast to several other parties, I'm just not seeing SageRad being incivil to other users, and he is notably absent from the ANI pile-ons that are in evidence. He's reasonably polite and measured in talk, and his content edits do not appear disruptive. Nor has he particularly been an edit warrior. SageRad: please come out of this case with some sensitivity to the issues that have been raised. If that happens, then DS will be enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Striking due to new evidence from Kingofaces43. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, i am indeed continuing to learn and to develop more sensitivity and ability to work with people with diverse points of view, and to transcend rather than exacerbate conflicts. I'm doing my best here. Thank you for the words that you have since struck. I'm seriously here to make the articles reflect reality, and the tension between different points of view can be fruitful if it's approached with civility and constructive attitude from participants. I'll look at whatever evidence Kingofaces43 has presented, and i am not an angel but i do my best to work with others, and to state my concerns with as much equanimity as possible. SageRad (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I felt badly about striking it, and I am heavily predisposed to believe you. And I hope the Arbs see that I just said that. I just felt, upon seeing Kingofaces' evidence, that I had to change my mind in part. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree, but I think you still have an unfortunate tendency to assume that your own POV is neutral, and while I agree that you are definitely beginning to be easier to work with, this element of your editing has not changed. I'm concerned for example by this comment: [7] - Nature Biotechnology, with an impact factor of 41.5, the second highest rated journal in biotechnology and part of the exceptionally highly regarded Nature stable, is not some tawdry trade rag shilling for Monsanto. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JzG/Guy for noting my improvement. I do feel i'm maturing as an editor and getting better at transcending conflicts rather than getting caught up in them. However, i don't assume that my point of view is neutral. I explicitly state that we all have points of view, and this is something that we cannot get away from, and actually it is a point of strength in that Wikipedia has a great diversity of input from many points of view. If we follow guidelines in spirit, then we can work together to source content well, and provide the best articles that best reflect reality. My point of view certainly does include an awareness that there is a vested interest in the chemical industry that does have some effect on the shape of knowledge production and distribution. I know of cases where inconvenient truths have been hidden or distorted in order to make a chemical seem safer than it is, to continue selling it for longer. That informs me, and i'm not ashamed of this. This point of view is useful in editing articles in this topic, and does suggest that there is science, and there is "science" -- the ideal of objectivity versus the actual that has some amount of bias according to agenda, sometimes. My comment on the journal Nature Biotechnology is about the editorial content, as described by the journal itself, on its About page, where they explain their coverage about the business side of biotechnology, and that they do make "expository efforts in the front of the journal" regarding "the commercial, political, ethical, legal, and societal aspects". My point was only that it cannot be assumed that the part of the journal that is not peer-reviewed and expository is somehow politically objective and completely unbiased. They work within an industry and there are sociological dimensions to this when it comes to their political commentary. That was my point. I did not object to its use as a source on Kevin Folta, but only noted that it cannot be considered "objective" or "unbiased" and therefore speak through Wikivoice. Its claims are attributed in the article, which is good. SageRad (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makes arguments by introducing facts not in evidence. The first paragraph contains total edits, percentages of editing to specific pages compared to total edits not provided during evidence phase. AlbinoFerret 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JzG' s claims are unsupported by evidence. first paragraph is total edits, percentages of editing to specific pages compared to total edits not provided during evidence phase, second paragraph introduced new evidence (stand on Gorski) to cast an aspersion of "offline advocacy", which even if he did, would not be a policy violation. The third paragraph claims an absent wp:AGF, without evidence. I disagree, sageRad's talkpage entries from May 2015 document how much idealism and good faith he arrived with and spent with jytdog, but quickly feeling POV forces.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, if you're engaged in conflict off-wiki with the subject of a WP BLP, you need to stay at least 100 yards away from that article and its talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before Jytdog's edits, the article on Monsanto was strongly slanted towards an anti-GMO perspective (permalink).
Jytdog has been the initiator or subject of a significant number of discussions at the "drama boards": search of AN and sub-pages. He has a clean block log and the discussions, initiated both by and against Jytdog, are typically closed as lacking merit (e.g. [15], [16], [17]), other than in the matter of civility, in which he may be found wanting (e.g. [18], [19]). Jytdog could be fairly characterised as argumentative and assertive to the point of being perceived as aggressive. The cast of characters in these disputes includes, but is not restricted to, the parties in this case. His edit summaries can be combative (e.g. [20], which was a replay of an earlier edit [21] which was self-reverted in order to make the combative summary more explicit [22]).
Jytdog frequently reverts edits which have an unfavourable slant towards GMOs and the related companies and individuals (e.g. {[23], [24], [25] 3 revert set}, [26], [27]). Many of these reverts (e.g. [28]) are unambiguously correct.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
In my many interactions with Jytdog in the last 6 months, i have had many frustrations, but there have been some points about sourcing where his pushing has really benefited me, by making me seek out better review articles and learning more about the subject, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to the skeptics of the chemical industry. I find Jytdog's contributions to be about half useful and helpful. The other half, however, can be extremely tendentious and time-consuming, to the point of being obstructive of good and efficient editing practice. I like Jytdog, and i hope that he can remain in editing corps in the chemical industry controversy cluster. I hope to have a better relationship with Jytdog in editing, so that we help each other more than wasting each other's time with drama. His pattern of behavior has been very difficult to work with, often times, though. I've learned a lot from him in his better moments, but i've also been quite badly affected by him in his worse moments, and i have also seen his bad actions against many other editors evident in the text of Wikipedia. I wish he would be able to work better with others and not bite others. SageRad (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (in part). [29] is not unambiguously correct. It was unambiguously incorrect and shows that Jytdog started an edit war [30], [31],[32] over material that he did not understand - this has happened repeatedly when Jytdog gets involved with legal issues. Consensus was against him, see talk. This is one good example of his POV pushing. Minor4th 21:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the lack of prior blocks and sanctions are part of the reason his bad behavior has escalated to the point editors are now looking to ArbCom with a plethora of supporting diffs in hopes of remedial action to stop the behavioral problems which extend beyond content issues and are proven to extend beyond GMO related articles. Atsme📞📧 16:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - in reviewing the diffs provided by Tryptofish to demonstrate meritless actions against Jytdog, I want to draw attention to one example in particular which should raise doubt with regards to all the other diffs because it actually does not support his claim. This diff represents an action at AN/I that I withdrew, not because my claim lacked merit, but because I excused Jytdog's disruption and moved on. There's a big difference between lacking merit and intentionally withdrawing. It also serves to demonstrate the leniency and patience so many of us have shown toward his relentless disruption, incivility and intrusions on our work, all of which greatly impairs the growth and forward momentum of the project. Furthermore, when showing kindness, patience and a desire to AGF toward Jytdog results in an editor being POV_railroaded into a block he participates in with a vengence, it speaks volumes. Atsme📞📧 19:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way to soft for the overwhelming evidence that has been presented. Seeks to make it look like none of his outbursts and problematic behaviour is his fault or to be excused. Rather than posts paragraphs on this, I will just link to my essay on the subject. The rules apply to everyone.WP:NOTABOVEAlbinoFerret 03:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose evidence selection is cherry picked, couched in apologetic interpretations. Tryptofish is correct in stating "reverts edits which have an unfavourable slant towards GMOs and the related companies", but the claim that "Many of these reverts (e.g. [33]) are unambiguously correct" is false given the evidence AF and I have assembled in AF's proposal, and it is unsupported in the single diff he provided.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The evidence does not support Guy's conclusion. J-dog has not been a GF editor, no matter how you slant it. petrarchan47คุก 22:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given the mountain of evidence of incivility posted by other editors on the evidence page, this excessively soft-peddles the Jytdog situation. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that it does nothing to address the mountain of evidence of incivility TOWARDS Jytdog, and of other editors behaving in the same way as Jytdog, I would agree. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrevor please excuse my ignorance but I would be very appreciative if you could provide a couple of supporting diffs from the evidence page that demonstrate the incivility towards Jytdog that you referred to above. I'm concerned my definition of incivility may not be all-inclusive. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous examples, and keep in mind that I do not care "who started it". Nor am I trying to argue that Jytdog has been civil or that his frequently abrasive editing style has been justified. In my opinion, this is a long-running issue with editors on both/all sides ramping up the accusations and incivility, using prior behavior from each side's opponents to justify doing so. In truth there is no room for incivility even when used by an opponent. Examples that I pulled from recent conversations include here, several of the discussions here, and on several of the involved editors' talk pages. It is a massive amount of reading, and pointing to any one exchange would not prove the point. You have to look at the ongoing tit-for-tat pattern. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be fairly accurate, and, to the degree that I have any memorable personal experience with Jytdog, representative of that direct contact as well. He can, once in a while, act a little on what might in some cases be a false perception of others with whom he might disagree, but quickly cools down and can become remarkably civil, particularly if he realizes his initial reaction might have been a bit strong. Regarding matters of his own occasional personal incivility, it can be very, very hard for someone regularly subjected to insults to remain completely fair themselves, and I can't fault Jytdog much for perhaps just being human. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy
3) DrChrissy(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) joined Wikipedia in March 2011 and has made approximately 14,000 edits (as of 30 Sep 2015), breakdown by namespace. Most of these edits are related to animals or fish and many promote what might justly be characterised as an animal rights agenda (e.g. [34], [35]). DrChrissy often makes large numbers of small edits in rapid succession, contributing to a high mainspace edit count per article edited (e.g. [36], which shows over 60 consecutive edits by DrChrissy with only one intervening bot edit and no edits from other Wikipedia editors). DrChrissy assumes bad faith and succumbs to the "shill gambit" ([37]).
DrChrissy is topic-banned from biomedical articles. Edits to GMO-related articles are arguably a violation of this ban. DrChrissy has made few edits in this area, perhaps because of the ban, which he implicitly acknowledges: [38].
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
DrChrissy is a realy good editor, very hard working, who works to represent the issues regarding animals more than anything, and this is a very valuable contribution and a good part of the team of good article builders. DrChrissy's contribution are very good, and add substance to articles. He has a point of view but abides by the rules, strictly speaking, as i have seen. He really does respect process to an equal degree, and wishes to work with those who hold other points of view, fairly. Sometimes he seems a bit overly enthusiastic and could use a bit of moderation in his editing, simply in terms of due weight of a topic, but this is not such a big issue. He seems to get excited about new information and perhaps sometimes to include too much in an article, but that's easily worked with. He's shown himself to be cooperative and receptive to working with others, in my reckoning, most of the time. SageRad (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm afraid I am very confused by this process so I am not sure if I can ask questions here. However, I am sure someone will correct me if this is inappropiate. I have been accused above of having "an animal rights agenda". Could the author of these words (JzG/Guy I think) please clarify whether they meant "animal rights" or "animal welfare". The two are often used interchangeably in the US and less so in the UK, however, they have profoundly different meanings. I have no problem at all having the "animal welfare" finger pointed at me, but I find it deeply objectionable to be labelled as having an "animal rights agenda". A change of wording is fine with me - an apology is certainly not needed as this mistake happens frequently.DrChrissy(talk) 14:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to ask questions and have threaded discussions here. I mentioned it in my evidence, but I'll repeat it here too. I have done a lot of editing about both animal rights and animal welfare, and I've seen DrChrissy's animal welfare editing up close, and it's very fine and helpful editing that we should not lose. When the time comes that I will post my own Workshop proposals, I will argue strongly against preventing DrChrissy from editing about farm animals. That said, DrChrissy, you aren't doing yourself any favors in some of the things you have posted elsewhere on these case pages, or your recent edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly deny having an "animal rights agenda" as asserted above. Since my first edit to Animal rights in October 2013, I have made a total of only 5 (five) edits to the article. An editor with somewhat similar editing interests to myself, User:Tryptofish, has made 13 (thirteen) edits during this time (and 205 in total). Please note, I am in no way whatsoever suggesting Tryptofish has an agenda - I am simply using his edit frequency to indicate an example of the number of edits a non-agenda driven editor might make.DrChrissy(talk) 14:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know an "animal rights agenda" when I see one, having done a large amount of editing to NPOV pages in that subject area. DrChrissy does not have such an agenda, not by any stretch of the imagination. As for a WP:BATTLE grudge against Jytdog, that's another matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo Trypto's statement about animal rights. My interactions before DrChrissy came into GMO topics showed DrChrissy acted in a very NPOV manner when faced with other editors that could be considered to engaging in advocacy about animals and agriculture. There maybe could be undue weight in some articles with DrChrissy having a main interest in that (much more benign), but not for animal rights. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Trypto in that there is no animal rights agenda evident. I find the other accusations of "shill gambit", "ABF" and "grudge battles" to be rather disconcerting as they are not supported by any of the evidence provided in the initial statements or during the evidence phase. The same tactic was used on me. I was not aware that a victim's testimony at noticeboards regarding Jytdog's repeated bad behavior would be considered a "grudge" rather than an attempt to help resolve behavioral issues. Such allegations also distract from the crux of the issue here which includes concerns over the far-reaching effects of the tag-teaming, bullying, incivility, and POV_railroading by the same group of editors, which is or should be the focus of this case more so than minor peripheral issues that are not actionable conduct issues. --Atsme📞📧 17:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification 1 JzG/Guy, please clarify what you mean by "...succumbs to the shill gambit". I have looked up WP:SHILL and this states "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry..." I don't believe I have ever accused anyone of sockpuppetry, let alone in the diff you provide as evidence. Please clarify your accusation.
Clarification 2 JzG/Guy, you state that I often make large numbers of small edits in rapid succession, contributing to a high mainspace edit count per article edited, and that on Foie gras I made over 60 consecutive edits with only one intervening bot edit and no edits from other Wikipedia editors. Please could you clarify the PAGs that you believe I am in breach of here.DrChrissy(talk) 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also for both clarifications, where is the evidence of this? Where can we find it on the evidence page? AlbinoFerret 03:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Evidence does not match up with claims. Like DrChrissy and AF I notice that the last sentence "succumbs to the "shill gambit" ([39])" makes no sense, as it stands. Appears to cast an unclear aspersion without evidence to support it. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dr Chrissy got on the bad side of the wrong group, that's his only mistake. petrarchan47คุก 22:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Propo sed. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Discretionary sanctions
1) GMO articles are placed under discretionary sanctions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
A nicer worded version of this is going to be in the PD --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
What exactly would these sanctions look like? What would they be? I would greatly prefer to get to the root of the conflict rather than to use some rules as band-aids. I'd like to discuss deeply to see what's actually going on and why the articles are so contentious. SageRad (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are contentious for the same reason that our articles on evolution, climate change and homeopathy are contentious. They are contentious because the science does not say what some activists would like it to say, and Wikipedia follows the science. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - topics can be controversial whereas editing can be contentious which is why I avoid GMOs. The longterm health effects are still scientifically unproven which nurtures contention but warrants mention; perhaps not as pseudoscience considering the world-wide perspective. Does it warrant a new category of DS? Also, the stewardship over these articles raises another question and accounts for much of the contention. It is customary to see such stewardship for FAs since they have undergone and passed stringent reviews. That isn't the case with Jytdog's suite of articles which speaks to the concern that a particular POV is being protected. The fact that some editors refer to them as "Jytdog's suite of articles" also speaks volumes. Compare the GMO articles to the GAs and FAs overseen by Doc James and the project med team - vast differences. A diff from my evidence defines Jytdog's views on GAs and FAs: [40] --Atsme📞📧 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cannot support the proposal "GMO articles are placed under discretionary sanctions". agree w SageRad that discretionary sanctions need to be qualified, which articles, which sanction, how long etc. i think they just displace the conflict onto admins and are no rootwise solution. we need many little roots.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it may seem enticing to take an easy route, DS is being used to silence GF editors ([41], [42]); its use needs a serious review. The GMO suite has come under the control of a few "Monsanto can do no wrong and the science is settled" believers. This case deals with an entirely separate issue of special interests being promoted on WP, IMO. petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Needed. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal, but I might add a clause to specifically include foodstuffs which may or may not have a GMO component. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose might be a point in the case of a hard science topic exclusively, but it's a large subject space that engages multiple domains, not just the single issue that said sanctions would aim to police. Sanctions would hinder editing of content that addresses socio-scientific, legal, financial, environmental, politico-scientific etc. factors that are relevant to the subject at hand. Semitransgenictalk. 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do time limited site or topic bans --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
I certainly do not wish to be banned. That would be absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. I am dedicated to the principles and good practices of Wikipedia. My conflicts with others have been when others are not adhering to said principles and good practices. I have made mistakes and learned from them myself, and when advice and counsel is given to me in good faith, i am most willing and able to hear it, and modify my conduct accordingly. I am certainly not here to push an agenda-driven point of view beyond the reasonable and natural diversity of perspectives that gives Wikipedia its strength. I have a certain sort of focus that is unique and i offer it to Wikipedia, but i work within guidelines and in good faith with other editors. It's when other editors think they can push their agenda by being bullies and mis-applying guidelines, and lawyering, that serious conflict erupts, because when i have the strength to do so, i do stand up for the principles involved. It's not because i am attempting to push an agenda, but rather that i am standing up to others who are pushing an agenda-driven point of view into an article wrongly, misusing rules of evidence, making swipes of an ad hominem and emotionally abusive nature against myself and other editors, and generally distorting reality to push their own preferred version of a story into articles, and trying to throw inconvenient realities into a memory hole. Those are the areas where people seem to have trouble with me, and i would say that it reflects upon them more than on me. SageRad (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Minor4th 23:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my prior comments about this editor. petrarchan47คุก 05:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - primarily because in this instance, I believe remedial action designed to resolve the prevailing issues with Jytdog (and team) along with significant DS will almost certainly curb most of the disruption without the need to impose further blocks and bans against other editors. Atsme📞📧 19:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Drastic punishment that is not supported by evidence. AlbinoFerret 04:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: banned for a year from where he's good at, and for what? Chilling effect? this says more about JzG (and Tryptofish) than anything.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I only recently met this editor when I responded to a Monsanto related RfC. I've found him to be an excellent editor and easy to get along with. I have seen nothing to suggest that he be barred from the Monsanto articles. On the other hand, I am very concerned about the editor who has proposed that he be banned. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog
3.1 Jytdog is admonished for uncivil commentary and combative edit summaries.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I respect Jytdog when he is advocating for good sourcing. I respect his skepticism about sources that show harm done by chemical to the environment or to humans. I think he is a valuable community member with a valid point of view and many helpful critiques. I do wish that he would be more civil in many cases, and to listen to people better and try to respond in kind. I think he will be able to learn from the critique of others, and i think that his critique of others, including myself, is also very helpful. We are trying to find a center in a multiverse of different points of view, and we must be generous with each other. I have genuine affection for Jytdog and i think he wants to do the right thing, as do i. SageRad (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Jytdog has been admonished a number of times for his uncivil commentary and combative edit summaries; yet, this behavior has continued. This behavior needs to be dealt with a more significant sanction. Minor4th 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll oppose, but for the opposite reason. I think we have to take context into account (in other words the degree to which other editors baited him), as well as the results of the ANI discussions, where he has already tried to take the advice given him. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs of baiting Jytdog. Thanks.Minor4th 22:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and also request diffs. Based on first hand experience and the diffs provided during the evidence phase, it appears just the opposite is true. I'm not familiar with the Workshop process or why a consensus is being sought now as I was under the impression ArbCom was responsible for making such a determination based on the preponderance of evidence. --Atsme📞📧 23:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and add support for request that Trypto's claims be accompanied by evidence. petrarchan47คุก 05:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also would like to see the evidence of baiting, specifically the evidence presented in the evidence phase. AlbinoFerret 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I revise "baited" to, instead, "exasperated". That slightly alters the implied intent, without changing the practical effect, and it accurately reflects my evidence as well as a great amount of other evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it considerably changes the meaning. "Baited" means other editors deliberately set out to cause a reaction by Jytdog. "Exasperated" means Jytdog's reaction, without any inference of the other editor's motivations. I think a change would actually more accurately reflect the situation.DrChrissy(talk) 17:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baiting can be intentional, or it can be non-intentional through haphazard behavior that exasperates the situation in the same way intentional baiting does. Tryptfish's comment on that seems consistent regardless of which word is used when you look at the context of their post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Especially with respect to redactions they make, Jytdog needs to slow down before posting even when dealing with other editors' problem behaviors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seeks to blame the bad behaviour of Jytdog on others or excuse it away. Jytdog is an experienced editor who knows the PAG and should not be violating them. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeadmonishment hasnt worked for his long term incivility in the past. JzG's double standard in his proposals are shameless.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient remedy. Jytdog has already received a warning for incivility.DrChrissy(talk) 13:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported, with reservations. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.2 Jytdog is subject to a restriction of one reversion per article per 24 hour period, for a period of one year.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Opposed - I am opposed to an arbitrary rule-oriented solution of this sort. I think Jytdog has proven to be harmful to the editing environment here quite often, but this is a deep behavioral issue that i think needs deeper internal work than a rule of this sort would do. I would hope that Jytdog would be able to work better with others, and to respect that others have valid points of view, and to truly engage in dialogue with others more genuinely. I think a rule of this sort, without a deeper learning, would be another hobble that he would game, rather than getting to the root of issues. I hold myself to the same standards. I would not want to be banned from a topic or have a rule of this kind imposed upon me. I would want others to give me their honest critique, and i would learn from that on a deep level, and be a better asset to Wikipedia and to the human project in general. I simply hope that Jytdog can see and understand how his behavior has been harmful to others and to the encyclopedia, and really "get it" on a substantial level, instead of having one more rule as a challenge but still be editing within the same basic problematic mode. SageRad (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here, on the other hand, I think that some restrictions do match the evidence. I'm going to propose something similar, but with some changing of the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This remedy is likely to be included in the final DS for all editors in the topic area as it is already in the injunction. No need to add it to specific editors. AlbinoFerret 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient remedy.DrChrissy(talk) 13:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stronger sanction is needed. Likely the entire topic area will be subject to 1RR. Minor4th 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. Such a motion may handicap his ability to execute "unambiguously correct" reversions in timely fashion and does not take into account that opposing editors would not be similarly handicapped. If the above admonishment has its intended effect and Jytdog abides by expected rules of civility in future, reversion restrictions should be unnecessary. Supported if unambiguous evidence of incivility, escalation of drama, or excessive WP:OWN continues after admonishment - even if opponents show the same. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily be in favor of this as stated, however, I can and do think that an alternate version, perhaps something to the effect of Jytdog is very strongly encouraged to take any concerns he might have to ANI or another noticeboard, might be preferable. I am thinking in particular of any real substantive BLP concerns, which might given the current-events nature of this case be a very real concern. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of support This is the whole reason I opened an account, and what makes this project so unique and special. petrarchan47คุก 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this ideal, though i've found it useful to also point out that the guidelines clearly state that editors have points of view, and that this in itself is not a problem. In fact, it is an asset and it's to be expected. People have their points of view. The goal is for articles to reflect a balanced and neutral point of view, including an overview of substantially relevant points of view in topic areas where there are multiple valid, non-fringe points of view. Thi is actually good and desired. It is also the case that different perspectives provide a tension of sorts, whereby articles are improved by exploring the differences of points of view, bringing more evidence to the table, and having good and respectful dialogue. I personally learn a lot from people with different perspectives, as long as they are able and willing to engage in respectful dialogue. Wikivoice is to be respected, and we cannot allow Wikivoice to be a mouthpiece for any agenda. My work here has been against POV editing, and toward a respectful working-out of differences of opinions on article content, though that makes me an enemy of some people who seem to feel a sense of ownership over some pages, or have an agenda that they're willing to promote through skullduggery. Honest promotion of a perspective through good sourcing and good dialogue is to be respected. Underhanded promotion of an agenda is the problem. Diversity of perspective is good. Bullying for one's own perspective to dominate is the enemy of good articles. SageRad (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support contingent upon whose NPOV; an oxymoron perhaps but my reason is twofold - (1) I've been told that the "mainstream view" is the standard for neutral but the latter is contingent upon who determines what is mainstream. For example, editors who lean left consider their view mainstream, but those who lean right disagree and vice versa. (2) Neutral should reflect a sense of balance when presenting general information in the broadest sense. What we've been experiencing in many instances across the pedia is censorship under the guise of NPOV. If the information isn't supported by mainstream, it either doesn't get mentioned, or if it is, it is done with the intention of debunking or discrediting (coatracks) and that includes BLPs. I may be off-base, but I don't consider the latter as a NPOV. Atsme📞📧 11:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would also like to add that I am against having main articles and separate "controversy" articles such as Foie gras and Foie gras controversy. This leads to one, and more likely both, being non-neutral.DrChrissy(talk) 11:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SageRad and echo Atsme's valid concern about whose NPOV and whose idea of "mainstream". As repeatedly mentioned in this forum, a number of editors in this dispute insist that their interpretation and selection of the secondary sources is NPOV and "mainstream" and anyone who suggests adding sound secondary or primary sources that disagree with their superior conception of "mainstream" are inadmissible because such sources are by definition WP:Fringe and/or activists. Any editor who wishes to add a solid secondary or primary source that varies with those who hold the superior "mainstream" view is also identified as "incompetent". It is a kind of argument from authority where an anonymous editor claims to have authority/expert rather than relying on WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with others about "whose NPOV". In my own area of study, Ethology, it would have been such interesting times if Wikipedia had existed in the 1960's. This was when the mainstream view was that animals behaved in ways to perpetuate the species. In the 60s, this was challenged by the titanic change in thinking that in fact, animals behave to perpetuate their genes. WoW...imagine the Talk Pages on here during that time!DrChrissy(talk) 18:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Civility and AGF
2) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are [millions] of articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss.
Support With an additional note: Admins must be able to confront abuses of this. If their own behaviour is so similar to a bully's that they can't speak out against it, this is a serious problem. petrarchan47คุก 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly.DrChrissy(talk) 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely. It's an essential ingredient for maintaining an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Atsme📞📧 11:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with concerns raised by petrarchan47คุก about the need for admins addressing bullying and with AlbinoFerret's assertion that it is particularly important in controversial/contested subject matters. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Our social policies are not a suicide pact. In areas subject to strong ideological opinions, many editors end up being restricted or banned. That is not a problem. Nor is telling it like it is. It is a recurrent theme of contended articles that civil and no-so-civil POV-pushers insist that we treat them with respect, while they in turn are fundamentally disrespecting the project and its community by attempting to use Wikipedia to drive opinion rather than reflect it. So while the proposed finding is strictly true, it is not true without caveat, especially in areas dominated by science v. dogma, as is the case here. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. There are limits to AGF, and an occasional outburst can be excused if an editor is provoked or hounded. Civility should always be the starting point though. Minor4th 17:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that there are limits, in contentious areas of WP, editors should bend over backward to remain civil. It should be more required and the a very rare instance of incivility should be the rule. This is not easy, but acting uncivil is tossing fuel on an already lit fire. AlbinoFerret 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and guidelines
3) The principles and spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines matter more than their literal wording; they should be applied with common sense.
I strongly feel that it is the spirit of the guidelines that matters, more than than the literal word. SageRad (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Minor4th 21:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The spirit of the rules is important, and they apply to everyone. To save time and words, I think my essay on the topic says it all WP:NOTABOVE. But I see a bigger problem in twisting the rules and some taking this finding to extremes and applying rules in ways they should not be. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for this, Minor4th, a crucial boundary of rules drawing the line for the witnessed abuse.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support Common Sense. petrarchan47คุก 22:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
WP's policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NPA are set in stone. Everything else is a guideline or accepted practice, which means they don't have to be followed to the letter. Thus, consensus wins when there is a dispute over a non-policy issue. Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed findings of fact
Jytdog
Jytdog's long-term disruption
Jytdog(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)has engaged in long-term disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing across a range of articles directly and indirectly related to Genetically modified organisms and Monsanto. These behaviours include, but are not limited to, personal attacks, use of Wikipedia as a soapbox and battleground, edit-warring, agenda-driven editing, abuse of article talk pages and project space to propound his personal viewpoints on controversial topics. This disruptive behavior has recurred after numerous warnings and community discussions.
Support as proposer. Minor4th 21:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG (talk·contribs) I will add a collection of representative diffs to all of my proposed findings. I'm not necessarily asserting a pro-industry bias on Jytdog's part. It is more refined than that. Hopefully the diffs I add will make it clear. Thanks. Minor4th 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jytdog is a bit difficult to evaluate: On the one hand he is very knowledgeable in the biotech sector, especially in some of the more technical aspects; on the other hand, his "stewardship" of GMO articles has devolved into a pervasively disruptive editing style. In his effort to maintain these articles, he has come to perceive any disagreement as vandalism/fringe/pseudoscience/POV - this is evident in his very frequent reverts and pointy edit summaries, frequent edit wars, and disproportionate involvement at AN boards as both accused and accuser (see evidence and sample diffs). Jytdog could be considered a polarizing editor, subject matter expert, and aggressive supporter of the scientific consensus (i.e. "steward") - and some of his outbursts and bad behavior could be attributed to frustration with less knowledgable editors. However, even for those instances where one can trace the source of his frustration - in no way does that excuse or permit Jytdog's extreme incivility, repeated edit warring and long-term disruptive behavior. In my opinion, Arb did the right thing in the Climate Change case by topic banning everyone who had contributed to the battleground atmosphere. I believe there are many similar issues and dynamics in this case, and I would support the same kind of clean sweep by Arb in this topic area - not just directed at Jytdog, but at all editors who have engaged with him in the disruption. Minor4th 17:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to comment more extensively in this Workshop after I see more evidence posted by the various parties, but there is something that I want to object to strongly here. I think that comparing Jytdog to William Connelly is an oversimplification to the point of being misleading. There are very significant differences in editing styles, which can be seen in my evidence (and which require looking broadly at what editors do, as opposed to cherry-picking only the worst examples). Jytdog self-describes as a regular editor who has gotten very interested in the subject matter and cares about it, not as someone with special academic credentials. Every editor should be evaluated as a living, breathing individual, not as a stereotype. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - the comparison is an oversimplification and could be misleading. I agree there are significant ways in which WC and Jytdog differ. I will thusly amend my comment. Minor4th 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I've come to the conclusion that you didn't really fix the problem with the comparison with another editor, just made a cosmetic change. That being the case, per this, I will cautiously and tentatively make a comparison of my own, with another editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I can see where direct editor/editor comparisons like this may not be particularly helpful. I will remove the comparison per your suggestion. Minor4th 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making that correction, and it now addresses my concern. (As for my comparison, I'm pretty sure that the Arbs will understand it, and I frankly hope that I am wrong.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jytdogs SPA like activity, the diffs, and evidence show that he has been disruptive in the topic area. AlbinoFerret 16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in part.There is no evidence provided of disruptive, tendentious, agenda-driven, soapbox, or battleground editing. However, there is evidence of being involved in edit wars (though many times responding to edit warring behavior of others trying to get them to the talk page) and incivility. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not only Minor4ths, but AlbinoFerret's, Petrarch's, Davids, mine, ATSME's, procaryotes prelim evidence (whom am i leaving out?)support teh claim of long term disruptive, tendentious, agenda-driven, battleground editing.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guy, you can start with the 6 Atrazine diffs in my evidence. We all know the lede is what pops up first in a Google search, and the diffs I provided for Atrazine demonstrates an unambiguous POV push to whitewash the article, and bury important information in the body. I'd also like to know who determines what editor is more worthy of leniency than another? Jytdog is consistently excused for his transgressions while others are quickly whisked away for far less. What makes any anyonymous editor more of an expert or more worthy than another? It just doesn't make sense to me. Atsme📞📧 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The diffs have been provided. petrarchan47คุก 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSee also:
More Evidence/Diffs are assembled on this Workshop page:
all of the evidence/diffs assembled by AlbinoFerret here
--David Tornheim (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 05:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others :
Please cite diffs. I see plenty of evidence of aggression, but every edit I have reviewed seems to be correct per WP:PAG. That doesn't mean they:: all are, only that I have yet to see this egregious POV-pushing, or indeed any credible reason to consider Jytdog has any POV other than science. It would be useful if the assertions of pro-industry bias could be substantiated. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog's misuse of DR
Jytdog has abused and misused dispute resolution forums and noticeboards to forward his personal agenda and win content disputes. ([53], [54] and comments here [55], forum shopping [56], see [57] for more context)
Support A prime example is this AN/I section linked to by multiple parties in evidence. Where Jytdog attacks one after another commenter opening up sections on them. Also the 3RR section. [58]AlbinoFerret 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no evidence provided of this. In the context of all the other editor behavior issues here that have interacted with Jytdog, noticeboards are where such discussions are supposed to occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support evidence clearly supports claim, even if JzG claims (below) he fails to see it.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - after taking the time to research the diffs, review some of the TPs and read some of the articles, my findings are rather ironic in that the diffs provided by Tryptofish and JzG in support of Jytdog actually demonstrate the problems he's created, particularly the diffs to ANI cases. They exemplify how his supporters work together to get the opposition blocked or topic banned, including ANIs not initiated by Jytdog, some of which ended in boomerangs against the OP, some of which were deserved, but not all. This is a very complex case. Atsme📞📧 01:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Clear and obvious per above. Jusdafax 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This certainly applies to DrChrissy, who has a history of vexatious complaints, but I fail to see evidence in respect of Jytdog. Feel free to cite diffs. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This finding is about Jytdog, and the diffs are already provided on the the evidence page, by multiple editors. I'm surprised you fail to see Jytdog's vexatious litigation - it's really hard to miss and has been mentioned a number of times throughout this case. Minor4th 15:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this section is about Jytdog. JzG seems to be trying in a rather underhand way to make a further accusation of me in a totally inappropriate way. I invite JzG to contact the clerk to redact from this record his comment regarding me.DrChrissy(talk) 18:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you are running up a list of making accusations in this case and users requesting evidence to support your accusations. Please provide evidence that I have a history of vexatious complaints. If you are unable to do this, then please strike your accusation.DrChrissy(talk) 20:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DrChrissy. This section is about Jytdog. JzG is disruptive here. This is bad faith editing from an Admin, and should be discouraged. Jusdafax 17:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog's battleground behavior
Jytdog has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and comments that were incivil or reinforced a battleground mentality.
(See generally this section with diffs:[62], See also: "If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be"[63];"nasty comment on GJP's talk page"[64]; Again [65];"GregJackP and his meatpuppet Minor4H"[66];"I don't believe any of you understand the ugliness of the way gregjackp and his meat puppet have treated me."[67]; "DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM? That is a real fucking question."[68]; "NO NO NO. fuck no. again, you came here to object to 2 texts."[69]; "one of you fucking idiots "[70]; "oh for fuck's sake. use the interaction tool and see how many times i have interacted with her. if you got around more you would know her reputation"[71]; "The conversation above is incredibly.. fucking... stupid."[72]; Yelling then "You are a nightmare editor"[73]; " the entire discussion above was 100% moronic."[74]; "If anybody here gives a flying fuck about the actual subject of this article"[75]; "we also have an editor who lies." and "If I said "you are a fuckwad" that would be swearing at you"[76]; "by POV-pushing editors accusing me of COI."[77];"editing alt-med articles is unproductive and ugly because people who work on them don't listen or try to reach consensus and often don't understand or apply policies and guidelines well. and you are a case in point"[78];"ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian"[79]; "just icky"[80]; " just filthy" here[81] and again[82])
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer. Minor4th 21:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as shown by the evidence of 3RR violations and others that are close here[83] and the multiple examples by RoseL2P here. [84] These are perfect examples of battleground mentality.AlbinoFerret 19:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in part. There has been incivility from Jytdog, but attempting to respond to behavior issues such as battleground mentality from others as can be reasonably expected is not reinforcing a battleground mentality. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog does seem to be doing battle, but it's understandable. I feel like it's a battleground, too. Not by my own choosing. I try to transcend the inherent conflict. I try to shape Wikivoice to speak for a transcendent point of view when possible. I see Jytdog doing this sometimes, too, and i respect it when i see it. SageRad (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be true that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring and comments that were incivil, but I have yet to see an example where his opponents wholly refrained from doing the same. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my evidence. Here is just one example from that evidence where Jytdog makes an unprovoked attack. Jytdog very rudely describes my edit[85] as “…ludicrous content that RNA is a small molecule…”[86] The expert source I was using for my edit states “It [the RNA molecule] is a small molecule…”.[87]DrChrissy(talk) 14:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) extensive evidence for disruptive behavior, edit warring, incivility all reinforcing a battleground shown in my submission and AF's.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - battleground behavior, WP:SQS, OWN, bullying but only when an editor disagrees with his POV. As I've mentioned before, the behavior is not exclusive to GMOs. It is far-reaching. What I'd like to know is why Jytdog's work on WP is "protected" and held in higher regard than the work of any other editor who has devoted as much or more time and energy, created/expanded/promoted articles to GA and FA, and volunteered their time to other worthy projects? Who makes such decisions or judgement calls? Why would it even be considered? Atsme📞📧 02:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jytdog's battleground behaviour is widespread in terms of both topics and recipients.DrChrissy(talk) 13:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- evidence is overwhelming. Even administrator Guy/JzG agrees in the last paragraph of his/her evidence. See also:
More Evidence/Diffs are assembled on this Workshop page:
all of the evidence/diffs assembled by AlbinoFerret here
--David Tornheim (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 05:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support - The above diffs make it clear. Additionally, I have to question Jytdog's withdrawal from active editing during this ArbCom case, as too convenient, timing-wise. It appears to me that he is merely gaming the system, once again, in the face of the massive evidence that he has been editing in bad faith for years. Taken all together, ArbCom has been presented with an actionable case that requires sanctions. Jusdafax 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I'm puzzled as to why DrChrissy has supported this assertion with diffs showing Jytdog calmly fixing a poor quality edit by DrChrissy. Guy (Help!) 03:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly a "calm" response to criticise an edit by taking this issue to an AN/I and describe it as "ludicrous content". JzG, please defend why you called my edit "poor quality". It is exactly this type of unsubstantiated, drive-by criticism which has fostered the battleground mentality on the case's pages. As an Admin, you should be pouring water on the flames, not fuelling them.DrChrissy(talk) 11:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, I thought we figured this out already. Your edit was poor quality because you don't understand what the term "small molecule" means. As I said in the thread on your talk page, this is a misunderstanding that could have been resolved easily if the topic area had been less conflict-laden. However, the fact that you repeat the assertion here unaltered after the error has been explained is not evidence in your favor either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we certainly have figured this out. You have made me aware that in technical jargon, "small molecule" can mean something different than "any molecule of a small size". I was unaware of this expert useage when I made the edit and the source I was using did not explain or suggest there was an expert use. But you are missing the point. Jytdog describes my edit as "ludicrous". This is belittling and not the phrasing that would be expected of someone making a calm comment about another's edit.DrChrissy(talk) 12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up on this. Some of us are very experienced in fields which use jargon. I suggest if OR or JzG were to edit in my own area of Ethology, I would very soon pick up on a mistake in the use of terminology/jargon. However, I would not publicly call it a "poor quality" edit or take it to an AN/I and describe it as "ludicrous". I would call it what it is - a mistake.DrChrissy(talk) 13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator participation by JzG
JzG(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), an administrator, has participated significantly in discussing content issues on articles related to Genetically modified organisms, broadly construed to include related BLP's. He has also performed administrator actions related to GMO articles. JzG has frequently commented on sanctions requests within the GMO topic area. Prior to the opening of this case, JzG's participation was limited to content discussions and administrator actions, but he had not directly edited in article space in this topic area. Since this ArbCase was opened, JzG has engaged in significant article-space editing in the GMO topic area.(See revised version below)
(Revised) Administrator participation by JzG
JzG(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), an administrator, has participated significantly in discussing content issues on articles related to Genetically modified organisms, broadly construed to include related BLP's. He has also performed administrator actions related to GMO articles. JzG has frequently commented on sanctions requests within the GMO topic area. Prior to the opening of this case, JzG's participation was limited to content discussions and administrator actions, but he had not directly edited in article space in this topic area. Since this ArbCase was opened, JzG has engaged in significant article-space editing in the GMO topic area.
This is in fact true. JzG is involved as a party to the controversy cluster around the agrochemical industry. I have witnessed his participation in very biased ways. He closed an RfC that i had created, and then refused to undo his closing when i said that i had asked for an uninvolved editor to close it out, and i had refrained from closing it myself for that very reason. He continued to game that closing and cast upon me all sorts of aspersions. He seems to be on my case and seems to have it out for me now, as well, and has been continually WP:OUTING me (or attempting to, casting me as an "activist" and making caricatures of me to all others in Wikispace, and then denying that this is a problematic behavior. He's been pushing and gaming and showing bad dialogue practices, and this troubles me especially in light of his admin status. SageRad (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG (talk·contribs) This proposed finding does not allege any wrongdoing on your part. It simply acknowledges that you have recently been making substantive article space edits in the topic area. This would tend to indicate that you are no longer an "uninvolved" admin in this topic area - and therefore should no longer carry out admin functions here. That will be made clearer when I post a proposed remedy. Minor4th 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is irrelevant, a non-sequitur. I did some adminning in this area. The case was registered, I started looking into the content as well. And I am glad I did: I found one source which flatly contradicts the statement it supposedly supports, and another, cited three times, which is purported to be an environmental NGO but is in fact a "food sovereignty" advocacy group with a very clear anti-GMO, anti-corporate agenda (the claims may actually have been true, but if so, we should be citing the actual source not a republication with commentary by partisans). What I am finding suggests to me that the partisan editing has contributed to crap sources being left in some cases for years without being challenged, just because the people who should challenge the source, like what it says. And this does happen in all sorts of areas, and with all sorts of POV. Take a look at fluoridation articles, in among the Dr. Strangelove types are thoughtful people adding genuine concerns about policy, being reverted because the other side want to present an unambiguous message, but it's not unambiguous, it's very messy. Incidentally, I wholeheartedly recommend the Sense About Science Lecture 2015, broadcast on the Guardian Science podcast this week, it makes some really good points about what goes wrong when we try to bury scientific uncertainty in order to maintain a clear message. This is, needless to say, a response in kind to the soundbyte politics of the denialists, but that doesn't make it right. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added diffs and an additional finding. Minor4th 18:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, the Arbs have not agreed so far to adding him as a party, and I'm not sure that this rises to where a finding would be needed. It does look to me like he has expressed opinions about the content at ANI in discussions that preceded the RfC closure, but I doubt that anyone else would have closed the RfC differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the RfC. I think the close on that RfC was a good close and I do not think it should have been subject to review. Since then JzG has been editing rather aggressively in article space. Please see the diffs. Minor4th 22:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: since JzG isnt party, can any evidence be used? I submitted some too and would support the claim, except for the fact that the proposal says he hasnt edited in the area, because he has edited Kevin Folta, eg.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that Minor4th revised the claim, correcting that JzG did edit in the GMO area, I can fully support the claim-- for what it's worth, since nobody has answered the question and he isnt party of teh proceeding.- Please, Guerillero could you answer yes or no: Since JzG is not a party of this proceeding, can any evidence about him even be used?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JzG has edited (disruptively) on the Glyphosate article. I personally would like to see a robust reason for why he is not included as a party.DrChrissy(talk) 20:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jzg has been involved as an editor in the articles according to the diff's provided. They do not appear to be admin actions. AlbinoFerret 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed Guy/JzG is an administrator who has participated in the AN/I actions and was well aware of Jytdog's problematic behavior in this A/NI, where he commented here waxing positive about GMO's. In that AN/I when I asked him what to do about Jytdog's behavior regarding biting new users, he did not respond. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That this editor has not been included as an involved Party despite my and others repeated requests should be a matter of deep concern to anyone following this case. His block of SageRad and original statement to ArbCom are merely two examples. His statement that he has not used his admin powers in this topic area is incorrect, given his block of Sage Rad and subsequent interaction, and his involved RFC closure at Monsanto legal cases. Again, this behavior must be considered highly troubling, given Guy's status as an admin. Jusdafax 16:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is deeply concerning on several levels. In my initial notes, I asked that no one be exempt from examination in this case. I further suggest that normal human tendencies to protect friends should not supersede the grueling task of maintaining an encyclopedia and a civil environment. (Comments like these,[100] have no business on an article TP, not even from a brand new editor.) His comments here and at the GMO RfC, as well as on talk pages throughout WP, show that he has very strong feelings about this topic that are not in alignment with current science; his comments have been little more than a reiteration of how he believes the world works. A topic ban is in order at the very least. Also worth noting are his fringe views when compared with those of community, as evidenced by his comments/!votes this very Workshop. petrarchan47คุก 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
If all administrators are required to walk away from a dispute as soon as they find the first problem and take action, we will run out of administrators very quickly. Taking action does not make one involved in the core dispute, editing does. I started editing these articles mainly in response to this case, as the edit logs clearly indicate. The admin logs can be seen at JzG(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), feel free to point out any use of admin tools on the parties to this case or to the articles, since the case was registered. I will apologise unreservedly if any exist. The nest of articles is large, and some connections may be tenuous, after all. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I don't see any basis for this. If one in good faith looks over an article, finds problems with it, and then looks at related articles and finds problems with them, that almost never qualifies as someone being "involved." as we define that term. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what I'm talking about. JzG has actually been edit warring and taking a strong idealogical stance on content. Look at the diffs I provided.Minor4th 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any involvement is subsequent tot he opening of the case and subsequent to any administrator action, no evidence has been presented to show otherwise. And my "strong ideological position" is codified in policy, per WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia does have an ideological bias towards scientific rationalism, ask any creationist. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no codified policy that allows you to edit war or be uncivil, irrespective of the right-ness of your position on science. Aside from your recent edit wars, you bring a well-defined battleground mentality to this area, as you persistently pit editors against each other by snarky comments about "fringe brigade" and other inflammatory labels for editors whom you seem to perceive as somehow below you. Maybe you dont intend to do that or come across that way; maybe you dont intend to contribute to the toxic battleground atmosphere in this area -- but you certainly do, so if that is not your intent or wish, please take a moment to reflect on whether such behavior is helpful or harmful to the project. You've been advised about this type of conduct in prior Arb cases. And im not suggesting you have misused your tools - only that you are NOW an involved admin and should no longer carry out admin actions in this area. Minor4th 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non-sequitur. Your statement seeks to represent me as acting in an administrative capacity while involved. As I have said, the list of articles is sufficiently long that I don't discount the possibility but I have done my best not to take any admin action while involved, so your claim, in the absence of supporting evidence, would appear to be baseless. Much of what you have written on this workshop merely comes across as angry, specifically, it looks like the words of an angry frustrated POV-pusher. You might want to fix that by toning things down and sticking to that which can be unambiguously supported with diffs. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you perceive me that way. Minor4th 12:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG has been fairly clear that he holds a certain POV on this dispute and that he feels that, in spite of that, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, using his admin privileges to support that POV in this dispute is allowed under WP's policies because his POV is supported by WP's community norms. Thus, his using admin privileges to support one side over the other is making things "right" in that particular topic area and is in the best interest of WP's readers. ArbCom, you get to decide if this is true or not. If true, then say so. If not, then desysop or topic ban him. Any other response won't fully resolve the issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not used my admin privileges. Guy (Help!) 03:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that you can only be considered to behave in an article as an admin if you use admin privileges?DrChrissy(talk) 20:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought JzG closed a related RfC? Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He did. Minor4th 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...which any editor can, Cla68 not specific to admins, but Jusdafax mentioned JzG using his adminship privileges when blocking SageRad, which I had forgotten, and did not submit as evidence. And neither did anyone else, I think, not even SageRad..--Wuerzele (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You'd think that an admin that made the following snarky comment at the Monsanto legal cases article would have had more self-awareness and a better understanding of policy than to choose himself to close the AfC held at that article: Clearly we must include every instance where someone wrote so much as a snotty letter to Monsanto. Anything else would mean that we are tools of the corporate shill machine. Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC) We don't need this on Wikipedia. We don't need admins that add fuel to fires. Especially admins that see themselves as wise and competent elders fully entitled to give instructions to the rest of us who happen to have a different POV. Gandydancer (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Examples of SQS/edit warring:[101], [102], [103] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [104], [105], [106]; revert history on Glyphosate: [107]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [108]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [109], see talk discussion here)
Thanks for the diffs (including those in commentary below). Roger Daviestalk 10:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer. Minor4th 17:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and I do not think that the facts indicate this whatsoever. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per evidence presented, with one caveat: I have not witnessed anything like cruelty from this user, as I have with some of the others. I'm not sure I would even characterize him as incivil, comparatively. Again, I may have missed something.petrarchan47คุก 21:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good idea to compare with a worst-case scenario. I have since remembered behaviour involving King and Jytdog teaming up on an admin, and it was beyond "incivil". King is not cruel, but as Jytdog's partner (in that he has always supported, and absolutely never opposed, Jytdog or Monsanto) he is a 100% equal party in the disruption Minor describes.petrarchan47คุก> 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs are needed that actually depict what you claim. The idea that Jytdog and I always agree is pretty false if you look at Bowman v. Monsanto Co. where I was falsely accused of tag-teaming with Jytdog, he indicated pretty clearly, "As I said I have no idea why Kingofaces removed the picture and i don't care. Arguments about images are generally preference-based and lead to emotional arguments and I just don't care. But removing the picture doesn't "support me"."[110] We sure didn't agree on that. I'm not going to keep a list of diffs to refute that aspersion further or when people ignore when I write content critical of industry practices with appropriate scientific weight. [111]Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had never witnessed you disagree with Jytdog or the biotech/chemical/pharma industry. Are these the only two instances? I am going to strike my comments about the admin (it isn't important in the scheme of things), but tag teaming and article ownership, with the reverting of people's good, guideline-based work is incivil. I won't be striking that bit. And I am unconvinced by your diffs regarding your neutrality. petrarchan47คุก 08:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I have no intention of keeping a list of diffs to prove to you every time you cast these aspersions. I do have to mention that this attitude of needing to declare Monsanto the spawn of Satan (hyperbolic, but not far off) is a huge problem in your behavior. I already gave you one diff above that shows a practice companies are pushing that is wasting farmers' money [112], and I've made it clear in other sections that I believe there is a POV problem on your part when you continue cast these aspersions in this manner. I'm not going to engage you further on that and leave it to the committee to decide how to handle your behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been Jytdog's partner, full stop. This is shown in diffs and testimony from multiple respected editors. You are equally culpable in spin-doctoring and nearly so with regard to abuses of the community. It hasn't been subtle. You don't use the "F word", but you have never opposed or helped to curb the actions of Jytdog, really, and you have helped him at every turn. Any sanctions to befall him should be equal for you, not for disciplinary reasons, but because you have ignored WP's basic guidelines, made up your own and used them, along with a superior attitude, sheer will, and editing in tandem with others, to exert control over Wikipedia content and editors. petrarchan47คุก 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have only been Jytdog’s “partner” in the minds of those trying to push that narrative. The evidence just doesn’t show anything to justify the guilt by association mentality. I sure haven't been defending all his actions here like a "partner" would, quite the contrary in some sections. Your comment, “you have never opposed or helped to curb the actions of Jytdog, really, and you have helped him at every turn” is very telling of the battleground mentality I’ve asked you to stop. I agree with Jytdog a lot (not all the time) on scientific content from a sourcing perspective because we both have a strong preference for secondary sources and following policies and guidelines related to reliability and due weight in agricultural topics we happen to overlap in. That’s it. I’ve made comments about blinders in this section in terms of when I haven’t agreed with Jytdog on content or on behavior, so I’m not going to rehash that again and again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence is provided of disruptive behavior of incivil comments. My involvement in edit wars has always been trying to get people to stop edit warring and come to the talk page as described at my evidence page, and as shown by close inspection of diffs in AlbinoFerret's evidence section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, Wuerzele's evidence severely mischaracterizes my actions explained here, not to mention the response below of "no content critical of industry practices" and lack of gnomish work comment [113] (completely ignoring my 13,000+ semi-automated edits for WikiProject Insects). Editors here are making claims that are directly contradicted by even a small amount of glancing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in part obvious edit warring and engaging in tag teaming as shown in my section. This is an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND But I have not seen a civility problem in comments. AlbinoFerret 03:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support partly obvious edit warring, engaging in tag teams since jytdogs retirement on October 1 with skyring, and deceptive edit summaries, tendentious editing that is very disruptive, obstructive, all examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND. he is passing as civil editor, which allows him to fly under the radar. diffs are in my evidence section and AF's. he mostly reverts. he appears to be only interested in POV pushing, and i have not seen him make neutral edits, also no content critical of industry practices as he claims, leave alone gnomish housekeeping work (unlike jytdog who did). I have come to accept that talking with him is fruitless. his talk arguments are a textbook of rhethoric 1)false accusations, 2) talking to the hand, not getting to the point, not hearing, beating strawman arguments, which is very very unpleasant and supremely obstructive, more than jytdog surely, even though he does not have the temperament and volatile energy of jytdog.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Superb summary by Wuerzele. This is it in a nutshell. petrarchan47คุก 21:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wuerzele sure did get it just right. After trying to work with this editor all of these years to present something other than a corporate-approved encyclopedia, it sure warmed my heart to see it so well put. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators, comments like Gandydancer's and Petrarchan's are the exact reason why I proposed this principle. A lot of editors have had issues with those who stick to secondary sources for scientific content, especially in controverisial or WP:MEDRS topics. A lot of studies relating to pesticides are on non-target effects (effects on things other than the intended pest). I have removed related content sourced solely to primary sources, even though my personal POV would be including as much on the topic as we can. Others have instead taken that to mean I'm white-washing the article, a shill for pesticide companies, etc. simply because they are seeing content that could be considered critical of the chemical removed and not when I apply those standards to things like pesticide efficacy or to other entirely different topics.
You can see the kind of editor-painting going on in the comments here, and editors only accepting the narrative that I'm a corporate shill trying to create a whitewashed encyclopedia. The blinders seem to be on every time I mention my actual intentions, edits that actually are critical of pesticide companies, or whenever I try to address this guilt by association tactic due to having overlap in some topics with Jytdog. A great example was provided by EllenCT in their preliminary statement (though used as a wild claim of COI).[114] That was an example from my sandbox I copied from an article I was working on to parse down a lot of bloat on the pesticide section because it ironically seemed too promotional for the products in a how-to manner. We also had issues with someone selling products in the past trying to edit the article.
However, similar to this edit,[115] that kind of skeptical intent on my part will not seem apparent to someone unfamiliar with the topic. I prefer to assume good faith, but seeing how often corporate shill type comments litter about this case, I am also concerned a number of editors are coming in with a very strong negative point of view towards corporations or pesticides. I don't let that possibility affect my interactions with editors, but such attitudes can shift a neutral editor to appear "pro-industry" to them when they're not even aware of the kind of puffery that would really constitute a pro-industry editor. We can't really delve into why people do all this here, but we do need to deal with how people make and use these accusations against editors they don't agree with at this case. Apologies for the length, but since this has been a character attack, I felt it was needed to lay out my actual viewpoint for the umpteenth time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
King, I'm not seeing where editors are promoting or accepting a narrative that you're a "corporate shill trying to create a whitewashed encyclopedia." Your edit patterns speak for themselves and suggest a strong POV that has resulted in disruption in these articles. Minor4th 17:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve cited those exact terms in this very section as well as in my aspersions section. It's late in the game, but if I haven't been following reliable sources or Wikipedia policy and guidelines that would indicate a "strong POV" then that needs to evidenced. I take great care to keep personal POV out of my editing as much as possible. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it is patterned behavior. My first-hand experiences with KoA dates back to G. Edward Griffin and progresses forward, including Atrazine, and wherever else Jytdog is editing. I imagine the user interaction tool will produce interesting results. --Atsme📞📧 04:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Kingofaces has been casting aspersions and made an unwarranted sideways threat of action against me during this ArbCom case. I apologize for having to go back and provide diffs after posting my comment, but I'm working on an original iPad using 3G so it's difficult for me to do so all at once. While I have not had any significant interactions with Kingofaces in the topics that are subject of this case, his hands are certainly not clean. I don't consider team collaboration to be actionable, except when the team is actively engaged in tag-team edit warring, and/or supporting each other in deliberate attempts to discredit their opposition, which many of the diffs in the evidence phase support. Passive aggressive behavior can be just as disruptive as straight-up incivility. Atsme📞📧 15:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies here is the diff I referred to above regarding Kingofaces casting aspersions here at ArbCom: [116], Sect. 4.3 - Proposals by User Tryptofish, 4.33 Proposed remedies, 4.3.3.16 Atsme-Jytdog interaction ban wherein Kingofaces states: Atsme has other behavior issues that should be brought up elsewhere, but there are plenty of other editors that can do that. I will leave the final determination to the discretion of ArbCom regarding his casting aspersions and outright threat which clearly illustrates the continued battering of my credibility. Atsme📞📧 20:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies for your convenience, I have placed here further evidence of Kingofaces43 casting aspersions here at ArbCom. For myself, he is stating, or at least strongly intimating, that I have violated my topic ban.[117] (In: proposals by User:Cla68, section "Revert warring") I will also place this concern and evidence in my own proposals as they may need to be dealt with separately.DrChrissy(talk) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators, both DrChrissy's and Atsme's accusations above are great examples of the kind drama-raising behavior issues both users have been having. In addition to other accusations I've received here from others (pointed out by me in other sections) such as shillery, gender bias, etc., with highly mischaracterized diffs that cannot be read as claimed in actual context, it looks like there's just a ton of mud being slung at me to see what sticks:
In Atsme's case, my comment is in reference to saying that Atsme's behavior needs to be looked at in a larger scope and wouldn't be appropriate for a complete picture in the scope of this case. Jytdog has been involved with Atsme mostly outside this topic, but there's no need for him to be involved further as many other editors that have interacted with Atsme in the past are more than capable to listing the details at ANI, etc. If I had gone into detail on behavior issues without evidence, that would an aspersion, but saying there are things to consider mostly outside the scope of this case (i.e., this is not the place to focus on Atsme) is not.
In DrChrissy's diff (my first post at the top of the diff, not the highlighted one), I directly quoted a warning from their formal topic ban that said they will be blocked for commenting on WP:MEDRS or acupuncture. DrChrissy has been commenting on both at this case, but I explicitly said I wasn't interested in mentioning that for action, but to indicate DrChrissy has had issues with MEDRS, etc. in the past that led to that explicit quote on the topic ban statement. I have no idea how one can claim I was casting aspersions by saying DrChrissy has mentioned both subjects and been warned not do that as part of their topic ban. Another case where comments about me at this case are rather absurd when one actually looks at the diffs in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43, your motivation to bring up my topic ban is undeniably poisoning the well. This diff[118] shows at the top I was simply suggesting a general proposal (note I did not mention MEDRS) that tagging content should be used more than deletions. The diff shows that in your comment immediately following that, you say this might not be appropriate for MEDRS - a fair point. But, you then go on to discuss my topic ban at MEDRS - how is this in any way relevant to the thread, unless you are simply trying to colour people's perception of me.DrChrissy(talk) 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, this is ArbCom. Your behavior is going to come up here, and I’ve made a case in my evidence section about how you have problems heeding warnings. Bringing that up in addition to specific mention that you’ve been asked not to comment specifically on MEDRS shows the history of the problem associated with the proposal idea you had here (again, why it’s relevant). That is not poisoning the well. That’s shining a light on the behavior issues you’ve been warned about many times seen in the various evidence sections here and how that plays into discussion on sourcing guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that you would defend your aspersions against me with more aspersions. I'd actually welcome the opportunity for my behavior to be scrutinized in a larger scope where supporting evidence is required. It will help rid me of the contentious labels and unwarranted allegations that continue to be repeated by you and those who support your noncompliance with WP:NPA. Your behavior now indicates that it is your intention to file or encourage to be filed a case against me to resolve whatever you allege to be my behavioral issues. Please do so with my blessings but until that happens, please stop casting aspersions and threatening me. Atsme📞📧 13:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I clearly stated that I believe examining your behavior as well as others you’ve been involved with in the topics you cover is largely outside the scope of this case. That is all. There is no aspersion or personal attack in that, and I’ve never said I was planning to bring up such a case to ANI personally at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final Comment - I was going to let Kingofaces have the last word but after reading his denial of the aspersions he cast upon DrChrissy in his relentless attempts to deny accountability, I felt it was important enough an issue to bring back to the attention of ArbCom. What I'm hoping to illustrate is the accuse/deny behavior that is part of his ongoing passive-aggressive disruption, and while it is not to the degree of Jytdog's profanity, yell, accuse behavior, it is disruptive nonetheless because it's an integral part of his overall behavior. Kingofaces adamantly denies accusing DrChrissy of violating his tBan even though he did so in the following statement: [119]While such things are generally suspended in these noticeboards (I think), DrChrissy has been specifically told, "Even making a passing comment about acupuncture or MEDRS on your own talk page can earn a block." with respect to their current topic ban.[120] I am not saying action needs to be taken, but just establishing there is a history of DrChrissy having issues with applications of MEDRS, which is where this topic has come up before. His innuendos in the phrases "(I think)" and "not saying action needs to be taken" leaves a much different impression from what he is now trying to deny, probably after realizing his behavior is actionable here.
He also denied he was casting aspersions against me when said: Atsme has other behavior issues that should be brought up elsewhere, but there are plenty of other editors that can do that. His denial states: Atsme, I clearly stated that I believe examining your behavior as well as others you’ve been involved with in the topics you cover is largely outside the scope of this case. That is all. There is no aspersion or personal attack in that, and I’ve never said I was planning to bring up such a case to ANI personally at this time. This is typical of his accuse/deny behavior and is a major contributor to the disruption. The only half-truth in his denial was that he wasn't planning to file a case personally at ANI at this time. Clearly a threatening statement. In the interim, his innuendo that I have behavior issues that warrant AN/I still remains. His behavior is very troll-like and accusatory, never taking responsibility for things he says or implies, and based on his behavior here, I don't think it is ever going to change, and that is sad. Atsme📞📧 17:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the arbitrators take note of the degree of mischaracterization Atmse is engaging in and now going after me for addressing that (really a how dare you deny exaggerated claims made about you mentality). Using comments of mine from very measured responses like, "not saying action needs to be taken" meant exactly to prevent wild claims like Atsme made shows the irony and the problem with this commonplace behavior. Atsme appears to react poorly when my actual intended purpose doesn't fit the troll image being painted. Those actions above should speak for themselves in terms of an out to get a specific editor mentality. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that is in evidence, but my charts show that he is active in most of the articles. I have yet to see evidence of him opposing anything Jytdog says or does.AlbinoFerret 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wuerzele's summary is comprehensive and accurate.DrChrissy(talk) 14:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wuerzele has it right. I have warned King on his Talk page regarding his unacceptable editing practices, one of a tiny handful of editors that I have been motivated to so warn for conduct other than vandalism in my eight years of volunteer editing. Uncollegial is the nicest term I can summon to describe him Jusdafax 14:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of the "warning"[121] with accusation of bullying. What actually happened were rather spurious warnings by Jusdafax to editors trying to deal with the very behavior issues that are being discussed here, such as edit warring (Prokaryotes in that example). Attempting to work or deal with an editor acting tendentiously can make oneself seem that way as well to an observer not seeing the whole situation; that has been a recurring problem in this topic. Editors trying to get an editor to the talk page (eventually leading to AN3) who was insistent on edit warring rather than talk page discussion should never be considered "bullying." Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I have seen it many times. I have only once in my entire time at Wikipedia since 2008 taken anyone to any dispute forum. The only editor is: KingofAce43 for editing warring here. Jytdog predictably supported that edit-warring. Even though I may have misunderstood the strict definition of a 3RRR violation, the behavior is problematic and was not acknowledged. David Tornheim (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AN3 David provides is a good example of how I've been involved in edit wars. There's no question I've been involved in edit wars, but the key factor is whether I have contributed to or tried to alleviate the problem. There the closing admin noted the irony in David Tornheim reporting me when I had been the one asking him to come to the talk page instead of edit war. This is a recurring theme almost any time a revert of mine is mentioned where I usually try to stem an ongoing edit war by trying to get people to stop reinserting the change and go to the talk page to reach consensus. There are a lot of times editors in this topic just haven't come to the talk page quickly (or at all) to discuss their proposed changes. This all will be reflected in the instances where I am mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing your attention to your editing habits at Bayer. One only need to look at the history of the Bayer article to see the very interesting changes that happened with respect to the coverage of Bayer's pesticides. Let's look at the history:
November 25, 2002 -- Bayer article created. (Nothing about pesticides or bees)
Dec 2003 Pesticides and bees first added at Bayer Cropscience -- 1 sentence (~10% of the article)
Kingofaces43 edit wars to keep the study out here, here (<< IP user with single edit, who I assumed was Kingofaces43), here, here as reported here
during the edit war, KingofAces, Jytdog and Formerly98 (Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 talk who formerly had a COI declaration about pharma) decide to remove the entire section on Neonicotinoid pesticides, assuring the study does not see the light of day in the article. KingofAces43 that edit.
April 12 (04:01) -- version after Kingofaces43 has removed Neonicotinoid pesticides -- 0 paragraphs
April 12 -- Formerly98 (Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 talk who formerly had a COI declaration about pharma) now takes control, deletes all the controversy section, creates new products section and puts all the controversy there, where it is much less noticeable. here. It is starting to look more like an advertising brochure.
April 13-April 27 Jytdog makes numerous changes diff
I don’t think most of these diffs were included in evidence, but let’s take a look. The first mention of me is when I said that specific content was better suited for the neonicotinoid article rather than one of the many companies that produce the class of insecticide. It also links to the AN3 trouting David Tornheim for the filing and not using the talk page. The reason why neonicotinoids don’t show up in the Bayer article later on is because the insecticide articles focus on most of the content, while the company page just lists that they produce pesticides (with neonics being one of many classes these companies make). Nothing problematic shown in this list, especially in terms of the consensus developed about where information best fits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Yobol
Yobol (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, that has reinforced a battleground atmosphere in the GMO topic area. (see evidence provided by Albino Ferret; and please see diffs in comments below).
Note: YOBOL is an example of the reason 1RR isn't going to do anything but help recruit more editors. YOBOL comes in to do a revert wen another team member is verging on 3RR. Kombucha and GMOs are 2 articles where I've seen this happen. petrarchan47คุก 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence supporting this on AlbinoFerret's evidence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least one instance of jumping into a revert fest in my evidence, evidence of tag teaming. Statistics section of my evidence shows reverting with no talk page discussion. AlbinoFerret 03:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have witnessed Yobol on glyphosate tag teaming with jytdog 14 September 2015 reverting inclusion of a paper coauthored by seralini. his strained tone and lecturing argumentation on talk was similar to kingofaces "It is clear that the authors do not have a reputation for fact checking", "Again, we generally avoid authors with reputation for poor scholarship/fact checking." and.."it is a straight forward assessment that the scientific community by and large have found Seralini's work dubious." --Stark contrast with the nuanced examination by SageRad provided in the diff.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reasons as already stated by parties above.DrChrissy(talk) 12:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wuerzele. I observed the same edit warring incident at Séralini affair of 4 September 2015 (as documented by AlbinoFerret about Yobol's editing behavior at "Séralini affair[122]6 0f 8 edits are reverts. 3 edits to the talk page in one section.[123]" in Evidence. Yobol immediately reverted and edit warred out sourced material I added, along with my correction to the article's organization, and my attempt to correct WP:NPOV problems. I engaged on the talk here to be met with the same predictable tendentiousness (and refusal to work towards consensus) and knee jerk rejection of any new WP:RS that might put Séralini in a less negative light, that I have also observed from both Jytdog and KingofAces43 at this article and on talk pages. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
Which diffs support this claim? Unevidenced purported findings of fact may reflect rather worse on you than the person you are attacking. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are in Albino Ferret's evidence. Be assured that I have not made a proposed finding without much research and corresponding evidence on the Evidence page -- whether in my section or someone else's. Note that I struck the findings about Pete because i did not have time to provide the diffs. Minor4th 11:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad [withdrawn]
Withdrawn by proposer
SageRad(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has engaged in isolated instances of behavior that have contributed to a battleground atmosphere in the GMO topic area. SageRad has recognized and acknowledged his mistakes and has not repeated the behavior. strikethrough Minor4th 20:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
we don't normally do exoneration-type findings, Roger Daviestalk 10:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer. Minor4th 22:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th, i am truly interested in your critique of my behavior, as i respect you as an editor, and i respect your integrity. I would like to know any ways that you think i have violated good behavior standards and civility, and any ways you think that i could be a better editor. Thank you in advance for your criticism. I do perceive a battleground dynamic happening in the space of this controversy cluster of articles, but i do not think i created that battleground dynamic. I try to transcend conflicts, to delve into what the underlying conflict actually is, to clarify issues and bring out the principles involved, and thereby to reduce the battleground atmosphere, when possible. I hope that i am not creating more battleground atmosphere, but please realize that just because i state that i see agenda-driven editing happening, does not necessarily make me the source of this. Calling out a behavior is not creating the behavior in itself. I am not perfect and i do want to learn from critiques. I am seriously open to hearing how i can work better to transcend conflict. There have been times when i've let someone get my goat, and reacted to someone's goading, and maybe used an ingracious phrase or two, but on the whole, i am WP:HERE to build a great encyclopedia based on principles and guidelines that work toward representation of reality and not agenda in the articles. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SageRad. I am still looking into this, so please consider it a draft at this point. My proposed finding was based on 2 observations: 1. what I perceive as POINT-y edits re: your off-wiki interactions with Gorski, and 2. frequent LENGTHY explanations and pleas without supporting diffs.
Having said that - I also believe that you have been hounded by certain editors, and in most cases you are not the source of the battleground behavior but have been provoked and demeaned and rudely dismissed. What comes to mind immediately is Skyring's posting of pictures to mock you on an article talk page. You have some GREAT and legitimate points to make in this Arb case, but I would strongly recommend that you cut back on the rhetoric/argument/verbosity and hone in on the proof -- provide the diffs! and be clear about your assertions. Refer to behavior issues without reference to content or idealogical positions. Minor4th 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th, thank you for your comments. Indeed, back in May i did do a "pointy" edit and i have admitted that i was wrong here and haven't done that since. It was part of my learning curve. I will also try to be more concise and provide the diffs when i have time. Sometimes i do think general reckoning is useful, though. Thank you again. SageRad (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree that SageRad has caused any battleground behaviour, from what I have witnessed (I may have missed something, though, let me know). These issues are indeed part of the normal learning curve, and Sage is a quick learner who is not here to harm the project. cut back on the rhetoric/argument/verbosity and hone in on the proof -- provide the diffs! and be clear about your assertions. Refer to behavior issues without reference to content or idealogical positions is fantastic advice for all of us here; it took me years to learn this. Stumbles along the learning process are not, and should not be, actionable. To be honest, Sage is one of the best, kindest, most helpful and intelligent editors I've run into here in a long time. S/he expresses ideas clearly and adds content to WP articles and talk pages that is full of relevant, novel, and reliably sourced information. S/he is simply another of the few editors being used to present a false premise: that it's everyone's fault but Jytdog/supporters, or that they have been provoked in a way that justifies the behaviour under discussion. Sage does not deserve anything but thanks, and I say this not out of support, but because it's true. petrarchan47คุก 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, opposed. Although I think that there is evidence for a boomerang, albeit a rather small boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Minor4th 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck all of it, and I'll clarify what I was referring to in my own Workshop proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : maybe it would have helped to be specific in your claim "contributed to a battleground atmosphere" and linking WP:battleground for definition so we are on the same wikipage. battleground means all out war and longer time, more than WP:editwarring, as I read it. it's absolutely unhealthy for writing, unacceptable. its why we are here. beyond the many people baited, blocked, retired or driven away from volunteering, the impact of battleground includes the information not provided, the urgency of providing correct information. abuse of rules, deceit and accusing others of it are no no's. Ok, has SageRad done any of this? No. he does what we all are allowed and should do: disagrees when indicated, he is direct, he is honest, some may say to his fault -:) and he creates walls of words, but he is civil and virtuous, he doesnt attack, doesnt belittle, deceive or bend rules. he has hunches, as we all have, expressed on talkpages, but i do not see them flowing into articles. most importantly for our work i might say, apart from his giving /interactive social nature, is that he is a diligent editor with a strong academic background, you can see that in his editing. he stays with the evidence, that he has examined in full (and not just read the abstract of, as I've seen others do). I wish there was someone of his caliber on the pro GMO side, so we could work on the pages really productively. I see envy correlating with (informed by?) intellectual inferiority in editors that are attacking him the most, maybe even fear. 'nuff said--Wuerzele (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Isolated instances? Not hardly. And he has not stopped. His primary focus on Wikipedia remains the addition of negative content into articles on glyphosate, Monsanto and GMOs. Feel free to provide a diffs of him adding material that is positive or supportive in this area, or removing material that is critical or negative. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an instance where i supported not using a source for a claim that would have been positive to Vani Hari because it didn't actually support the claim. Here's an instance where i moved claims about glyphosate toxicity to the correct subcategory of the "Toxicity" section, which makes glyphosate appear less toxic than it has appeared to an uninformed reader. Here is a case where i removed a claim and source from an article when it was pointed out that the source did not explicitly name the point source of the pollution (and thanked the editor who pointed it out). Here's an instance where i pulled back the comparison of PCBs toxicity to dioxin-like modes of action (which might be considered a horizontal edit of sorts, but it's in the interest of accuracy above all). Here's a case where i corrected a claim about 2,4-D toxicity, to specify that only some forms are highly toxic to aquatic life. Here's an instance where i argued against using a very recent Seralini review paper on glyphosate toxicity, because i did not feel it was likely to be unbiased enough to give a fair picture (while i also lamented the lack of good recent review articles on the topic). Here i've pushed both DrChrissy and Jytdog to slow down, stop edit warring, and to discuss how we want to present the toxicity section. I've also pushed other editors to use more secondary sources when available, and to work on proper summary level in texts instead of throwing in every primary source and scary sounding result under the sun. SageRad (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Minor4th 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs please Minor4th, please could you provide diffs of this alleged behaviour so that I can reply to them.DrChrissy(talk) 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces, your diffs do not support your Support here. You provide 2 diffs. The first takes us to some preliminary evidence in which I am not even mentioned. The second diff takes us to insertion of material from a Sandbox of Glyphosate that was created to discuss and modify the article while it was locked. All relevant editors were contacted about this sandbox and the intention to cut and paste material from this when the live article was unlocked. I inserted material several days after the live article was reopened and Jytdog claimed that discussions had not finished. This is stalling behaviour on the part of Jytdog, not edit warring on my part.DrChrissy(talk) 21:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, I do agree with you that much of your involvement in what could be called edit warring would be due to misbehavior on the part of others who tend to hound you or oppose any of your edits. I am aware of the incident wherein you added material that had been developed in the sandbox over a period of time. The more I look at this, the more it looks like WP:SQS by Jytdog and Kingofaces43. I may revise this recommended finding. Minor4th 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The larger problem was that the sandbox edits did not follow talk page discussion. SageRad and DrChrissy started inserting content they wanted in the sandbox instead of focusing on content everyone had reached consensus on. I warned about that happening before I went off to meetings, etc. for a week or so. My understanding was that Jytdog tried to work with this, but there was never a consensus version. When I came back, there wasn't talk page consensus on what should be added yet even though people were trying to migrate the sandbox content over. That is far from SQS, but rather needing to focus on reaching actual WP:CONSENSUS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Chrissy is not disruptive. am rephrasing Sage Rad's comment from Oct 5 2015, because I agree with his observations: DrChrissy is a good editor with demonstratable evidence of hard work in comments and edits. valuable contributor and good article builder, adding real substance to articles. abides by rules, though reacts to injustice/bait (like myself) with reverting. participates in householding tasks, respects process and communicates very appropriately, even with those who hold other points of view. cooperative and receptive as far as i have seen in the few pages we have crossed (glyphosate). --Wuerzele (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - DrChrissy is quite amiable and an excellent collaborator. His unfortunate interactions with Jytdog serve to illustrate the long-reach of GMOs, ag-tech, etc., and the disruption that often occurs not long after Jytdog arrives on the scene. Atsme📞📧 03:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - after some feedback to my original proposed finding, I investigated DrChrissy's editing further and found that there were a couple of instances of reverts in article space, but each instance it looked like DrChrissy was being hounded and provoked by one or more editor. I have found that JzG and Kingofaces43, in particular, seem to be dogmatically opposed to every edit made by DrChrissy - JzG went from article to article (non-GMO related) following DrChrissy and removing sources and links that had been added by DrChrissy; KOA has systematically, and without justification, reverted DrChrissy's edits (see Glyphosate) even when those edits had been proposed in sandbox and discussed before being added to the article. I therefore have withdrawn this FoF and related proposed remedy because what initially looked like edit warring from DrChrissy was actually a fairly tempered response to hounding and provocation. Minor4th 01:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the "edit warring" is still a claim being made? petrarchan47คุก 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have not seen evidence of edit warring. Opposed until requested, supportive diffs are provided. petrarchan47คุก 20:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Minor4th 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not currently a party. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been requested that he be added as a party, and I intend to post additional evidence to illustrate his battleground behavior in the topic area. Minor4th 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Discretionary sanctions
1) All articles related to Genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I have commented in other sections, DS are defiantly needed in this area. AlbinoFerret 15:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my earlier comments and Wuerzele: DS displace the conflict onto admins, and are no rootwise solution. petrarchan47คุก 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
1RR
2) All articles related to Genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, are subject to 1RR per editor per article every 24 hours.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Minor4th I would support this for some, and propose 3 months maximum, to test/see if it makes a difference.I do not agree with "all articles".--Wuerzele (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Wuerzele's more nuanced approach. Minor also left a comment in "general discussion" that I support: with the most egregious offenders sanctioned, some or all of the GMO suite may revert to a normal editing environment, naturally. petrarchan47คุก 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Alternate proposed remedy
Every editor who has edit warred in this topic area within the last year, including "tag-teaming", is indefinitely topic banned from editing or participating in discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. These topic bans may not be appealed for a period of 1 year. (This would include Jytdog, Yobol, Prokaryotes, Kingofaces43, DrCrissy, Skyring and JzG). Minor4th 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
While I like the novel approach, I fear that this is unactionable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuerzele and JzG: Everyone who has edit warred and everyone who has been seen as "tag teaming", by one party or another, within the topic area is hopelessly broad. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reinforcing what Guerillero says, each remedy needs a corresponding FOF. Roger Daviestalk 10:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed.
Comment: I looked at the contributions of every party to the case - I expected to find edit warring and incivility across the board, but I didn't. Many of the parties who have been accused of disruptive behavior have done nothing more than engage in vigorous debate and discussion on talk pages and RfC's. This includes SageRad, David Ternheim, Wuerzle and petrarchan. I noticed a great deal of hounding of SageRad, even though he was not edit warring and continued to discuss matters very civilly. SageRad had one notable lapse in my opinion and that is when he made a point-y post about off wiki interaction with Gorski. While there have been many claims of Jytdog being "hounded" - I have not seen any evidence of it; no diffs have been provided to support that contention. But many diffs have been provided by multiple editors to support the allegation that Jytdog hounds other editors he disagrees with.Minor4th 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have seen nothing actionable from those you mention, then I am afraid your mechanism for distinguishing problematic behaviour is broken. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: It's like those irregular verbs, isn't it? Change made by a person of POV A and reverted by more than one person of POV B: edit-warring. Change made by person of POV B and reverted by more than one person of POV A: tag-teaming. See also m:MPOV. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog
Jytdog is topic banned from editing any article or participating in any discussion related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. Jytdog may not appeal this sanction for a period of 12 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good heavens, no. But here we see the crux of the POV war. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unfair statement. There is no way you could identify my POV on these subjects, and you certainly couldn't identify it as contrary to Jytdog's POV. My support for a topic ban has nothing to do with POV - it has to do with Jytdog's long history of incivility and edit warring and OWNership of articles. You'll notice that my proposed findings include parties from different "sides" of the debate if that is how you're going to characterize things. Not every opposition to Jytdog's behavior is part of some anti-GMO conspiracy. Minor4th 22:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my comment above, you were only making proposals about editors on one "side" of the dispute. I want to explicitly note now that you have added proposals that are balanced, and I thank you for that. But my greatest original concern was that this case should not remove editors who uphold Wikipedia norms from editing in the subject area, because that would accomplish what the POV pushers want to accomplish. I accept that you are not one of those POV pushers, but the concern about NPOV remains. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, prefer indefinite ban as above.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient. I prefer an indefinite site-ban per my own proposed remedy. (Wuerzele, I think it would be helpful if you clarified your comment above whether you prefer a topic ban or a site ban.)DrChrissy(talk) 12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) JzG is an involved administrator in the topic area of genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, and may not carry out enforcement/admin actions in this topic area, subject to the usual exceptions.
2) JzG is restricted to 1RR per 24 hours in BLP articles in the GMO topic area for a period of 6 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have had experience with use JzG/Guy closing an RfC with a bias, and refusing to revert the closing to allow an uninvolved editor to close it. SageRad (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have witnessed almost nothing but advocacy and rude, gang-like behaviour from this editor. He depends upon his own authority rather than evidence on talk pages, from what I have seen. When the evidence isn't there, he seems to exert his will using his powerful position at WP to replace it. The action proposed by Minor would not help to end the issue with this editor. petrarchan47คุก 01:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient remedy. The behaviour of this admin in both his administrative duties and editing seems to be regularly questioned. Even now, there is a current AN/I (WP:ANI#User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED) about this admin where the OP questions "... his use of admin authority in a content dispute, and his refusal to respond to questions about his conduct and involvement." His editing on Glyphosate (and elsewhere) is combative, gang-like and repeatedly misuses PAGs such as this edit summary "Monograph as in not peer-reviewed publication" when WP:RS clearly states "scholarly monographs" (irrespective of peer-review) are among the best sources. The proposed remedy would not help curb these behavioural problems.DrChrissy(talk) 11:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient , in depth (needs to be all GMO articles), breadth (not just 1 RR) and length {more than 6 months)--Wuerzele (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others
Absolute opposition based on the fact that, to my eyes, the proposer seems to have an at best dubious grasp of the fact that trying to get content to adhere to policies and guidelines does not make them "involved." John Carter (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My grasp comes from this: [127], and specifically this comment by Thryduulf: If you are making a judgement about article content (as distinct from judging the consensus of a discussion about article content) then you are acting as an editor, even if you use administrative tools to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 1:31 pm, 18 July 2015, Saturday (2 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−5) found here. Minor4th 04:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43
Kingofaces43 is topic banned from articles and discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. This sanction may not be appealed for a period of 12 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the evidence provided, especially when you look at the diffs and context of posts, does not support this action. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as insufficient. suggest indefinite ban for this supremely deceptive and disruptive editor per fact finding section.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, his editing history requires a more serious response. petrarchan47คุก 04:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yobol
Yobol is topic banned from articles and discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months.
Revised: Yobol is topic banned from articles and discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. Yobol may not appeal this sanction for a period of 12 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, prefer indefinite ban as above.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral YOBOL needs more serious sanctions. He has no problem coming to a page where he doesn't engage on the talk, or help with editing, but just to revert (the GMO page is an example). petrarchan47คุก 23:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "I could live with that". petrarchan47คุก 03:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yobol has shown extremely disruptive editing on occasions.DrChrissy(talk) 14:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Prokaryotes
Prokaryotes is topic banned from articles and discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly you presented no findings of evidence on prokaryotes who is a very good editor in my experience, to warrant this. Minor4th.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per earlier comments I've made about his good work. petrarchan47คุก 03:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad [withdrawn]
Withdrawn by proposer
For a period of six months, SageRad may not make edits to article space in any article related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, without prior approval from a mentor - to be selected and approved by SageRad and Arbcom. strikethrough Minor4th 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. SageRad is a new editor and I think having a mentor would help him grow in Wikipedia.Minor4th 22:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm an adult and i can handle myself. I appreciate the sentiment but i won't do this. I am an equal to all other editors and either i will be accepted as an equal as i am, or i will be gone from Wikipedia. I want good faith critique of my actions from people who see me without bias, and i listen fully to such critique, and take it to heart. No need for a cumbersome parole period. I'm a good editor and i wish to be able to edit. SageRad (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be a very humiliating experience for SageRad who is an experienced, productive and collaborative editor. We are here to sort out widespread behavioural problems for the betterment of the project, not to humiliate individual editors.DrChrissy(talk) 12:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per SageRad. He's done nothing worthy of this. What he has done is bring balance to articles dominated by Jytdog, a self-proclaimed "steward" who edits from a pro-corporate POV with assistance from a few cooperative editors and a couple admins. The statements and/or evidence provided by (in no particular order) Abductive, David Tornhelm, Les Vegas, RoseL2P, Petrarchan47, GregJackP (now retired after being badgered by Jytdog on Greg's Talk page), Albino Ferret, Atsme, Dialectric, Semitransgenic, Prokaryotes, Montanabwl, DrChrissy, and interestingly by both SageRad and Minor4th, lend heft and weight to my contention. It's obvious what's going on: a few people want to shut down an effective and potent block to making the articles in question sheer PR. I would say SageRad is too modest. He's not a good editor, he's a great one, and his detractors should rethink their entrenched stands. Jusdafax 12:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in part I like the idea of a mentor, someone who can give an outside view of issues, answer questions, and give advice. But I am against the editing restriction. AlbinoFerret 04:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per AlbinoFerret: I actually like the idea of a mentor, if anyone is willing to put up with my obstreperous attention to detail. I would benefit greatly from anyone who is willing to provide advice and guidance in completely good faith. I am a good receiver of criticism, as long as it is offered in a friendly way. The thing that rankled me was the editing restriction, as i would not want to wait for approval by someone who might be asleep, as the world turns. However, i would assent to an editing restriction like this: I would not revert any edit reverted by my mentor. I would ask the mentor to provide guidance and explanation, and i would engage in good dialogue with the mentor about the edit. SageRad (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose groundless ban. mentoring does sound funny, although I wish word limits on sage rads talkpage edits. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support mentor - and Guerillero, I thought you should know that the mentor program was quite helpful to me in 2014. I truly believe that seasoned editors help newbies grow in so many different ways. Mentorship helped me acquire a better understanding of the WP community, showed me how to create my first article, DYK, and GA, gave me sound advice regarding disputes, RfCs, and the like. I truly am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with a mentor, and for all their help and guidance. I actually had two guiding mentors showing me all that's good about WP and collaborative editing. I highly recommend it. Atsme📞📧 03:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support mentor -- I have seen SageRad's good work/intentions and frustration dealing with certain seasoned parties to this case who have abused the rules, gamed the system and taken advantage of this new user. I have used the mentoring program as well in dealing with these same aggressive editors, and it has helped. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
DrChrissy [withdrawn]
Withdrawn by proposer
DrChrissy is topic banned from articles and discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as groundless, per my above comment.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn after further investigation into Dr Chrissy's interactions.Minor4th 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skyring [Withdrawn]
Withdrawn by proposer
Skyring is topic banned from articles and discussions related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer.Minor4th 20:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I find these proposed sanctions rather (very!) confusing. It is proposed that I am banned outright from the topic area for 6 months, however, it is proposed that SageRad is allowed to continue to edit under a mentor. I am in no way wishing to promote stronger sanctions against SageRad, but I fail to see why I should have an outright ban and SageRad should be allowed to continue to edit with conditions. Perhaps the proposer should look more closely at the evidence that has been presented and weigh their proposed sanctions accordingly.DrChrissy(talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I like the change from the boilerplate. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the standard language by adding a sentence about WP:RGW, which I think goes particularly to the core of this dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a place where people of many diverse points of view can edit according to principles and guidelines. Everyone has a point of view. Everyone edits according to what is relevant and interesting to them. Some people see the same topic differently and will focus on different aspects. Just because two people may have a different focus on a topic, does not mean that either of them is trying to "right great wrongs". I've seen WP:RGW abused and distorted in this topic area to frame people as trying to "right great wrongs" who are actually only adding well-sourced content that may disagree with another editor's agenda. "Stop trying to Right Great Wrongs" is a convenient phrase that some editors use to try to push their own agenda and to block edits by another editor. Think deeply on how this guideline is used and when it is abused. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:RGW is about people who have diverse perspectives and bring them in a constructive way to improve content. It applies to people who want to use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate against things that they believe to be wrong. In the case of this specific dispute, those things include science, companies, and people involved in GMO technology. It's one thing to report in an encyclopedic manner on the very real social and political controversies, but it's another to try to supplant reliably sourced science with fringe falsehoods. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, therein lies the bias. RGW is about pushing content against guidelines, but it is not about using existing knowledge constructively to show the reality about the article's subject. It's not a RGW violation to use skepticism toward a company in one's editing, for example, any more than it is a RGW violation to hold skepticism toward an activist website or researcher. Both are reasonable suspicions. Bias does exist in the world and diverse points of view are useful for fact-checking robustly the claims in any article. The real social controversies do enter the content discussions of an article in this topic area, and that is ok. That is unavoidable, and that actually results in a stronger article. RGW is when an editor pushes to an undue degree and breaks guidelines of all sorts to push content into an article against general broad consensus. SageRad (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:WP:RGW is a catch-phrase for WP:advocacy coined by JzG in a section of his essay on tendentious editing. no coincidence he and Tryptofish use it. change in boiler plate as it may be, Guerillero :-) it's not a neutral principle. so maybe that's what we should do from hereon: describe what WP should NOT be. once again, i agree with SageRads, concise -yes!- observations above, it's a "framer's essay".--Wuerzele (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) (detail added)--Wuerzele (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero and Roger Davies do essays have enough community support to be included in a principle of Wikipedias purpose? AlbinoFerret 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per wise words from Sage, especially the reply to Trypto. petrarchan47คุก 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Just a general comment regarding this section as a whole, that I think NYB would be very proud of Tryptofish's work in this section if he saw it. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change,' is confusing wording. Wikipedia certainly records many things which have nothing to do with social change.Dialectric (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view
2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article, see comment by Jimbo.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Please see my comment to JzG's original. Roger Daviestalk 10:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of reference this was: "Isn't this one, from 2006, and linking to a 2003 comment from Jimbo, a little bit past its sell-by date? Policy has moved on considerably since then and become more nuanced." Roger Daviestalk 10:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Comment by parties:
Copied verbatim from JzG's proposals, because I agree with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Copied verbatim from JzG's proposals, because I agree with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Cant support the way it's phrased. Who defines "current mainstream scientific thought" in the subject at hand? The biotechnology industry or molecular biologists, who are transcending silos and see ecological issues ? I have a problem with this weasley principle from Arbcom's 14 October 2010 decision on Climate change and suggest to at least put alternate viewpoints on par. I suggest: "overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream science ( not thought- who knows thoughts?) and alternate viewpoints (significant is an ambiguous word)."--Wuerzele (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Cla68 below. It depends how you define "mainstream scientific thought", because that phrase and especially "consensus" in this topic area can be used to unduly prevent significant findings from being included in articles. We must be careful to define "current mainstream scientific thought" to include critical studies as well as studies that are in line with industry. Bias is a real thing in the science around controversial topic areas, as we know with experience in the controversies around climate change. We editors must be worldly enough to recognize this dynamic and edit accordingly. The phrase should not be used to quell dissenting voices who present reliably sourced scientific research that may question safety of chemicals, for instance. We must strive to represent the spectrum of scientific thought on any subject, with due weight given based on a representative sample of review articles, for instance. SageRad (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the definition matters, but Wikipedia has a lot of experience from trial and error about how to make that work. An excellent model is at WP:MEDRS, and it isn't too difficult to extrapolate from the medical sciences, there, to other biological sciences. The most important point is that secondary sources from established scientific organizations, ones that use peer-review and are not funded by corporate interests, take precedence over outlying primary studies, which take precedence over advocacy group publications, which leave editor personal opinions at the bottom. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not taking a position on CAM, but it's important to note that what is considered mainstream depends on your location. For example, Homeopathy is popular not only among the French public but also among the French medical community. As many as 70 percent of physicians are receptive to homeopathy and consider it effective, at least 25,000 physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines for their patients. Homeopathy is taught in at least seven medical schools.[128]petrarchan47คุก 04:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the drafters of this case (Guerillero and NativeForeigner) may find the following discussion useful when the time comes to start framing their proposals, FoF, and remedies: [129] primarily because their comments speak to the cause of the disruption so often associated with the topics within the scope of this case. John Carter, Anthonyhcole and Montanabw each provide excellent perspectives regarding the science and outlying issues. Atsme📞📧 20:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) added drafter pings13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you define "current mainstream scientific thought." Believe me, the definitions are important when making a statement like this. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone here is aware of the infamous incident in which someone tried to use an academic source in the acupuncture article and a "pro-science" editor rejected it because the researcher had a "Chinese name." (I should keep that diff handy forever) Attempts by WP to decide what is or isn't acceptable science will always be problematic and that's why attempts to install a definition in WP's policies will, IMO, cause as many problems as they try to solve. This case is a good example. Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla68: I look forward to seeing that diff. Here is one from evidence in this case where Jytdog dismisses all research from China as unreliable [130]. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, this diff[131] (see the section "Source 7" but feel free to read the others), indicates an apparent generalisation about Chinese authors publishing sub-standard papers. The diff also contains my response that the authors were in fact, German and Japanese.DrChrissy(talk) 19:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy of sources
4) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. Repeated failures to represent sources accurately may result in sanctions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Whether or not something accurately reflects the source is frequently a subjective judgment. Other than in very clear cut cases of blatant misrepresentation, the committee has been reluctant to make findings, largely because such findings come perilously close to content decisions. The only way to really demonstrate inaccurate handling of a source is to quote the relevant article text and the text from which it derives. Here's an example: [article text] "The sky is green". [source text] "The sky is blue". Roger Daviestalk 10:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I see it as redundant. why do you feel this needs to be mentioned, Tryptofish? --Wuerzele (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because some editors have claimed fringe sources to be reliable sources, and some editors have cherry-picked brief passages out of context from sources, and that hurts Wikipedia's content creation. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a brief example of what you're referring to when you say this? petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and the same principals that apply to accuracy of sources should also apply to accuracy of evidence (diffs) cited in ArbCom cases and noticeboards. Atsme📞📧 12:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as sources should only be used to support claims that they actually support. This is self-evident to me, and it speaks to integrity in editing. Editors need to be careful not to insert their own wishful thinking into a claim attributed to a source. Bias can creep into articles in this way, and an editor shows their trustworthiness by being careful about attributing claims properly to a source. We must be able to trust other editors on this level, because it's too cumbersome to check everyone's sourcing to all claims all the time. We build trust among each other by acting in good faith over time. SageRad (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia should not be a battleground, but it sometimes becomes one. It behooves everyone to cool their jets. Polarization of ideologies is a natural human phenom that must be resisted. We must strive to transcend agendas and edit with transparency and accountability, to maximize neutral point of view. We must represent reality as best we can determine it, through dialogue among editors with diverse points of view. SageRad (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support partly : it shouldnt be. needs rephrasing as principle.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually, in certain zones, it is. petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Edit warring
6) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.
Comment: Edit warring can also reflect bad dialogue on the talk page. Sometimes editors revert content based on seeing a broken dialogue where an insistent editor is not able to justify their edits with reasoned arguments, but is just reverting content against consensus. In that case, the insistent editor would be guilty of edit warring, being the unreasonable party. SageRad (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In such as instance, editors can also fail to drop the WP:STICK and engage in WP:IDHT behavior when the rest of the community decides it's time to move on. Such instances cannot be used to claim the rest of the community is edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support partly or oppose, given SageRads sophisticated comment. Suggest to strike second sentence and add "It reflects bad dialogue" instead, rather than assign blame it takes two to tango. and two versus 3 win...--Wuerzele (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial oppose It is possible to revert different content and still be engaged in edit warring. AlbinoFerret 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Standards of conduct
7) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, positive contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Based upon Collect and others, with a small change in wording to reflect the fact that we are not talking about exceptional contributors here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All editors will make mistakes. I have. Anyone who says they haven't is lying. Editors who learn from mistakes when they are pointed out are gold. They are trainable to work within the guidelines of good sourcing and good editorial process. Those who are recalcitrant are the ones to worry about. Those who have their mistakes pointed out reasonably over and over yet continue to obstruct good process, those are the editors who are holding back the encyclopedia from reaching its full potential as a species-wide mirror on reality. SageRad (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
Strong Support - with close attention to the casting of aspersions for the purpose of poisoning the well, and discrediting another editor without one diff to support the allegation. Atsme📞📧 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pertinent, given some of the other discussions on this page if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed findings of fact
Locus of the dispute
1) The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics, with some editors attempting to misrepresent non-scientific sources as scientific, and engaging in battleground conduct, including edit warring.
Proposed. I've added the phrase "agricultural chemicals" to cover some of the pages in the case scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That sounds really good to me, Tryptofish, as a comprehensive definition of the scope of this ArbCom. SageRad (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support With caveat: editors have also violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:NPOV (the latter via cherry-picking). This is supported in my diffs pointing to Tsavage's extensive dissection of the sources being used to claim that GMO science is settled, and that no credible questions exist. petrarchan47คุก 01:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric, Editors found it acceptable to base our assertion that GMO's are overwhelmingly considered safe on a higly problematic 'anti-GMO labeling' position paper from the Board of the AAAS: [132]petrarchan47คุก 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Which difs show editors "attempting misrepresent non-scientific sources as scientific"? Dialectric (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog
2) Jytdog has edit warred and personalized the dispute.
In presenting proposed findings about individual editors, I am not providing diffs here, but in every case I am basing it upon the evidence in my section of the Evidence page, which please see.
I have found no reason to make findings about Kingofaces43 (except to the extent of possible interaction bans, based on the conduct of editors interacting with him), Yobol, or Jusdafax.
In wording all of my proposed findings, I am trying to be helpful to the drafting Arbs in terms of indicating what types of sanction would correspond to the evidence. For example, an editor who has been combative on dispute resolution pages but does not edit in the topic area would not need a topic ban. However, this wording may not be ideal for the Proposed Decision.
Guerillero, my apologies. I'll just have to point you to my Evidence on the Evidence page, where you will find the appropriate diffs. I have, um, been held back from editing for a while, and I'm about to go on a break due to real world obligations, so adding the diffs here before the deadline is above my pay grade. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts are certainly appreciated, although restricting evidence to only that which you provided makes the proposal one-sided. Also, in reviewing the evidence you provided, more questions are raised with regards to the diffs actually supporting the allegations. If I may suggest that you include the diffs you believe support your individual findings? It would certainly prove more helpful when determining the extent of alleged disruption on all sides and equally as helpful in determining proper remedies for each. For example, (and a simplified one at that), what you consider "combative on dispute resolution pages" may be considered a legitimate rebuttal or proper defense by others. The diffs serve to clarify any ambiguities. --Atsme📞📧 16:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If any Arbs ask, I'll be happy to clarify. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cannot support this as FOF because it is insufficient in scope, breadth and depth. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Petrarchan47
3) Petrarchan47 has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct.
@Tryptofish: I'm afraid you'll need to supply diffs (or at least point to where they can be found). As you will be aware, from the "#Conduct on arbitration pages" principle you've added above, "Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all". Simply saying that the arbitrators can find the diffs if they look doesn't really satisfy this. You must express the basis of your belief. Without this, the FOF can reasonably be characterised as either a personal attack or an aspersion cast. This applies to all FOFs on this page that fail to provide diffs or link to evidence. Roger Daviestalk 11:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment: I think Petrarchan47 could stand to mellow out once in a while but otherwise does great work. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per diffs provided here and here. Also engages in battleground hyperbole at this case such as "Monsanto can do no wrong"[133], casting aspersions about not being critical enough of companies [134], and accusing others of enjoying bullying[135] showing an extremely bad faith mentality. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have not come across Petrarchan47 much in my editing, but not seen her to misrepresent sources, attack other editors, or engage in battleground conduct. She challenges, disagrees if indicated, and is direct from what I see; that is what we should do and are allowed to do. She is a solid editor from what I see. The diffs by Kingofaces above show her rather innocent, and definitely do not support the claims. Kingofaces has mounted exaggerated charges to every disagreeing editor. I thank him for the diffs where Petrarch charges bullying, and being uncritical, because I agree with her in these. as far as Consider: "Assume bad faith": she doesnt assume bad faith, because she can prove, that good faith is fruitless. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Petra has a clean block record, and I've not seen any evidence to support the allegations. The recognitions (barnstars) on her user page paint a much different picture from what was stated above. Atsme📞📧 04:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see no evidence supporting these claims. Petrachan47 is very adept at supplying WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petrarchan diffs:
Add - I reviewed the diffs provided by Kingofaces which appear to be the only diffs provided in support of the proposed remedy, and quite frankly, the evidence left me speechless; admittedly not an easy task under most circumstances:
The first diff points to an RfC that resulted in No Consensus about GM food posing a greater risk than conventional food. Petra pointed out errors and made other legitimate comments one would expect to see in an RfC, the latter of which apparently didn't bring the results Kingofaces and Jytdog anticipated. In fact the discussion demonstrates battleground behavior by both Jytdog and Kingofaces. For example, Kingofaces accused an editor of WP:BLUDGEON because another editor simply pointed out the holes in their argument, and that the sources KoA mentioned were not relevant to the RfC;
the 2nd diff points to Tryptofish's evidence wherein the 1st diff he provided points to Petra's TP where she was discussing her concerns about the industry PR on GMO articles;
the 2nd diff in Trypto's evidence points to a TP discussion on the March article wherein Petra used the term "Dude" with a hint of frustration when addressing an editor because they weren't grasping the concept that the article was about the march itself not the science of GMOs;
the 3rd in that same sequence points to the ANI against Jytdog's non-neutral GMO editing which closed as "No clear consensus for any particular action, but general consensus some [actino] is needed" that led to this ArbCom case;
the 4th was an ANI Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick wherein Petra simply provided a defense against the boomerang;
the 5th was a discussion on Trypto's TP wherein Petra commented on her position re: GMOs and Jytdog's behavior, and
the 6th pointed to a comment she made in this ArbCom case about Trypto's behavior which was supported by a diff she provided.
In light of the diffs used to support an allegation as strong as a site ban, I trust the ArbCom will review them closely and form their own conclusions. I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that expressing opposing views in an intelligent, civil manner during ANI discussions, RfCs and on TPs were not considered "disruptive behavior". Atsme📞📧 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
@Roger: yes, the two drafting Arbs need to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose: This is a very hard working editor that always does her homework and presents her opinions in a very well-thought-out manner. She's not afraid to speak her mind and stand her ground, which should not be confused with battleground behavior. Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prokaryotes
4) Prokaryotes has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct.
Comment: Prokaryotes really stands up for principles, and i appreciate that. SageRad (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think principles are very important in real life. And they even have an important place on Wikipedia. We even propose Principles on this page. But for the very specific purpose of editing in the topic area of this case, editors need to work on content based on the preponderance of reliable sources, rather than on their personally held principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially due to personal attacks per evidence sections [136][137]Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly I have experienced Prokaryotes as a very good editor with a strong character, intellect and academic background. He is unafraid to challenge, levelheaded, but can get a bit more irate than SageRad, IMO. He contributes valuable edits and arguments. He is concise and not long winded. maybe (?) thats why he doesnt take center stage for the parties opposing balanced and critical representation on WP, as oposed to SageRad. (BTW i find it tremendously interesting, that Kingofaces quotes personal attacks for him"only", whereas he cited battleground conduct for the similarly critical Petrarch, smacking of gender bias)--Wuerzele (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (also strongly) Prokaryotes appears not to be a native English speaker, but besides minor issues with grammar, he has made only appropriate edits to the GM article (all were reverted, of course). I am not sure if he read through the RfC, but everything he tried to add was well supported by it, and had been discussed extensively. He did the work required after such an RfC to right the mistakes and imbalance (that still exist) on the page. He made his edits in a short period of time, and those who felt an ownership over the content completely lost it. That's what I observed, anyway. For scale, there has only been 1 edit that introduced substantial change to the page since I've been active (beginning 28 May), and it was a change required by the RfC result. In this environment, Pro's many substantive changes were sure to cause blowback. petrarchan47คุก 01:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
GregJackP
5) GregJackP has been previously sanctioned by ArbCom. He has engaged in battleground conduct on articles and talk pages.
@Brad: I know that, and I refer to it below. I believe that there is nothing to prevent an editor who voluntarily retires from resuming editing at will, and therefore, given that he became a named party to this case just before retiring, ArbCom may wish to determine conditions for his possible return. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this editor is a content creator with FAs to his credit. Battleground behavior (diffs??) is not usually synonymous with FA editors, the latter of which requires patience and the ability to calmly accept critical evaluations of ones work and keep smiling. Also, an admin harshly criticized me for poisoning the well when I simply provided a diff to a comment made by one editor about another editor's appeal of a site ban, but it's ok to come right out and mention a prior ArbCom sanction here? --Atsme📞📧 05:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[138] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows no talk page links and nothing actionable. Also the editor has retired. AlbinoFerret 05:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Noting that this editor is currently in a state of retirement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trypofish, I take your point. Whether and when a decision should make findings and impose remedies as to a retired editor is always a judgment call. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy
6) DrChrissy has pursued grudges in articles and talk pages.
Oppose. no evidence for the claim.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless requested diffs are persuasive. He has been only helpful and respectful in my experience. petrarchan47คุก 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yet again. Forgive me, but some of these redundant proposals, FoF, and remedies are wearing me out; particularly the ones not supported by the diffs provided, or that have include no diffs at all. Are we supposed to respond to basically the same claims made by each proposer? There simply aren't enough hours in a day. Atsme📞📧 20:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Undoubtedly true, and DrChrissy helpfully documents much of it for us: [139]Guy (Help!) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I don't know if you are deliberately misleading people or not, but your diff takes us to the first AN/I I raised against Jytdog. This was simply recourse to a normal standardised procedure where an editor is receiving repeated incivility. This is not pursuing a grudge, it is an attempt to be allowed to edit freely without insults, harassment, etc. I also suggest that you read the proposal more carefully - it relates to "articles and talk pages", not AN/I. Your diff is irrelevant.DrChrissy(talk) 18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support source issues here, definite battlefield mentality at these evidence sections.[140][141] and bad-faith assumptions like this [142] on the case page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[143] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows two diffs and nothing actionable. AlbinoFerret 05:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and ask that, sans evidence, these aspersions be considered actionable. petrarchan47คุก 04:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
David Tornheim
9) David Tornheim has repeatedly misrepresented sources and engaged in battleground conduct on talk pages.
Support in part. I can't speak to sources, but battleground behavior is demonstrated by Tryptofish and hereKingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely unsupported. petrarchan47คุก 04:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Minor4th
10) Minor4th has been combative on dispute resolution pages.
This is not an accurate statement, as relates to this case. Tryptofish's evidence about me cites only one diff of my participation in one ANI about Jytdog, in which I made these three comments:
Support topic ban (uninvolved editor) - I have not edited in the GMO area, but I have looked at all the diffs from the OP and from Jytdog and have found a clear attitude of ownership by Jytdog in GMO related articles, as well as NPOV edit patterns, edit warring, forum shopping, and tendentious editing. I believe this set of issues is probably too much for ANI and should be addressed at Arbcom.
I am uninvolved, as I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior.
Yobo is an involved editor, as he reports in his comment below.
There is no rational basis to characterize those three comments as "combative on dispute resolution pages." Minor4th 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[144] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence (three links) shows nothing actionable. AlbinoFerret 05:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The truth is the basis for this project, and certainly for these noticeboards meant to keep it functioning. Telling the truth can rub people the wrong way. That's not actionable.. petrarchan47คุก 18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
AlbinoFerret
11) AlbinoFerret has been combative on dispute resolution pages.
Disagree, as mentioned in my evidence I am active on the message boards in various sections.[145] No evidence of combativeness has ever been shown, because it doesnt exist. What exists is ABF by others. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in this section[146] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows one link and nothing actionable. AlbinoFerret 05:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not supported by evidence. Participation in DR noticeboards is not being "combative." Minor4th 19:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These unsupported ArbCom proposals are baseless and seem unserious. Albino Ferrett has never been anything close to combative from what I've seen. petrarchan47คุก 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Atsme
12) Atsme has pursued grudges on dispute resolution pages.
I don't hold grudges and it saddens me that such terminology is being used to define my attempts at trying to find resolution to Jytdog's serious conduct issues. The diffs Trypto provided actually support my position, not his, but what concerns me most is that such allegations portray me to be someone I am not. I provided truthful testimony during the DR process as I'm doing now, and the fact my actions could be perceived as begrudging serves the unintended purpose of drawing more attention to the elephant in the room. --Atsme📞📧 14:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, it seems to me that you have not so much tried to find resolution, as to argue for undeserved punishment for Jytdog. Sorry, but that's what I see. JzG/Guy, I think that depends on the action. I would oppose anything harsh here, but I think an interaction ban is needed, and there must be a finding of fact if there is to be a remedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awe, c'mon, Trypt, you know that isn't true. I spent a great deal of time on your TP discussing Jytdog's behavior and seeking help from you as a mediator. I told you how much I respected your input and you know full well how I've trusted your decisions. Please don't change colors on me now. I forgave Jytdog for all of his past transgressions (some of which, quite frankly, I've forgotten) so please don't go there. It wasn't until the POV_railroading that ended in a block by Bishonen that made me realize there's no end to Jytdog's retaliatory behavior when he sets his sites on a target. The correlation of events and the diffs I've provided in my evidence lay it all out in technicolor. Atsme📞📧 18:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Atsme has sought dispute resolution. AlbinoFerret 05:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposed finding seems to be inaccurate. Minor4th 01:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not her style. Please supply an example of the behaviour. This seems a classic case of "projection" to me. petrarchan47คุก 18:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Petrarchan47--projection on the part of the proposer. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I agree, but I don't think it's actionable, and Atsme has a long history of good contributions that offset some poor choices. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Discretionary sanctions and 1RR
1) 1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I would break this up into two remediesv--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
I have taken this from the temporary injunction for this case, making it permanent. I changed the reference to glyphosate to a more inclusive reference to "agricultural chemicals" (example: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid). I would also suggest the creation of a template modified from Template:Troubles restriction, to be used for notifying editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The restriction is needed and should be made permanent. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this. If we are discussing only protecting pages, I would support this proposed sanction. However, I thought we were discussing editor behaviour. That being the case, several parties here have been (extremely) disruptive on alt.med articles e.g. Acupuncture. This proposed sanction would not address their disruption in those (and other) areas.DrChrissy(talk) 15:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support DS and 1RR. The 1RR remedy would dovetail nicely with this proposed principle coupled with admin DS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
@DrChrissy: I tend to think that most alt-med articles will be covered under the existing pseudoscience as per WP:ARBPS#Final decision and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, so there wouldn't be any particular need so far as I can see for it to be covered here, except for perhaps the 1RR which I don't immediately see as included in either. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this John. Unfortunately, your first link is incorrect I think, and the second links to procedures which appear to have finished in 2014. Please don't spend valuable time on this - I have made the edit and I am sure ArbCom will come their own decision whether to include or not.DrChrissy(talk) 17:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog restricted 1
2) Jytdog is prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day, in all page spaces. He is also restricted to one self-revert per page per day. This sanction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee not less than six months after his return to editing.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If one really looks carefully at all the edits he has made that have been controversial, there is a pattern that has applied 100% of the time: (step 1) Jytdog gets pissed off; (step 2) he makes a bad edit impulsively and in haste; (step 3) he may or may not self-revert, but the edit is already there. He is an intelligent editor who is highly motivated to be a good Wikipedian; therefore, this restriction would really do him a favor, by forcing him to consider more carefully before hitting the save button. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed remedy means that Jytdog would be able to add as much content as he wished to as many articles as he wished as long as he only reverted once (please correct me if I am wrong). This would allow Jytdog to continue being disruptive, incivil, misrepresent PAGs - all those behaviours he has been accused of by multiple parties in this case. I feel there would be no (very little) benefit of this proposed remedy.DrChrissy(talk) 12:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he could make edits adding content, and he has a track record of adding good content. Anyone not topic-banned could revert him, and make him come to talk to discuss it, and he would be highly restricted from using reverts without discussing. And it seems to me that he discusses these things quite willingly. If talk page consensus goes against him, he would be unable to use reversion to disregard that consensus (although I do not believe that he has previously done that, claims from his critics notwithstanding). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the SPA like activity of Jytdog as evident by evidence from multiple parties this is way to little and only mirrors the general 1RR that is in place and almost certain to be made permanent. AlbinoFerret 15:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the "SPA like" aspersion. I recognize that there would already be 1RR for pages within the topic, but this would apply to all page spaces as well, such as user talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such a sanction would be like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. It doesn't resolve the problem of tag-teaming, own, incivility, bullying, etc. and I don't see how it will resolve the relentless pattern of casting aspersions, making half-way apologies, and/or striking through derogatory comments when the intention is to keep making them. Atsme📞📧 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'm not 100% on 1RR in all page spaces (he does good work elsewhere), though I do want to see 1RR for everything in the scope of this case for all editors. What I do want to see though is the limit on self-reverts, but also initial outbursts that are quickly (often in a minute or two) edited to be more civil. Jytdog does need to slow down and pause before hitting the submit button instead of going back with a quick edit or later striking things. Make the post say what it should from the get go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an insufficient remedy.DrChrissy(talk) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Jytdog restricted 2
3) Jytdog is prohibited from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is derived from Interactions at GGTF. I'm not sure that I actually support it, particularly in the event that there are also discretionary sanctions already in place, but I recognize that there is enough evidence here to consider this restriction. I'm putting it here without entirely endorsing it, and letting the Arbs decide what they want to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we're running a day-care or pre-school. Swearing is symptomatic of deeper inability to work with others with respect. SageRad (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog has already received a warning for incivility, but despite this, the behaviour has continued almost totally unabated (please see my evidence and that of several others). The damaging effect this has to the project and its editors is perhaps being underestimated by those not on the receiving end of this behaviour. Every editor is already prohibited from these behaviours per WP:CIVIL and associated guidelines. This proposed remedy is nothing more than stating the manner in which we would expect every editor to interact with others.DrChrissy(talk) 13:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slap on the wrist for a major problem that is in evidence. This is already required per WP:CIVIL. AlbinoFerret 15:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Policy already prohibits it. The time has come to enforce it. Atsme📞📧 15:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add-on comment - the repeated excuse that Jytdog gets "exasperated" which is often accompanied by relentless unsupported allegations that other editors were uncivl or tendentious which caused his exasperation is, quite frankly, reminiscent of the tired excuse, "the dog ate my homework". We all tend to get frustrated or exasperated over stupidity, incompetence, relentless haranguing, PAs, etc. so are we to believe that's what exasperates Jytdog? What exactly makes Jytdog so much smarter, so much more of an expert, so much more special above all other editors that we must excuse his outbursts, haranguing, hounding, profanities and other uncivil behaviors while he and his supporters are proposing iBans, topic bans, DS, and site bans against those who purportedly exasperate Jytdog? The diffs are proving his exasperation is the result of editors opposing his OWN/stewardship/uncivil behavior and the blatant whitewashing of information that could possibly effect human health? Sorry, but I don't get it. It just seems that Jytdog is being held too high on a pedestal in comparison to other editors, some of whom have more tenure and have done a helluva lot more for the project than he is, which brings up another question. Other than protecting the Monsanto suite of articles, reverting seemingly round the clock, and overseeing COIN (which hasn't exactly been a delightful experience for several newbies and veteran editors) what am I overlooking? Perhaps someday someone can explain why Jytdog holds such a higher level of importance than other editors, and why it exceeds simply being a good content creator, editor and asset to the project. Do we sacrifice 5 assets for the sake of 1 simply because he and his supporters don't like the intrusion into their suite of articles? Seriously, I'd like to know because the evidence provided in defense of Jytdog simply doesn't hold up. Atsme📞📧 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that editors who I would have expected to support this seem to be opposing it, I tend to think that it really may not be needed. As for the language sounding like "day-care or pre-school", well, I'm a fan of WP:CIVIL (not that I never make mistakes), but more importantly, please understand that it isn't my language. It comes from what ArbCom wrote in a recent previous case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter, that's another reason against this. It's the seemingly perennial problem of civility enforcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the minimum sanction I would seek for Jytdog. Other editors he interacts with often are already acting incivil or tendentious, which leads to his exasperation. That does not excuse his behavior, but that context justifies using this remedy as a WP:ROPE approach (a tight one) with the expectation that other incivil editors will be removed from the topic at this case. If even after that he still has legitimate issues with this, there will be no one to blame but himself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This behaviour is not something one expects to encounter on a site like Wikipedia. Nor should they. petrarchan47คุก 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Good idea that would be a real mess if enacted. There is to my eyes a real problem of imprecise language here, particularly regarding the threshold line of insulting and/or belittling and the circumstances under which such comments are made. I'm reminded of when Bob Woodward was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera about his most recent book and said after some rather unintelligent questions something along the lines of "If you read the book, damn it..." That might be sanctionable under this, although, honestly, at least in the circumstance I mention here, Woodward in the original was probably much politer than most other people on the planet would have been in that situation. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petrarchan47 site-banned
4) Petrarchan47 is indefinitely site-banned from the English Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I think that the evidence is overwhelming that nothing less than a site ban is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am nothing less than astonished by this statement by Tryptofish. I vigorously oppose it and feel it clearly calls into question the objectivity of Tryptofish in this case. Jusdafax 06:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I too was extremely surprised to see this suggested remedy from Tryptofish. Tryptofish has obviously read the evidence in great detail and carefully considered his remedies (as indicated by the selective topic ban he has suggested for me - although I still disagree with this), but a site ban is just way too much.DrChrissy(talk) 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Where is this coming from? I've seen this editor to be reasonable and fair and to have make good contributions. SageRad (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appears to be an attempt to remove an editor they disagree with on content. Total lack of any evidence that supports this drastic outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There has not been one diff presented that supports such an extreme measure or even anything of a lesser degree. The suggestion raises question as to the motives behind it especially in light of all the diffs that demonstrate where the real behavioral issues lie. A review of Petra's user page and the barnstars and awards she has received from the community speaks volumes as to the credibility of this editor. In fact, the suggestion of a site ban flies in the face of the project's efforts to recruit more female editors. --Atsme📞📧 15:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that hurts editor retention efforts, whether male or female, if those editors are not working to spindoctor but are truly GF, hurts WP. We have lost a tremendous amount of independent editors in the past few years. No small amount have been banned or driven away by the group being named in this ArbCom (I believe these facts are already in evidence). petrarchan47คุก 01:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless pending evidence presented by Guy shows I have been harmful in some way. petrarchan47คุก 01:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a huge positive, IMO, but I would like to review more diffs. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, that's the way I see it, unfortunately. Everyone else above, it's worth remembering the case request phase, where I was reluctant to have a full case, and I would have preferred that the Arbs simply pass a motion like the Preliminary Injunction that they did pass. Then, we could have seen how that worked for a period of time. But there was instead a strong consensus that we needed to have a full case. And this is what happens when there is a full case. ArbCom is about putting disputes to rest. Now the Arbs have a real dispute to figure out, and they need to sort through everything that has been going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't even believe what I'm reading in these proposals from Tryptofish. There is no evidence presented to support this proposal. This appears to be an attempt to remove an editor because they have a different POV. I assume Arbs will consider the extreme proposals suggested by Tryptofish against only his idealogical opponents, despite mountains of evidence of worse behavior by editors who share his POV. Minor4th 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do believe there is enough evidence for a topic ban, but considering a site ban would need a look at articles outside the scope of this topic. Given the behavior I've seen here, a site ban could be a last resort that could be likely down the road if combative behavior doesn't stop, but there isn't evidence here to support that action now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Petrachan47 is one of the most intelligent editors I have observed. She is able to see the forest for the trees and is very adept at providing relevant RS and assessing good RS from questionable RS. Her arguments at the recent GMO RfC and assembling of information were outstanding. I agree with AlbinoFerret that the proposal is an attempt to win in a content dispute, and it has nothing to do with this editor's behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose. Utterly unsupported by the evidence. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I[reply]
I'm not sure there's enough for a site ban here, given the community's general difficulty in dealing effectively with civil POV-pushing, but Petrarchan47 is the user most in need of a topic ban. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The proposal to ban Petrarchan47 is preposterous, IMO. Searching my memory, I've only worked closely with her twice. The first time was at the BP article where she showed a willingness to do many hours of research and work well with other editors to present an unbiased article. The second time was at the March against Monsanto article where we both agreed that the article should be about the protest rather than a Wikipedia effort to present what some editors felt was a need to present a "scientific" rebuttal to the protester's views; we all finally came to an agreement, as best we could. And once again, her efforts were well-researched and presented in a consensus-reaching manner. If she has since been up to some sort of destructive editing I'd need to see evidence of it, since it is a fact that past behavior generally predicts future behavior and I am going by past behavior. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add: Continuing to search my memory, I also worked with Petra on the Edward Snowden article where she is the leading editor. It was at times a very difficult article to work on, but she always conducted herself well and kept her cool. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prokaryotes site-banned
5) Prokaryotes is indefinitely site-banned from the English Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'm somewhat ambivalent between this and a topic ban and interaction bans, but I lean towards a site ban on the basis that useful editing is unlikely. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Here again, utterly beyond reason.. I have known and worked with Tryptofish many years, and I have a sense of disbelief reading his comment. Jusdafax 06:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JusDaFax, Trypto provided in his evidence a link to comments I made on his talk page. In essence, Trypto has tripped up our ability for independent editors to get help regarding Jytdog time and time again. Always at noticeboards involving Jytdog his comments are in support, regardless of the offense. Editors have only the noticeboards and ArbCom, so weighing in simply out of an alignment with a person or idea, whilst ignoring real problems, is one reason we find ourselves here. petrarchan47คุก 20:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Prokaryotes has been a useful contributor and good participant in dialogue. I don't understand all the zeal for bans against editors who are reasonable and thoughtful and hard working. SageRad (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence that shows a reason for this drastic remedy. Appears to be yet another editor who the proposer disagrees with on the direction articles are taking. AlbinoFerret 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence supports the idea that Pro is anything but a good faith editor. The activity has been very recent, and all RS-based. The only problem Pro has was that one is simply not allowed to change the GMO articles, and Pro had the audacity to give it a go. petrarchan47คุก 01:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing to support such an extreme measure, and somewhat reminiscent of what occurs quite regularly at AN/I. Perhaps if evidence was made a strictly enforced requirement for ANI as it is for ArbCom, there would be far less drama. --Atsme📞📧 15:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There has been no evidence presented to support this. Not even close. Minor4th 20:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support/other options first. Definitely evidence for a topic ban and maybe some one-way interaction bans for editors they've been uncivil to. They have two blocks for disruptive behavior already, so while I don't think a site ban is justified quite yet, they will be sitting very close with WP:ROPE in mind after this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can see no evidence to support such an extreme sanction.DrChrissy(talk) 15:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
GregJackP site-banned
6) GregJackP is indefinitely site-banned from the English Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
GregJackP has stated that he has left Wikipedia: [147], following a conflict unrelated to this case scope: [148]. Taking together the evidence in this case, the previous sanctions by ArbCom, and the event that led to his retirement, it seems to me that a site ban is justified in the event that he wishes to return. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given the circumstances of Greg's retirement, in which he was repeatedly and shamefully goaded on his talk page, this site ban proposal can be viewed as a form of grave dancing that is tasteless in the extreme. Jusdafax 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose GregJackP has retired, also total lack of evidence that supports this outcome. AlbinoFerret 15:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - irrespective of GJP's retirement, which is a loss to the project because GJP was a content creator with FAs to his credit, Trypto appears to be calling for site-bans against editors who dared to speak out against or oppose Jytdog, which I find to be completely out of character for him. A review of the good things GJP has accomplished since returning speaks volumes. --Atsme📞📧 21:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no evidence presented that remotely supports this proposal. GJP was a valuable editor with many FA and GA to his name, one of only 5 editors ever to earn the Valiant Return Triple Crown. This proposal for a site-ban appears to be Tryptofish's attempt to remove editors who have spoken out about Jytdog's behavior. Minor4th 20:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is so much history with GregJackP's behavior that I don't think his minimal (yet disruptive) behavior in the scope of this case alone can justify a site ban (though maybe it could if looked at separately). I do think a topic ban and interaction bans would be helpful, but I think it's best for ArbCom to deliberate themselves on what do with a "retired" user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems to be another unsubstantiated proposal. petrarchan47คุก 00:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose Sorry, this is not substantiated by the evidence. GregJackP's involvement on the core GMO articles was minimal, and he intersected the topic area largely through his long-standing interest in legal articles, where Jytdog's involvement was frankly unhelpful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Opabinia regalis and my own reading of the Evidence section, there is no basis for a ban. The previous sanctions by ArbCom date from 2010 and should not be leveraged towards a ban 5 years later. The current evidence shows brief (1 revert) involvement in an edit war, and some conflict outside of the area of this case, but no serious or sustained breaches of policies or guidelines.Dialectric (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy topic-banned
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
A topic ban expansion is needed in addition to an interaction ban, to prevent DrChrissy from having "first mover" privileges in the content area. I have worded this proposal very specifically so as not to prevent DrChrissy from editing in veterinary subjects, where DrChrissy is a valuable editor; this applies only to plants and chemicals, not to animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: DrChrissy is a good editor, generally follows guidelines, and is civil and open to constructive criticism and dialogue. DrChrissy has been party to the battleground environment and sometimes in a tug of war with other editors of different points of view, but is not overly combative or tendentious in his/her own editing. SageRad (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Drastic outcome that the proposer reasons is needed to reinforce a interaction ban that shows no evidence of being needed. AlbinoFerret 15:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the TB actually needs to point away from animal welfare experts to possibly exposing the money trail that leads to research grants and/or pro-industry positions where some of these conflicts appear to originate, or so it seems to those of us who don't edit those topic areas. --Atsme📞📧 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per SageRad. Draconian, for starters. Jusdafax 08:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mainly because DrChrissy has been warned many times for testing the limits of their topic ban and that they should avoid this topic by the topic banning admin and others.[149] This is already either within or on the edge of their topic ban depending on which part of the article they are in, so this is a relatively minor expansion. As Tryptofish mentioned, this is needed with the inevitable interaction ban between Jytdog and DrChrissy to prevent further issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting this is totally illogical and shows clearly the vexatious attitude Kingofaces43 has toward me. If I have violated my topic ban (which I have not) why should I be further topic banned on genetically modified plants - articles which I have never edited? You might as well do a random selection of any WP article to try to creep the limits of my ban. It is just as logical to topic ban me from Paint! As I have stated before, Glyphosate is a herbicide. I remain surprised that this article is included as GMO-related, other than it is a substance created by Monsanto and editors apparently protective of the company heavily defend it. Your support is illogical.DrChrissy(talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To be honest, I have never seen problems with this editor. Most certainly none exist with regard to the GMO suite, that I have seen. (I've been at the GM page since May 28, have problems occurred at another page?) petrarchan47คุก 00:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to note that the editors seen by the Jytdog group as highly problematic don't experience problems in other areas of the project. petrarchan47คุก 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am puzzled by these proposed topic bans. I don't think I have made a single edit on any genetically modified plant (please correct me if I am wrong) so why should I be topic banned from these articles? Similarly, I think the only agricultural chemical article I have edited is Glyphosate (again, please correct me if I am wrong). I have edited Glyphosate primarily to indicate the prevalence of glyphosate and toxicity to wildlife (please note, this relates to Animal Welfare, one of my core editing interests). These edits resulted in some rather heated discussions indicating WP:OWN and POV by other parties, but throughout, I remained civil and tried to make the best quality edits possible. There is insufficient evidence for me to receive this topic ban.DrChrissy(talk) 15:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
DrChrissy – Jytdog interaction ban
8) DrChrissy and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Needed to quell conflict between the two. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This might be needed, but I question if it isnt already technically in force because both have asked the other to stay off their talk page. No need to formally make it in force unless there is evidence that the two of them are not adhering to the requests to stay off of the talk pages. So far there is no evidence of that. AlbinoFerret 15:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that won't be enough is that the disputes extend beyond their two user talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done because as my evidence shows, Jytdog posted to my Talk Page immediately after I banned him from it and then posted to my sandbox. I have respected Jytdog's banning of me from his Talk Page. I have been informed by other editors that Jytdog has also ignored their Talk Page bans. Again there is a commonality here.DrChrissy(talk) 17:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Tryptofish has called for six, two-way user interaction bans. Each one of these six proposed remedies involves Jytdog. Surely this commonality points to the behaviour of a single individual, Jytdog, rather than the behaviour of six other editors.DrChrissy(talk) 19:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with DrChrissy's observation. Atsme📞📧 15:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logical flaw is that it assumes that there is parity between both parties in a given interaction ban. Similarly, there are administrators who attract more critics than other editors, but that does not mean that the administrators are the ones who are creating problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tryp, it isn't a logical flaw. It's an illogical excuse when you have a single editor who has repeatedly affected a community of editors in a negative way, enough so that it washes much of the good he has accomplished. In general, favoritism, double standards, biases, grudges, retaliation and advocacies do not belong here. What we need most is professionalism, fairness, neutrality, and fact-based evidence, not aspersions. I see that your defense of Jytdog goes back a long way so you've invested a great deal of time as his defender. If nothing else, it proves to me that you are a loyal supporter which I find to be an admirable trait. However, I'm concerned that you may not be seeing the elephant in the room, much less smelling the peanuts on his breath. Atsme📞📧 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tryptofish. It is a logical fallacy to believe that, because all six proposed interaction bans involve Jytdog, that Jytdog is to blame. It is equally likely, from a purely logical standpoint, that the six authors are to blame, not Jytdog. (My personal opinion, if anyone's interested, is that all seven authors are to blame.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No question this should be two-way. Regardless of interactions between the two before GMOs or claims that DrChrissy followed Jytdog into the topic while previously not editing in it, the two functionally cannot edit in the same environment. Removing the interaction should quell a lot of issues. Kingofaces43
Oppose as insufficient because Jytdog's disruptive behaviour occurs with multiple editors and on multiple pages. This proposed ban would simply not remedy the problem.DrChrissy(talk) 15:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
SageRad topic-banned
9) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
No need for any interaction bans, but a topic ban is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - An attempt to shut down a contributor who argues in ways some people don't like. Jusdafax 06:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Obviously, i disagree profoundly. A topic ban would be the most ridiculous thing i could imagine. I edit for the good of the articles. I have a point of view just like everyone else but i am not pushing an agenda, but on the contrary i am working to prevent agendas from being pushed, and to work out differences among editors by clarifying what is going on. I follow the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia to make stronger articles. SageRad (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, I really do see you differently than I see most of the other parties in this case. It's true that you are noticeably more civil than many others. It's also true that you stand out as not being an unpleasant presence at dispute noticeboards. Up to the day before the Evidence closed, I was going to oppose any actions against you. But when I saw the evidence that Kingofaces brought forth, I had to change my mind.
But I'll say this: I would see nothing wrong with changing "twelve months" to "six months" in this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This contributor edits in contentious areas but remains civil throughout sometimes heated discussions and as far as I can see, always edits for the benefit of the project. He might have different points of view to more vociferous editors, but a legitimate difference of opinion should never be used to impose sanctions.DrChrissy(talk) 17:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing provided rises to the level of this drastic outcome. AlbinoFerret 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've made an extensive argument in favor of Sage already. petrarchan47คุก 00:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per FOF here. The topic ban in this case is to remove SageRad from the topic partially due to behavior issues, but also to force them to edit in other areas that aren't as controversial and evaluate how they do otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Wuerzele topic-banned
10) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose: That would be ridiculous. Wuerzele is a hard-working editor who puts in the time to do the real housekeeping edits, correcting links and grammar, and seems to edit with respect for the guidelines. SageRad (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only tendentious comment i've ever seen from Wuerzele was this where he laid into Geogene for commenting after commenting on a couple other edits i've made in the past, but i just attributed it to Wuerzele being defensive after seeing others appearing to target me and follow my edits from one article to another. I replied saying that i don't mind and actually appreciate Geogene's fact-checking tendencies. They've held me to a higher standard and that's what Wikipedia is all about. SageRad (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's apparent Wuerzele cannot edit civilly in this topic from the evidence presented at this case [150] with respect to aspersions of being pro-industry, other attacks, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[151] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows two diffs, the punishment doesnt fit. AlbinoFerret 05:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see incivilty or any other problems with this editor. I agree with Sage that Wuerzele is hard-working and does great work. petrarchan47คุก 00:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see the evidence to warrant such a harsh sanction.DrChrissy(talk) 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence to support this. Minor4th 19:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing to support such a preposterous remedy. It makes no sense whatsoever to eliminate mainstream physicians/scientists in an effort to better promote a mainstream POV? (scratching my head in deep thought over this one). Atsme📞📧 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Wuerzele – Jytdog interaction ban
11) Wuerzele and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'm undecided whether there should also be an interaction ban between Wuerzele and Kingofaces43. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any reservations against a one-way interaction ban (no problems discussing two-way if there is actually is evidence I need it), but I'm satisfied with a topic ban from this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please see my comment here.[152]DrChrissy(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Part of the purpose of this case should be to prevent interactions from editors that are uncivil. There's plenty of evidence for pointiness from Wuerzele here, and I don't think Jytdog can functionally work with Wuerzele anymore either, so two-way seems appropriate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[153] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows two diffs. Nothing that rises to the level of the proposed sanction. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
David Tornheim topic-banned
12) David Tornheim is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support. per findings of fact.[154][155]. Similar to SageRad, this should be intended to remedy advocacy behavior seen in how much they focus on the topic and force them to other topics to see if their other behavior improves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[156] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows nothing that warrants this. AlbinoFerret 05:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose David has done good work and hasn't caused a stir. There is absolutely no basis for this proposal. petrarchan47คุก 00:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any evidence to warrant such a harsh sanction.DrChrissy(talk) 16:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence to support any of this. The proposer is suggesting we tBan at least 5 or 6 productive editors to stop the disrupution caused by 2 highly controversial editors who have raised serious questions about their compliance with NPOV, RS, bullying, own and incivility? (must find other places to scratch as my head is raw) Atsme📞📧 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
David Tornheim – Jytdog interaction ban
13) David Tornheim and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'm undecided whether there should also be an interaction ban between David Tornheim and Kingofaces43. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an interaction ban is needed involving me. If there are issues in the future, that can be taken care of at ArbCom enforcement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment here[157]DrChrissy(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Minor4th – Jytdog interaction ban
14) Minor4th and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Negligible editing in the topic area, so no reason for a topic ban. I'm undecided whether there should also be an interaction ban between Minor4th and Kingofaces43. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really undecided on this one since Minor4th's involvement has been recent, but concerning. Probably best for the committee to propose anything related to Minor4th. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there was no evidence presented to support this.
The notion that interaction bans are being proposed between Jytdog and half a dozen or so other editors really brings into focus the locus of the dispute-- Jytdog's inability to get along with and work collaboratively with many editors. Minor4th 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to ask yourself why you would want to continue to interact with him. And please remember that this would also prevent him from interacting with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's an obvious answer to that question -- I don't want sanctions in my user logs that are completely unwarranted and unsupported by even a scintilla of evidence. No one in this case has presented a single diff of any uncivil or troublesome communication that I have directed at Jytdog. I encourage you to provide even one diff where I have spoken to Jytdog in an uncivil tone. There are none - and you should strongly consider striking this proposal, as it has the appearance of being motivated by extreme bias towards Jytdog. Please remember the Arb instruction at the top of each page that each allegation of misbehavior must be clearly supported by evidence or not made at all. Minor4th 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similarly, please see my comment above.[158]DrChrissy(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated in this section[159] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows nothing that could warrant this. AlbinoFerret 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please, to suggest iBanning every editor who disagrees with Jytdog will give him free reign over the encyclopedia. It appears he has that now to the extent of his control over everything GMO, ag-tech, et al. Isn't the latter the disruption we're trying to resolve? Atsme📞📧 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose - the Evidence section has almost no difs involving Minor4th, who has minimal involvement in the area of genetically modified organisms. None of these difs would reasonably form the basis for an interaction ban, or a restriction of any kind.Dialectric (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AlbinoFerret – Jytdog interaction ban
15) AlbinoFerret and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Negligible editing in the topic area, so no reason for a topic ban. I'm undecided whether there should also be an interaction ban between AlbinoFerret and Kingofaces43. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure on this one, but I think it's better for the committee to make their own proposal on AlbinoFerret's involvement if anything is going to happen. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence presented that this is needed, and I dont think its necessary. AlbinoFerret 15:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to ask yourself why you would want to continue to interact with him. And please remember that this would also prevent him from interacting with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be necessary in the future to ask him a question. While not in evidence, I have discussed things with him on his talk page that were not about issues. He even proposed the redirect name for my essay, which I then created. Whats being discussed on these pages and in noticeboard sections are about behaviour, not because of past problems. Unless behaviour issues are pointed out and discussed there is really little opportunity for change. So far they have been discussed, but no long term change has been shown, sadly we are at the final steps because of that. AlbinoFerret 00:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out elsewhere, I have supported Jytdog in the past.[160] As stated in this section[161] Tryptofish is basing all of these sections solely on the evidence Tryptofish provided. That evidence shows nothing that could warrant this.AlbinoFerret 02:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please see my comment here.[162]DrChrissy(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence to support an interaction ban imposed on AlbinoFerret. Minor4th 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - echoing reasons above plus reasons I've provided for iBans against other editors. Atsme📞📧 14:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Atsme – Jytdog interaction ban
16) Atsme and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Negligible editing in the topic area, so no reason for a topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment here.[163]DrChrissy(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Atsme has other behavior issues that should be brought up elsewhere, but there are plenty of other editors that can do that. I do think some behavior issues Jytdog tried to work with on Atsme were very warranted, but it's better at this point to just end the interactions entirely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - evidence supports a one-way iBan against Jytdog. The unwarranted attempts to prevent me from participating at noticeboards and providing supporting evidence by the same group of editors has been relentless, and should raise all kinds of red flags. Their desperation to get me blocked and banned from noticeboards is included in my evidence and deserves closer scrutiny by ArbCom. The correlation of events supports the POV_railroading that occured as a result of the statements made by committee members in their close of my COIN Abuse case; i.e., basically a close without prejudice for future reference after other attempts of DR have been exhausted.09:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Further, Kingofaces has been antagonistic toward me and is casting aspersions by making false allegations of me having "other behavior issues" and is making threats of it being "brought up elsewhere". What he is doing now is the kind of behavior that is actionable. Atsme📞📧 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There has been no evidence presented that Atsme's communications toward Jytdog have been uncivil or otherwise inappropriate. Minor4th 18:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A site ban for Jytdog would make all the interaction bans a reality. petrarchan47คุก 04:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skyring/Pete is definitely involved and contentious in this topic area and should be considered in this case as a contributor to the contentious nature of editing in this topic area, and agenda-pushing, as shown in many discussions like this one. I'm puzzled why he's not included in this case when it's obvious to me he's creating contention and obstructing and logjamming good editing practices. SageRad (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Sage Rad. Jusdafax 09:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a party. These days the committee is reluctant to add parties at a late stage. Plus, if accepted as a party, it would need diffs, Roger Daviestalk 11:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRad: The decision to add is usually the drafters' call. Best to ping them directly, Roger Daviestalk 17:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuerzele: No, I'm not recused or similar so there's no problem about going active on the case. (I've adjusted the template accordingly.) Roger Daviestalk 17:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Perhaps a reasonable point, but, honestly, simply including someone isn't necessary that useful unless you have some sort of specific action which you think the ArbCom should take against him. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it's a late stage, but i had requested his inclusion earlier, noting his tendencies in my initial statement and user Jusdafax requested such on the 28th of September here as well and then asked again a couple days later and then a couple days later, i wrote on Guerillero's talk page as he'd requested for anyone asking to add parties to the case, and in the end there has been no response or action about this. As i've currently been seeing problematic behaviors by Skyring continuing, while we're trying to work it out amongst each other, i still think that he ought to be a party to this case. It seems very late at this point but i wanted to point out that this was not the first attempt to request this, but rather seems like a breakdown of the process. SageRad (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Roger Davies, we havent met. thanks for your comments. I admit I have honestly been puzzled by your edits on these pages. you are listed as not active on this case. while it didnt say why, i assumed that meant recusal from my reading of the policy guidelines. Did you ? If so I dont understand your posting opinions and predictions what arbcom typically does. It looks like activity, not as a regular editor like myself but activity as sitting arbcom member. Can you explain me how/why your posts do not count as activity? You are one of the longest serving members and in my experience, backed up by published evidence, seniority voicing opinions influence "younger" members of a team. Sincerely,--Wuerzele (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
About these "problematic behaviours". The context is this reversion. SageRad wrote: "[Monsanto has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products".
This is a standard content dispute which we habitually resolve by calm discussion on Talk, so we review the discussion on Talk and we find that Skyring is being accused of having an agenda, and WP:BAITing, and responding with admirable calmness. So yes, this is pertinent to the discussion at hand, but only as another data point documenting the bunker mentality of anti-Monsanto editors.
And actually the text that Skyring removed seems to me to be distinctly problematic: how many lawsuits? How many of these have been about the product rather than pollution? Agent Orange is about the product, the dioxin case was about an accidental release in a train wreck, PCBs are about pollution and industrial exposure of workforce - on the face of it the text that was removed is, at best, a simplistic interpretation of a much more complex set of facts, and removal was entirely legitimate especially since it was not linked to a WP:RS that made the same claim (we must guard against WP:SYN, after all).
There are "problematic behaviours" here alright, but they are not the ones SageRad appears to want us to see. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Per WP:CONS "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i. e., to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
I think this is an unreal, too highly strung ideal for the issue at hand (GMO-suite of articles) where consensus has just not happened, if you look at the worst places (e.g. currently [[Talk:Monsanto legal cases or glyphosate)--Wuerzele (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Wuerzele. There is a lack of GF effort to come to any consensus. The goal is clearly to prevent change. Besides the RfC, not one of the talk page sections at GMO resulted in change to the article since I've been there. But there is no shortage of 'talking'. petrarchan47คุก 04:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Edit warring is to be avoided
2) Per the edit warring page WP:EDITWAR "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus." There is a bright line policy called the 3RR rule WP:3RR that states no editor may make more than 3 reverts to a page within 24 hours.
Support, goes without saying. Again, in the reality of the issue at hand, edit wars do happen and the current situation is that a tag team wins. 3RR is of limited help, like page protection, stalling things. There needs to be more discipline and prevention built into the above principle to work, like 1 RR, or as you mentioned mandatory third opinion/dispute resolution. I also think the endless walls of text on talkpages act as a kind of weapon, a smoke bomb, that makes it very hard for newbies to enter the conflict, I myself have a hard time and I admire the arbitrators who have to wade through our diffs/evidence. And uninvolved editors can be the rescue. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3) Per the WP:TAGTEAM essay "Tag teaming .... is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus."
Comment by Arbitrators:
There's probably insufficiently strong consensus in the community to accept this as a principle. The last time something like was proposed as a principle (in 2013), it failed. It's just too easy to get false positives, Roger Daviestalk 11:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very important to mention for this suite of articles. There should be accessible disciplinary actions and sanctions against it.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am perplexed that nobody else expressed an opinion here, because it turned up as evidence by numerous parties (Atsme, Minor4th, DrChrissy, Petrarchh47 and possibly others. Is there really an "insufficiently strong consensus in the community to accept this as a principle"?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to Wuerzele). I suspect this was simply a case of oversight and fatigue. I certainly am in support of it, as I suspect others who have denigrated tag-teaming here are. But of course we cannot assume that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of that is probably because this is all really up to arbitrators (I haven't commented on all proposals I agree or disagree with). That being said, the false positive issue or editors not accepting consensus (or lack of it) calling that tag-teaming makes this functionally a difficult proposal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jtrevor99 is entirely correct. petrarchan47คุก 03:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tag teaming is one of the more destructive practices that has been pointed out in this case. petrarchan47คุก 03:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I do support the concept that tag-team edit warring is a big problem as shown here, but since Roger Davies already said it was unlikely to pass, it seemed pointless to push it. I agree with Kingofaces43 that the Arbitrators are likely going to make up their own language for principles as necessary to support their decision, so I have hardly commented on any. For experienced Wikipedians, looking up a relevant principle is relatively easy. It is not like law, where the judges' discretion is limited to statute and case law that must be first recited and carefully adhered to. After all, one rule of Wikipedia is that there are "no firm rules" (the last of the 5 pillars) WP:5P5 and one can "ignore all rules" WP:IGNORE. Somehow I don't really believe that. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I never liked the jargon term "meat puppet". What a terrible metaphor. I just can't picture it. (sock puppet I get.). That's the other reason I avoided this one. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Civility is required
4) Civility is required, especially in contentious topics. Editors in areas where the topics are contentious should take extra steps to avoid uncivil behaviour. Personal attacks and harassment are unnecessary and is to be avoided.
Support, if not stepping it up to the IMO broader term decorum, as defined on this page by Arbcom. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Minor4th 17:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wuuerzele's example from Agent Orange is particularly concerning when viewed alongside the related talk page discussion where Jytdog refuses to assume good faith and aggressively opposes the addition even after his initial reasoning for a revert, copyvio, is proved false. Also, tangentially concerning because Jrtayloriv, who had over 17,000 editsstopped editing wikipedia after this exchange.Dialectric (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, Alexbrn, Kingofaces43 and Yobol have engaged in tag teaming
2) Editors have engaged in tag teaming during edit wars. Jytdog and Alexbrn have been shown to have engaged in edit warring, and tag teaming to circumvent the WP:3RR rule. Evidence in the form of diffs was provided by RoseL2P in their opening statement.[199]
Other instances involving Jytdog, Yobol. and Kingofaces are found here:
As entered into evidence in David Tornheim's opening statement, this AN/I is quite telling.[212] Kingofaces43 lists another example where he and Jytdog teamed up to revert, here is the diff from that section to make it easier to find.[213]
As people with similar interests will often - entirely innocently - make the same reverts, it is probably necessary to show patterns of interleaving reverts (which might be suggestive of complicity) to make the tag team allegation stick, Roger Daviestalk 11:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. please add the following diffs, per my evidence: 29 April 2015 Jytdog reverts [269], [270] by king, [271], [272], [273] by king.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wurzele missed that on the evidence page, added. AlbinoFerret 16:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Diffs do not indicate tag-teaming, only multiple editors disagreeing with the content and attempts to edit war it in without reaching consensus rather than coordinated tag-teaming. Each set of diffs show another editor trying to edit war in content with issues in rather than reach consensus on the talk page first. I should also point out that citation of the highly controversial essay WP:AVDUCK and the concept behind it is tendentious and casting aspersions. Close inspection of the listed diffs should indicate the claims made here are misleading. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What I find very telling here is that on the Foie gras article, after I had a few editorial skirmishes with Alexbrn, Jytdog suddenly appears and starts disruptive editing supporting him,[274] although Jytdog has never edited the article before.Foie gras is so far out of Jytdog's stated editing interests I cannot believe it was on his watch-list. I think this was my very first ever encounter with Jytdog, so it is extremely unlikely he would have followed me there from any of my pages or edits. This leaves the only rational explanation to be tag-teaming - perhaps involving offwiki communications, perhaps not.DrChrissy(talk) 20:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Jytdog, Alexbrn, Kingofaces43 and Yobol have engaged in edit wars
2) Jytdog, Alexbrn, Kingofaces43 and Yobol have engaged in edit warring in violation of the WP:3RR rule.
Other instances involving Jytdog, Yobol. and Kingofaces are found here:
As entered into evidence in David Tornheim's opening statement, this AN/I is quite telling.[287] Kingofaces43 lists another example where he and Jytdog teamed up to revert, here is the diff from that section to make it easier to find.[288]
Support Self evident from the evidence provided.DrChrissy(talk) 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
partial Support -- support all, except for Alexbrn. I did not see evidence of edit warring in evidence in this proceeding--but I may have missed it. If it is here, and pointed out to me, I will change my vote. Although I believe I have seen Alexbrn engage in edit wars with the others, unless it is in evidence, I cannot support it here as a matter of due process.I see Alexbrn evidence above, although possibly on the light side For Yobol, evidence of edit-waring includes material discussed by myself and Wuerzele in Minor4th's proposed Findings of Fact Re: Yobol. For Kingoface43's edit warring, see also Minor4th's proposed Findings of Fact Re: Yobol. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 02:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support based on my experience and the diffs in this thread. petrarchan47คุก 04:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Jytdog has engaged in harassment and incivility
1) As evident by the evidence Jytdog has engaged in incivility and harassment. All diffs below are in evidence by Minor4th, LesVegas, and Opabinia. But there is much much more.
"If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be"[344]
"oh for fuck's sake. use the interaction tool and see how many times i have interacted with her. if you got around more you would know her reputation"[352]
"The conversation above is incredibly.. fucking... stupid."[353]
"editing alt-med articles is unproductive and ugly because people who work on them don't listen or try to reach consensus and often don't understand or apply policies and guidelines well. and you are a case in point"[359]
Compelling. Minor4th 01:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These diffs are sunning and staggering. I was unaware the problem was this bad. Those supporting, apologizing and otherwise enabling Jytdog have much to answer for. This is a pattern of premeditated hate.Jusdafax 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yep, thanks for listing AlbinoFerret, as some seem not to have seen that. yet this is the tip of the iceberg, as there are many more and less shocking ones, like 'stupid' or 'damn...' per my evidence submission.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is ultimately what brought us here. This behaviour has been excused and ignored, covered up by loud, aggressive attacks on the 'opposition' by Jytdog and others. petrarchan47คุก 17:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the effort in constructing the list and I second the statements that there is much more.DrChrissy(talk) 16:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support evidence for this is overwhelming. Even administrator Guy/JzG agrees in the last paragraph of his/her evidence. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
@Jusdafax: I haven't had time to keep up with this case, but since my evidence was cited here I wanted to respond to your comment. The description premeditated hate is way over the top and not consistent with the evidence. What I intended to show, and what I think is supported by the collected diffs, is quite different: that Jytdog gets emotionally invested in arguments and then makes inappropriately moralizing personal judgments about perceived opponents - the language he uses is distinctive - which tend to come off more harshly and precipitate more interpersonal conflict than ordinary, routine "incivility" would. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used some of the diff's you gathered Opabinia regalis, thanks for adding them. I also agree that we dont need to go over the top, what is shown is enough. As for the emotional involvement, I think that hits the nail on the head. The percentages of edits to the pages also show this to an extent. They are simply staggering and also the amount of time invested to engage in that type of involvement does point to attachment. AlbinoFerret 21:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been really busy offline and am probably not being clear here, sorry. What I mean by "emotional involvement" is not about some kind of emotional connection to the topic area - for that, I make no claim either way - but rather about a style of participation in disputes. That kind of personalization isn't uncommon, but is particularly incompatible with the pattern of tendentious editing coming from editors on the other "side". Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that someone yelled at another editor (in all caps) then called that editor a "nightmare editor" and wasn't blocked for it. For crying out loud WP admins, where were you? Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blindly obvious and yes, admins, where were you? Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A long term issue, and one that has continued after he accepted a warning at AN/I in march 2015, as evinced by his comments on GregJackP's page, (in Minor4th's evidence) difDialectric (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Jytdog, Kingofaces43, and Alexbrn are blocked
1) Jytdog, Kingofaces43, and Alexbrn have engaged in edit warring and tag teaming to circumvent the 3RR rule. They are blocked from wikipedia. Appeal of their blocks can be made after 1 year. They are also permanently restricted to a 0RR rule in that they can not rerevert something that any of the others listed in this case have reverted on wikipedia in the past 24 hours if the block is removed.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Interestingly novel, but I don't think that this is usable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very carefully considered and proportionate proposed remedy. These three editors are at the very core of so many problems in the topic area and also well beyond in some cases (e.g. Foie gras) They need time away from the project to consider their editing behaviour and attitude toward other editors who might simply not have the same opinion as they have. Having a different opinion is not a crime.DrChrissy(talk) 22:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposebut only with these added measures: lifetime topic bans for medical, pharmaceutical and biotech areas, including and especially articles about those who question the safety of the aforementioned topics, with no ability to appeal the topic bans. Because it is so easy to game the !voting system, there should be no chance for appeal for Jytdog. The problems with this user are too deep to expect that after a year, his participation will not result in the same bullying, game-playing and tag-teaming. From what I have observed, for this user appears to take some sort of enjoyment in bullying and wielding power. This is the type of personality for whom lifetime bans should be seriously considered since we depend upon editors to act as a community, not as Kings. petrarchan47คุก 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since 1 year may not make a differeence, I would support a permanent block, as Petrarchan47 appears to hint at (?), but even that is of limited value IMO, as nobody can stop these editors to open a new account from a different IP address.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero I was unsure if a block or topic ban was better, so I added both in case one was unworkable. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
partial Support: support for all specified users above, except for Alexburn (see my comment in these Findings of Fact). This behavior of circumventing the 3RR rules has been shown in evidence, and I have observed it many times myself to block material this group does not want included. This behavior is the cause of the articles lacking NPOV and their method of exerting ownership of content. If this solution is unworkable, an alternative that is even more strict is acceptable to me (noting concerns of Petrarchan47 and Wuerzele). --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 12:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
Alexbrn is not a named party for this case. Those who are not named as parties should not be subject to long term blocks by arbcom unless they are given notification and time to present evidence in their defense.Dialectric (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn commented during the case request. He also presented evidence during the evidence phase. The evidence used against him here was from a case request [364] that came before his. He was aware of the evidence and should have prepared evidence if any were needed to defend himself. He is able to comment here just like any other community member. While not a named party, it is well understood that when you post in dispute resolution its possible a boomerang will hit you. AlbinoFerret 05:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, Kingofaces43, and Alexbrn are topic banned
2) Jytdog, Kingofaces43, and Alexbrn have engaged in edit warring and tag teaming to circumvent the 3RR rule. They are topic banned from GMO related articles broadly construed. Appeal of their banns can be made after 1 year. They are also permanently restricted to a 0RR rule in that they can not rerevert something that any of the others listed in this case have reverted on wikipedia in the past 24 hours if the block is removed.
Oppose, because I think topic ban is insufficient.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It really is an alternative. While I think the evidence is strong, I know the final proposed decision will be drafted by the arbs. This is an alternate in case they think the evidence isnt as strong as I believe it to be. AlbinoFerret 04:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele, I suggest you underline or bold that the remedy is insufficient, or you may give the false impression that the party should not be held accountable at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
partial Support -- support for all specified users above, except for Alexburn (see my comment in these Findings of Fact). -- based on evidence presented here, and based on my own editing experiences in these topics and my observations of these users' editing and ownership behaviors in these (and other) topic areas. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 13:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose as an insufficient remedy.DrChrissy(talk) 16:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Yobol has jumped into edit wars and has joined in tag teaming
3) It has been shown that Yobol jumped into edit wars to continue reverting when Jytdog could no longer do so. He is topic banned from GMO articles broadly construed. Appeal of this bans can be made after 1 year. He is also permanently restricted to a 0RR rule in that he can not rerevert something that any of the other tag team members listed in this case have reverted on wikipedia in the past 24 hours.
Comment by Arbitrators:
This is editorialising. We really need the facts (supported by diffs) in a FOF and a separate remedy. Roger Daviestalk 11:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies I did include Yobol in the tag teaming FOF section and it has a diff. Do I need to make separate FOF for each editor? The reason I split him up is that I didnt think the evidence of his involvement in the tag teams was strong enough for the remedy the other 3 editors recieve. I have also added a FOF for simple edit warring using the same evidence and will make a separate remedy for it since its provable they all were in edit wars. AlbinoFerret 14:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Topic ban seems reasonable.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Jytdog is blocked for incivility
4) Jytdog has engaged in harassment, personal attacks and incivility against multiple editors. While he apologises when caught, the behaviour repeats itself later. He is therefore blocked for 6 months with a warning that further problems of this kind will result in longer blocks.
Opposed: Evidence conclusive, but I think a6 month block would be insufficient. Since per Guerillero, arb com doesnt do temporary blocks, I suggest an indefinite ban.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (added emphasis and Guerrillero's info)--Wuerzele (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have made it longer, and probably should have Wuerzele but the final drafting of the sanctions in the next phase will be by the arbs, and they can make it longer. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you underline or bold that the remedy is insufficient, or you may give the false impression that the party should not be held accountable at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Evidence of this is conclusive. However, I echo Wuerzele's opinion that this is inadequate and a longer period (including indefinitely) would send a more appropriate message, but it is certainly better than the status quo. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because I think the remedy is insufficient/requires a little more clarity I think I read in this case somewhere that ArbCom do not ban for a specific period - it is automatically indefinite but can be appealed after a stated period of time. In my own proposals, I have proposed Jytdog is indefinitely site-banned which can be appealed after 12 months - but I also indicate a life-time ban might be appropriate.DrChrissy(talk) 22:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you underline or bold that the remedy is insufficient, or you may give the false impression that the party should not be held accountable at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Support block of some length. The relatively minor incivility I was exposed to from him at BP pales in comparison to what's been set forth here. No excuse for it, and as Judge Wapner used to say on The People's Court, "I'm sorry doesn't help." Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support block for incivility. Length is up to arbcom. The Wikipedia Terms of Use specifically include 'Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.' From the findings of fact, Jytdog has shown repeatedly that he will not or cannot abide by this.Dialectric (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Alexbrn, and Yobol are blocked for edit warring
As shown above Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Alexbrn, and Yobol have engaged in edit warring during multi party wars. They are blocked from wikipedia. Appeal of their blocks can be made after 1 year. They are also permanently restricted to a 0RR rule in that they can not rerevert something that any of the others listed in this case have reverted on wikipedia in the past 24 hours if the block is removed.
Comment: The evidence to support this is overwhelming from my experience, but I'm not sure if we were able to gather enough evidence to support this action, unfortunately. petrarchan47คุก 04:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Alexbrn, and Yobol are topic banned for edit warring
As shown above Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Alexbrn, and Yobol have engaged in edit warring during multi party wars. They are topic banned from wikipedia. Appeal of their bans can be made after 1 year. They are also permanently restricted to a 0RR rule in that they can not rerevert something that any of the others listed in this case have reverted on wikipedia in the past 24 hours if the block is removed.
Support (partly). In my opinion, these 4 editors should not receive equal sanctions. Unfortunately, Jytdog's behaviour goes way, way beyond just edit warring and is serious enough to require an indefinite site ban and potentially receive a life-time site ban (please see my own proposals). Kingofaces43 has engaged in other undesirable behaviours (e.g. recently casting aspersions within this case - diffs can be provided) which are sanctionable. Alexbrn has also cast aspersions about COI within this case. There is no doubt that all 3 (Kingofaces43, Alexbrn and Yobol) have edit warred and often in a way that looks suspiciously like team-edit warring. I therefore support these 3 are all topic banned indefinitely with appeal allowed only 12 months after the close of this case. I also support the permanent 0RR restriction.DrChrissy(talk) 23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4) Jytdog has engaged in edit warring. He is therefore topic banned for 6 months with a warning that further problems of this kind will result in longer bans.
Support: Of all of AF's proposals this is the only temporary, non-appealable, "escalatory" sanction. I do prefer a life time ban, but short of that, I think this non-appealable ban with a built in escalation if problems recur is the second best solution.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
The present injunction is made permanent
1) The injunction in place now is made the DS for the topic area going forth.
Oppose. Always is "always" wrong, even if plus ça change..., . things change. I suggest injunction x 6 months and see- maybe 13 months is needed until after the US presidential elections .... ?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Anti tag teaming wording is added
2) In addition to the DS above wording is added that from the third editor and on, involved in reverting the same material within 24 hours, is topic banned from the articles. First instance is 24 hours and additional time is added for each instance afterwards.
Edit:Added "in 24 hours" wording. Added "from" before the third editor, the same material, and commas. AlbinoFerret 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comment I think you could make a better argument that anyone re-adding something that has already been shot down twice that day is the one being disruptive. The further an edit is from consensus, usually the more editors there will be that are willing to revert it, so in the long run the proposal would tend to reward edit warriors. It will also be hard to enforce: admins would have to study the page history in fairly deep detail while keeping track of whoever is under a topic ban on that particular day. And, good luck to anyone that isn't studying the page history before editing. 0RRs work because they apply to everyone and don't require scouring page histories for admins to enforce. Geogene (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geogene, This is in addition to the first restriction. My thinking was the first editor adds something, a second one reverts, the first editor reverts the revert. Now we are at the point where both the original parties have used up the 1RR that is part of the DS. The next reverter is the third editor, this is who the restriction is aimed at. At this point to avoid edit warring and possible tag teams it should move to the talk page. Adding more reverting by others isnt helpful. AlbinoFerret 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't applying a revert restriction to the page itself accomplish the same? With the usual blocks for violations rather than temporary topic bans. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there will already be a 1RR to the page, this proposal is in addition to the one above. But without this we could have a string of editors reverting and rereverting tagging to defeat the purpose. The proposal is to put a stop to reverting and force talk page discussion. AlbinoFerret 01:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an interesting, new proposal. was there a spelling error with "one" instead of "on involved.."?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added from and commas to hopefully make it more clear. AlbinoFerret 05:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because editing in teams makes a 1RR restriction quite irrelevant. petrarchan47คุก 22:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia has an informal policy that generally allows editors to avoid sanction or block for violating a policy by quickly apologizing to the offended or targeted party. Situations in which this occurs usually fall under WP:NPA in which the offending editor belittles, mocks, insults, ridicules, or disparages another editor, either in an edit or in an edit summary. If the offending editor quickly apologizes, strikes through his/her comments, or otherwise withdraws or retracts the comment in question, sanction is usually avoided. In general, this approach appears to be effective at helping regulate editor behavior.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I'll cover in the next principle how it applies to this case. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using apologies as a bullying tactic
2) Editors aware of the community norm expressed in the principle above may use it to repeatedly violate WP:NPA and similar WP policies. An example would be mocking an editor, then quickly striking through the comment or saying that the wording was "regrettable" and repeating the opinion in a softer tone. The easiest way to tell if an editor is using this approach as a bullying tactic to escape sanction is if the behavior is repeated.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support -- With regard to Jytdog, a quick perusal of David Tornheim's talk page shows a good example of this tactic given the sheer number of edits, warnings and retractions (striking with " this discussion is not something I should have done"). But the words were said, and this behaviour makes a mockery of the editing process here. petrarchan47คุก 01:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Petrarchan47. This was a tactic I documented Jytdog used on my talk page in my original statement (the one that Jytdog followed by naming me as a Party in this case within minutes of my posting.) Jytdog's continued use of this tactic is excused by his apologists as "hot-headed" but I submit Cla has the wording well-written... Indeed, Jytdog used this tactic against me in an interesting way in Atsme's COI Ducks article deletion discussion, seeming to be conciliatory when repeated attempts to intimidate me were made by two editors. I felt this was insincere backtracking by editors with an agenda whose diffs did not match their accusations. No matter if these editors were in communication off-wiki or not, but the effect is the same: an attacking escalation followed by a statesmanlike apology, making the attacking party or parties look reasonable when their uncollegial tactic is revealed. It's a tactic used repeatedly on Talk pages and noticeboards, and Jytdog's apologists have enabled his long unacceptable behavior. Jusdafax 03:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Petrarchan47: With regard to Jytdog, this, or similar redacting behaviour, is a repeated pattern, despite receiving a warning from an admin (per my evidence). This has occurred far too frequently to be excused by his supporters as "hot-headed" or otherwise.DrChrissy(talk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky thing to try to incorporate the psychology of editor intentions into ArbCom findings. I agree that there is a real phenomenon of editors who behave this way in order to bully. But editors can display what is outwardly the same behavior because they are immature, impulsive, neuro-atypical, or probably other reasons too. The best approach is to treat conduct on the basis of its manifest effect, rather than on speculation about the underlying psychology. Thus, misuse of apologies because of an intent to bully, or misuse of apologies because of some personality aspect, should be sanctioned approximately the same way, other things being equal. Therefore, developing a narrative based on assigning a motivation, as in Jytdog does those things because he likes to be a bully, becomes a counterproductive way of casting aspersions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You say that "The best approach is to treat conduct on the basis of its manifest effect..." For me, Jytdog's manifest effect was that I was/am repeatedly anxious to log in to Wikipedia because of his actions - I considered walking away several times. I am now extremely cautious about editing GMO articles fearing his belittling and incivil behaviour - why, oh why, should I ever be made to feel this way for doing something voluntarily? Furthermore, GregJackP has now retired after being badgered by Jytdog on Greg's Talk page. These are the manifest effects you talk about.DrChrissy(talk) 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy for what you are saying, but the chronology of events is that GregJackP retired after something else, not part of the GMO or legal stuff (a BLP about another WP editor), and the Jytdog incident happened after the retirement (something I do not defend at all). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The best approach is to treat conduct on the basis of its manifest effect, rather than on speculation about the underlying psychology." A little Behaviorism and B. F. Skinner? In the law of torts, intention may be important (e.g. intentional torts). ArbCom is much like a legal proceeding, so I see no reason to evade intention, even if behaviorists have an interesting philosophical position that intention (and other mental states and feelings) are nearly impossible to prove definitively. Either way, the effect, whether via intention or through negligence, is the same: Bullying. I have seen Jytdog's bullying and many others have documented it as well. It is a pattern and a problem and it needs to be addressed and sanctioned appropriately. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supportas a FINDING OF FACT not as a PRINCIPLE -- I have seen this behavior from Jytdog numerous times against myself and against others, and it has been documented in evidence of this case and it has the effect of bullying. It is a problem which needs to be addressed and the behavior sanctioned. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 13:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Question: Why did you split principle 1 and 2 apart Cla68? I am in favor of principle 2. I suggest to fuse the text of principle 1 with prinicple 2, which cannot stand alone without it. Also, we may not want to give principle 1, being an informal policy, not referenced ( thank you for clarifying that for us here!) that much weight in this proceeding. The latter might be the reason why nobody so far has commented on/ supported principle 1 either.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I believe there is rather compelling evidence in this case that a particular editor was skilled in using this technique as a bullying tactic. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, this is a good point, perceptive, one I've seen previously. It's one thing to make a mistake and delete it quickly, but this apology bit has been abused by Jytdog. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree. Jytdog is one of the smartest editors here, with an exceptional ability to know how to manage other editors. I don't remember the editor involved or the issue, but I remember once saying to him, "When you smell blood you move in for the kill," because that's just what he did. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. In BP, where he and I had most of our interactions, he functioned as a "moderator," policing the talk page, trying to turn editors against each other, with the aim of advancing BP's point of view (such as suggesting text omitting a criminal conviction0. When this effort met with resistance, he stomped off, but not turning off the charm. Oh, and no apology for calling me "openly and self-acknowledgedly ignorant." And if he had, what difference would it make? He already gave me his honest opinion of me, and the apology would simply be for expressing it publicly. So again, I think that Cla68's point is very good and very apt with this user. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3) Throughout WP history, "established" or long-term, active WP editors have generally been shown more leniency for violations of WP:NPA than newer editors or editors perceived to be "single purpose accounts."
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support the SPA label is one of the modern WP version of Red scare. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suport I agree, that it looks like an existing like-it-or-not characteristic of the WP system. while I think the intent of this section is to formulate guiding principles, there is no footnote or restriction to formulate it as a presently-existing negative principle. I would be shocked if any arbcom member agreed, because all are long-term editors, representing the WP establishment, and admission of this unfairness would be shameful or deviant. i look forward to other comments. Thank you Cla68 for trying this out, and your audacity for this positively punkish proposal!--Wuerzele (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supportas a Finding of Fact not as a PRINCIPLE -- In my evidence, I pointed to Jytdog's biting new users and accusing them of WP:SPA, including myself. Kingoface43 has accused me of it here in this proceeding. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) (revised 13:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I don't believe this is a controversial statement as everyone who has edited here seems to know that this is true. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't really support because NPA is generally unenforced for all editors, established or not, but yes, particularly long-term users and adminstrators, and when enforced it is enforced inconsistently. Coretheapple (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Science" vs "the rest"
4) A number of WP editors and administrators contend that WP does have a rightful POV on certain topics, and that is in relation to what they perceive as "science." According to these users, their perception of what constitutes "science" should receive favorable treatment in WP and positions friendly to that view should receive prominent display in related topics and articles. Positions contrary to what they perceive is the "scientific view" or "scientific consensus" should be treated with extreme prejudice as fringe, superfluous, or even dangerous, opinions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support This is supported by the evidence in this case. It is also contrary to WP:NPOV. AlbinoFerret 03:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a working scientist, I would advocate that science and scientist editors certainly have an extremely important role to play in WP. However, there are different qualities of science, some being lower quality than others (please note, I am differentiating between "lower" and "low"). What I object to so very strongly is that if scientific sources are used which are deemed to be of a lesser quality (sometimes deemed so because of extremely dubious criteria, e.g. the authors names look like they are Chinese!), the submitting editor is immediately classified as "fringe", "POV-pusher", "incompetent" or other. This name-calling is a major contributor to the battleground mentality and a remedy needs to be found.DrChrissy(talk) 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a working scientist (molecular biologist), I am comfortable labeling as "fringe" those findings which contradict a large body of solid, replicable scientific evidence, or that use highly questionable procedures, or that misstate/cherry-pick raw data, or that was conducted with a clear agenda/foregone conclusion. As such I am comfortable calling nearly all scientific findings calling GMO safety into question "fringe". That said, I am NOT comfortable silencing entirely any scientifically reputable information that casts doubt on GMO safety, any more than I am comfortable overemphasizing that viewpoint. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jtrevor99. I also agree with existing ArbCom precedents, as in the Pseudoscience and Climate change cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is certainly the impression that I as a "mainstream" physician-scientist have gotten, when editing on the pages in question. I neither support fringe, nor pseudoscience. The atmosphere of suppressing critical evaluations and the obstructionist haggling on sources and blind insistence on policies is no rational discourse, but dogmatic, if not dictatorial and actually antiscience. After 2 and a half years of dealing with so called pro-science representatives, listed/identified in my preliminary statement, I have become convinced that these editors are 1) no scientists (even if they have some scientific education) and 2) have no sufficient understanding of the scientific process. The latter has always involved ferret-like curiosity, courageously questioning a status quo to transcend it, besides patient humble study of what is known with disciplined dedication to details and teamwork. jytdog, kingofaces, jzg and the like do not display these qualities, and as has been shown in the evidence, and fight people who do display these qualities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by wuerzele (talk • contribs) 06:32, 17 October 2015
Repeat comment (as in prior section): It looks like an existing like-it-or-not characteristic of WP. while I think the intent of this section is to formulate guiding principles, there is no explanation, footnote or restriction to formulate it as a presently-existing negative principle. yes, it "should be" a FOF as stated per David Tornheim but POV is more content related, than can be proven by violation of behavioral guidelines, for the purpose of the Arbitration Committee.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFrom comments below, I do have to ask where the lack of nuance comment is coming from on my part considering one of my main focuses is to work on nuanced content? Personally, I've lost track of how many times I bring up the word nuance in talk page conversation. In the GMO consensus statement for example, I haven't seen anyone pushing for a simple statement that "the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe" but rather the more nuanced version including phrases like on the market, as safe as conventional breeding, etc. because of all the nuance behind them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: This should not be a principle. This should be in the Findings of Fact. I have observed it before and during this proceeding, and it is a problem. I do not support it as principle that Wikipedia goes by or should go by. Wikipedia should report what is found in WP:RS using WP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I certainly agree that has been the case. Wuerzele, Cla68, and Petra have defined it well. While I am not a scientist, I have worked with scientists, geneticists, biologists, etc. ranging from academia to government agencies and Cla68 has described what I have always perceived as the norm for science. In a nutshell, science is a systematic study and the conclusions drawn from that study are considered scientifically supported. References to a study as being "final", quite frankly, deserves more study. Atsme📞📧 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Example Admin JzGuy rejects MEDRS[365] saying that international bodies say there exists a consensus (not true) so the paper by Domingo should be ignored by WP until these bodies change their findings. Again, "consensus" is only used in reference to GMO science by one source, the AAAS position paper. petrarchan47คุก 18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. The editors I'm referring to do not try to hide to any degree that this is what they feel. At least one of those, an admin, has been fairly active in this case. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems overly vague. By "Science" in this case are you referring to WP:MEDRS and the like, or something more vague and sinister? You've put it in quotation marks, without explaining why it's science-in-quotation-marks instead of science. Brustopher (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been hosting a GMO "safety consensus" statement for roughly 3 years that isn't supported by science. Only a few weeks ago, Jytdog was forced to change this statement, and by doing so, he was acknowledging that it was an OR/SYNTH creation all along. WP is the number one website when searching "GMOs", and the only (supposedly) neutral source, the rest are pro-GMO or environmental sites. We are insinuating, by calling WP an encyclopedia, that we have taken all measures to prevent WP from spreading propaganda.
Admins Guy (JzG), Zad68, and editors Jytdog, KingofAces43, Sunrise and YOBOL support the use of this[366] (see Update here: [367]) [368] "science" as the basis for the scientific consensus statement. They ignore or discount actual MEDRS such as: [369]. Proof is in my evidence and on this page, but ask and I will provide direct links. petrarchan47คุก 02:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this loose group of editors and admins that I'm referring to are really representing Science or not is, IMO, a very contentious and complicated debate. From what I've observed, the main problem these editors/admins have is an intolerance for ambiguity. Once they've decided that a POV on a given topic represents the "scientific view" then all other opinions must be minimized, if not outright eliminated. Any editors who try adding those other opinions or views to the articles in question must be chased away or shouted down as quickly as possible. Any tactic, including bullying, personal attacks, dismissing sources, etc are acceptable because, otherwise, the delivery of the "truth" to Wikipedia's readers might be compromised. The behavior drives away neutral editors and likely makes other editors with different POVs become more entrenched in their opposition instead of everyone working together as WP's model supposedly dictates. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele, in his currently unsigned edit above, explains very well why the "pro-science" editors are such a problem for Wikipedia and why they drive so many potentially productive editors away. In my own experience with real scientists in academia, they were very welcoming of alternative viewpoints and honest about the limitations of the scientific process to determine "truth" with much certainty. In other words, the true scientists I've been acquainted with have a completely opposite approach to scientific dogma than WP's "pro-science" editors exhibit. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think most scientists enjoy a good discussion of alternative viewpoints and the limitations of current scientific knowledge. At the same time, most scientists do not enjoy seeing nonsense, ignorance, misinformation, pseudoscience, or fringe/false/misleading scientific claims propagated on one of the world's largest and most heavily consulted websites. This distinction probably explains the discrepancy between Cla68's experience with what he terms "real scientists in academia" and his interactions with scientists and science-oriented editors here on Wikipedia. MastCellTalk 17:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying as a tactic
5) Throughout WP's history, bullying has often been used as a tactic to win content disputes in disputed WP articles. The tactic is usually used by established WP editors who belittle, mock, question the intelligence, impugn the motives, and generally make the other editor(s) feel unwelcome for expressing a contrary opinion or for proposing an unwelcome change to the existing article. The goal appears to be to drive the other editors away so that they don't threaten the local "consensus" in that article which allows it to read a certain way or express a particular POV.
Support There is overwhelming evidence for this. petrarchan47คุก 08:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overwhelming evidence.DrChrissy(talk) 14:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the evidence support this claim or principle.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dealing with behavior problems either in article (i.e. coaxing them back to focus on content) or dealing with the problem at appropriate forums such as ANI in a civil manner should not be considered bullying. This is especially the case in controversial topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. In my experience, this is a very common tactic used throughout WP to try to win content disputes and appears to have been used in this case, by one editor in particular. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't speak to whether this is some kind of general issue but agree that it applies to Jytdog's behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Established users who support the "house POV"
6) Often in WP, "established" users who appear to support what is considered to be the predominant POV in certain topic areas, especially if it's related to "science," appear to be given more leeway in violating WP's policies and guidelines by WP's administration than other editors.
Comment by Arbitrators:
There's some truth in this, though it is probably down to inherent systemic conservatism; a preference for the accepted and familiar; and in some instances a distaste for advocacy. Roger Daviestalk 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support overwhelming evidence supports this statement. "More leeway" is putting it too lightly. the Fringe Patrol runs this Project, in my experience. petrarchan47คุก 17:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a point of view more than a complete fact as we follow both Wikipedia consensus and especially real-world consensus on science matters. What's missing from this is that editors who misbehave while going against the consensus can often be engaging in right great wrongs or truth behavior and not acknowledge their own actions that can lead to further escalation of behavior disputes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Editors who abuse guidelines to maintain a status quo version of "consensus" are also often engaged in righting great wrongs or truth behavior, only it is rarely called out as such because it's a conservative form of undue activism. Some editors see their role as "preventing infiltration of articles by radical elements bent on making corporations look bad" with a zeal that is very much "righting great wrongs". If a user is working to undo a corporate bias in an article, adding or deleting content with good reasons and within guidelines, those who are working to keep that bias with a zeal can be the ones with an activist agenda. It really does go both ways, though RGW is nearly always used as aspersion against editors who are skeptical of the industry, not those who defend the industry. I will give an example of someone bent on Over at 2,4-D, RockyMtnGuy explicitly declares an ideological position: "I am beginning to come around to the opinion of Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and author of "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" when he said: To a large extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalism than with science or ecology.". That is explicitly stated by that editor, but i see a similar agenda and ideology operating among many more nuanced conservative editors. Therefore, i support this principle because it speaks to the biased application of the concept of "righting great wrongs" editing. SageRad (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the principle of seniority enjoying more leeway, including trespass of policies, is of course not unique to WP, but a ubiquitous commonality of institutions. WP's favouritism maintains the status quo, but straightjackets and suffocates. we appeal to the elite of WP, the arbitration committee, in the hope that it reigns in the sclerosis and acts as a rational-legal authority so that WP remains vital, supple and responsive to the challenges of fairly collecting and arranging information to reflect current knowledge without censorship. I realize this is difficult, because it requires systemwide change on all levels of power at WP, where everybody is conflicted with interest of being WP:involved.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. This has been evident in a number of cases and it appears to be the case here that one editor in particular was allowed to get away with repeated, extremely nasty behavior because he appeared to be supporting "science," at least according to the perception of the admins who took an interest in the issues involved. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revert warring
7) Although a combination of three reverts within 24-hours by a single editor is normally used as a definition for edit-warring, a single revert can also be considered revert-warring. Unless an addition or change to an article violates WP:BLP, goes against clear consensus from article talk page discussions, or is clearly vandalism, editors should avoid reverting each other and instead work towards a compromise in article talk page discussions. Revert warring without good justification for doing so can be considered a violation of WP:BATTLE. The common refrain of "bold, revert, then discuss" is NOT WP's default or preferred method for engaging in collaborative editing.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would like to see a statement, perhaps even a guideline, that somehow encourages increased use of tags such as [non-primary source needed][unreliable source?][better source needed] and similar, rather than immediate deletion of recently added material or overly-strict imposition of WP:BRD - which is only an essay. The use of such tags naturally encourages editors to go to the Talk page to discuss why the tag has been placed, rather than entering into a revert/edit war.DrChrissy(talk) 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would circumvent WP:MEDRS to a degree in that content shouldn't be added with a poor source expecting someone else to improve it, but instead use tags for currently existing content that needs improvements. While such things are generally suspended in these noticeboards (I think), DrChrissy has been specifically told, "Even making a passing comment about acupuncture or MEDRS on your own talk page can earn a block." with respect to their current topic ban.[370] I am not saying action needs to be taken, but just establishing there is a history of DrChrissy having issues with applications of MEDRS, which is where this topic has come up before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43 Please be very clear here. Are you accusing me of breaking my topic ban with posts I have made in this case?DrChrissy(talk) 13:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear I wasn't focusing on violation of your topic ban or action related to it, but the history that led to it. You have however been discussing acupuncture and MEDRS at this case to a point that would directly violate your topic ban. Sometimes those bans are relaxed a bit in forums like this (relative to the case at hand where I think mentioning acupuncture is stretching it), and other times they are expected to be upheld. As stated before though, I am not interested in going down that path at all, and the intent of my first post should be clear at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in your reply is a clear accusation that I have violated my topic ban. You might not be focusing on it, but you are still stating that I have violated my topic ban. This is an extremely serious accusation to be making, especially at ArbCom. Whether you want to or not, we will go down this path. Please provide evidence (diffs) that I have violated my topic ban or strike your accusations here and elsewhere in this case.DrChrissy(talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were told you would be blocked for commenting on MEDRS or acupuncture, and you are very well aware you have done both here.[371][372] Keep in mind that I bring them up because they aren't just two instances of you mentioning these things (i.e., "gotcha"), but that your behavior that led to your topic ban reached the point where the admin explicitly warned you to not even mention them (not sure if alt med was called out the same way in your other ban). Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the convenience of ArbCom, here is the diff[373] showing I inquired whether my topic ban applied in the discussions of this ArbCom case or not, and the arbitors reply. Kingofaces, I leave it up to you to decide what to do with your allegations above.DrChrissy(talk) 14:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that supports everything I have been saying so far. I made it clear I was commenting on the relevance of the topic ban indicating you've had issues associated with MEDRS, etc. in the past. I was not seeking action of a violation of your topic ban and clearly said that such bans tend to be relaxed when explicitly stated. If that isn't clear, please review my previous posts as I've had to rehash this many times now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support following the logic of DrChrissy, and I will point out there are wikiprojects like WikiProject Citation cleanup that try to fix these templated issues. A side benefit of their possible involvement is it brings more eyes to the page. AlbinoFerret 15:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the tenor (reverting is not the preferred method) but first the principle to work towards a compromise in article talk page discussion is implied in guidelines already, and we have 3RR boards. Second, the real world experience on the contested pages currently is, that the people sticking to the talk page writing 100's of thousands of words still do not achieve consensus (check Talk: Monsanto legal cases right now for example). we'd need an anti-obstructionism squad to go with this principle. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. I notice from the evidence that many, if not most, of the editors involved in this dispute have been using reverts in attempts to win content disputes and often basing the reverts on dubious subjective reasoning, i.e. the edit was contrary to their personal ideas on how the topic should be presented. This is a clear BATTLEGROUND tactic and goes against WP's model of collaboration. Unless a non-vandalism edit violates WP:BLP, there is seldom a reason why the edit can't remain as-is until a discussion on the talk page has reached consensus. You may not agree with the edit, but your opinion isn't necessarily the only opinion that matters. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administration by exception
8) Wikipedia's administration, when it comes to moderating editor behavior, generally appears to operate under the principle of management by exception. As a result, Wikipedia's administrators are not in the habit of fully investigating then using critical thinking to adjudicate protracted disputes between Wikipedia editors. This is especially true when asked to intervene with problematic behavior by established editors who appear to be supporting the predominant POV on a particular topic.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support No truer words. At ANI, when Jytdog was brought before the community, all would fall silent and the regular group would show up and say the same things. This includes a couple of Admins. These ANI's seemed not to attract neutral, novel voices, but always the exact same bunch who saw everyone but Jytodg as the problem. Others seemed intimidated to stand up to the crowd, and who can blame them? petrarchan47คุก 17:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the management by exception is easier and less time consuming for admins in the short term, but the long term effect is that it pollutes the general atmosphere, the commons. it uses labeling, engrained in WP of course, but also standard in the criminal justice system as much as in health care or education. "Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an "offender". The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.(Howard S. Becker. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press, 1963)
Comment by others:
Proposed. I believe this is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's administration consistently fails to resolve disputes such as this one, necessitating eventual involvement by ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite. What this finding says is that some kind of management philosophy is at work, when there's nothing of the kind, no philosophy, often no evident thought. Disciplinary actions often take place on a whim, on the spur of the moment, motivated by emotion, when there is any kind of action taken at all. That's why the tactic I've seen deployed of pleading emotional or mental illness has proven extremely effective in staving off administrative action, as it appeals to the emotions of editors, disregarding that such ailments are completely unprovable and may not exist at all. The inconsistencies that the proposer is addressing are inherent and I'm not quite sure the relevancy to this arb case anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: sociologists would disagree with you here. it may look like there's no management philosophy at work, but when you study it youll find a pattern. Look into labeling, please ( my above comment), it is the standard modus operandi of mainstream society and its institutions, so of course WP too. I dont know what you do for a living, but I am sure you are part of it, but maybe not aware. in my line of work as a physician labeling is inescapable, from diagnosis to treatment, from communicating to teaching to testing. in my opinion the Arts and sciences just seem like the final frontier for labeling at the moment, and that's where we are at: mainstream science vs pseudoscience, good versus bad science...etc--Wuerzele (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a pattern, but it's really a pattern of randomness, admins acting casually. It may look like management by exception but it's really just a lot of people functioning out of emotion and without much thought. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Single purpose accounts"
9) Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA) is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Wikipedia has no prohibition against editors focusing on a single topic or article. Therefore, accusing editors of being an "SPA" in order to criticize their participation in Wikipedia can be considered a violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE.
Support There is no PAG that points to this as a violation. AlbinoFerret 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support With caveat: as AF says, "There is an unhealthy fixation on the topic that has lead to behaviour issues". SPAs do show a certain passion, and that can go either way. But it usually doesn't result in uber-neutrality. At the same time, to do good work one needs to immerse themselves in the topic, so diligence can mistakenly appear to be POV/passion. This is what has happened to me, I believe. petrarchan47คุก 23:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle that SPA can be used to falsely accuse. SPA is a convenient label to mark someone as deviant, where admins/ WP elite have the power to decide what is deviant. if used without awareness, ie thoughtlessly, it disqualifies perfectly apt editors. I agree with both AlbinoFerret and Petrarchan47 that a diversity of tasks, not just topics or purposes) around the house and gardens of WP is healthiest, because it allows detachment and perspective. where a SPA begins or ends of course cant be measured with an exact number, it depends on the case. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are probably many editors out there who do not have the confidence or motivation to edit outside of their perhaps very focused area of interest. This in itself is certainly not indicative of a problem, although the edits they make might be.DrChrissy(talk) 17:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. There are some accusations of other editors being "SPA's" right here on this very page as well as in the evidence presented in this case. It appears that these accusations are attempts to discredit these editors' contributions or motivations for being here. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10) When an editor(s) takes an adversarial approach to collaboration with other editors with which he/she does not completely agree, that approach can further polarize participant's attitudes towards the content in question. The resulting polarization may cause editors to become more entrenched in defending a particular POV than they otherwise would have.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support: that polarization is the result of bad communication, aka filibuster.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. This one is based on my own experiences editing controversial topics. If there was a small group of editors entrenched in promoting one particular POV regarding the topic, I found myself editing almost completely on behalf of a different POV simply to try to make sure it was represented fairly, even though my own view on the topic was more reserved and neutral. I've observed other editors say the same thing. Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Intervention to prevent polarization
11) As stated above, unnecessary polarization can happen in an article dispute based on the attitudes or actions of one or more of the participating editors. Therefore, early, proactive administrator intervention may be crucial during an adversarial content dispute to prevent entrenched polarization from occurring.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support: I absolutely support early dispute resolution. third opinion is not that efficient IMO.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Adversarial discussions polarize editors. Therefore, to facilitate editors working together in the spirit of compromise and neutrality, WP's administrators must be more proactive about moderating editor behavior when it is brought to their attention than they currently are. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't argue with this. It's true. Look at the Israel-Palestinian area. Massive conflict a week or two ago over dueling list articles, one showing Palestinian victims of Israelis and the other showing Israeli victims of Palestinians. Dueling articles and dueling AfDs! The drama! The tension! Then steps in an administrator, deleting both articles. Presto! Drama solved. Peace restored. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, Cla68. I promise to be much more proactive in dealing administratively with poor-quality or tendentious content editing in the future, and I look forward to your support. MastCellTalk 17:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved administrators who are actually involved
12) When acting in an administrative capacity, such as closing an RfC or warning or blocking an editor, WP's administrators must not abuse their privileges to support a particular POV or faction involved a content dispute. If an administrator uses admin privileges, then later reveals that they support a particular POV with regard to the same topic area, and reinforce that POV through editing, it could be construed that the admin previously abused admin privileges to support that POV.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support: This is a problem. Guy/JzG has done this. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. The wording is kind-of convoluted, but it appears that this may have happened in this case that an admin used admin privileges to favor one side in a content dispute, then later began editing the articles to support that side. So, even if the admin no longer uses admin privileges with regard to that topic area, it indicates that the previous admin actions were in support of a particular agenda. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed findings of fact
Wikipedia's administration failed
1) Multiple attempts to resolve this dispute have been attempted with requests for administrator intervention. Wikipedia's administrators were either unable or unwilling to resolve the matter.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support The community has been failed by the normal processes. I believe people have been intimidated by the ganglike behaviour of the Jytdog/King/Guy/Alexbrn/YOBOL team. When at ANI there are a few more admins who often side with this team. I do not remember any admin jumping in with a neutral observation. It seemed others pretended not to notice another Jytdog ANI thread, and would skip past it. As in middle school, we have gangs, bullies, and the resulting ownership of the schoolyard, whilst those who aren't lucky enough to have a gang stand shaking in the corner. petrarchan47คุก 17:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- for all the reasons stated succinctly by Petrarchan47. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for what its worth without any proposed interventions Cla68. I suggest to add some.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll assume this statement is made in good faith, and doesn't have an agenda, which as Core notes is debatable. The fact is, the entire Wikipedia community failed, and I include myself. Years ago, I found it easier to walk away from the Glyphosate article, rather than work on improving it. I did in fact, as I document in my original statement, get an obvious PR statement removed from the lede. But the obvious malignant intent of Jytdog on my Talk page gave me such a high level of disgust that I found it impossible to continue. And here we are, with new startling developments in the past day. My feelings have not changed. Jusdafax 13:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. There were plenty of opportunities for Wikipedia's administration to help fix this dispute. The evidence shows that it was primarily two or three editors who were causing most of the problems. ArbCom needs to take a firmer stance on the constant incompetence shown by Wikipedia's administrators on disputes like this. Cla68 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is true, though I'd surmise that it's probably true with pretty much every case that comes to arbcom. Also the proposer does have a point in this series of findings, which is that admins often are reluctant to step in to messy disputes. That point has been raised elsewhere in discussing why we do or don't need more admins. The point was raised (by me I think) that there isn't a shortage of admins but a shortage of admins willing to untangle messy disputes. In fact, when that does happen (as recently in a protracted dispute in the Israel-Palestinian area) it can be effective. I think what happened here was that because science was involved, admins just didn't really understand the issues and preferred to stay away. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading the "proposed remedies" hatted below, for the first time, I feel like something of a sucker for dignifying this entire exercise in trolling. I guess that's one of the problems with hatting. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do enjoy a good troll as much as the next person, but my proposals below were serious. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't boast about that. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple and Jusdafax, when a project with as much ambition and vision as this website originally had fails to live up to it, and which I think it's fair to say is the current situation with Wikipedia, then radical measures may be necessary to right the ship. My proposals below may, very well, fail if implemented. However, at least they'll get people involved in trying to get the things that are currently declining going back in the other direction. Do you all want to save Wikipedia or not? Cla68 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. As I've said on several occasions, certain of the problems that I've observed (notably the paid editing epidemic) don't bother me at all as a volunteer. I don't like paid editing, indeed fanatically so. Note my recently renovated userbox on that point. I am a certified anti-paid-editing fanatic! However, whether or not paid editing is tearing down Wikipedia's reputation and integrity, as I believe it is, does not impact upon my personal reputation and ability to make a living. On the contrary, the more time I devote to Wikipedia, in either correcting its problems or editing articles on choreographers, the less of my finite time on the planet do I have to devote to pursuits that benefit me personally. Additionally, paid editors have an entire cheering section, both on- and off-wiki, including a great many people who love paid editing on principle. These are people who, I surmise, can be found at their local McDonald's, flipping hamburgers without pay, or lobbying congress to lower the minimum wage without compensation, purely as a matter of principle. Causing these people ill-will distresses them, and I can't tell you how many sleepless nights the prospect of that has caused me. But I digress.
You, sir, evidently harbor similar feelings concerning various other matters that, I would posit, do not concern you personally and are unlikely to have any positive impact upon you even if they are rectified to your satisfaction. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG has used administrator privileges related to this dispute
2) JzG states that he has not used his admin privileges in this dispute. However, JzG closed a related content RfC on 15 September 2015 and blocked SageRad, who is a party in this case, on 29 May 2015.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support. I was not aware of him blocking SageRad until today. Minor4th 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity, everything I have seen here listing JzG acting as an admin (blocking, etc.) was before they ever became involved in the topic by posting more about content matter, etc. I'm not sure what purpose this FoF would serve. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. If not for that block, SageRad would have a clean block log. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing an RfC is generally a service performed by an uninvolved admin or editor, and does not constitute "involvement". The block of SageRad was in response to an obvious and malicious BLP violation, and was well-deserved (SageRad's response to the block has to be read to be believed). I don't see how that block creates "involvement" in the GMO topic area. MastCellTalk 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG misused Twinkle
3) JzG used Twinkleto revert a contribution by an IP editor to the Glyphosate article. Twinkle is supposed to be used to remove obvious vandalism or unconstructive edits. The edit in question, however, appears to be a cited addition of text that is within WP's policies and guidelines.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment: You say "Twinkle is supposed to be used to remove obvious vandalism." Can you cite policy/guideline that confirms this? According to WP:TWINKLE, it is used to help auto-confirmed users "with acts of vandalism or unconstructive edits." JzG may argue that it was to remove an "unconstructive edit". I do not know what the Wiki-legal definition of an "unconstructive edit" is. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per revised language referred to below by Clas68 on 07:33, 20 Oct 2015. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim, I added "unconstructive edits" to the proposed wording. I believe "unconstructive edits" means edits, which may or may not be intended as vandalism, that "break" something in an article, such as screwing up the infobox, making a photograph too big or too small, putting in a bunch of whitespace, placing a hard return after a sentence so that the sentence appears in a box (I don't know if the programmers ever fixed that glitch), and so on. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Because Wikipedia's administrators appear to be unwilling or unable to resolve disputes such as this one when assistance is requested by frustrated editors, ArbCom must force WP's administrators to step up and take more responsibility and stewardship to their assigned duties. Thus, in cases such as this, in which administrators failed to resolve a dispute when requested on multiple occasions, ArbCom will randomly choose and desysop 10 administrators. Each of the 10 administrators will have to write an essay on how they would have resolved the dispute in question before they are allowed to resubmit a new request for adminship (RfA), which they must pass in order to regain the privileges. Their essays will be publicly displayed for potential voters at their new RfAs.
Proposed. Wikipedia's administration continues to completely blow it on disputes like this one. Collective guilt is as good an approach as any, so I propose this remedy to give WP's administrators a kick in the pants to see if it can get them to up their game to an acceptable level. Cla68 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal seems to be getting well away from the original case and issues. Reforming the AN/I process is outside of the scope of this case, and should be addressed by community consensus rather than sweeping Arb action. Yes, there were a number of unresolved AN/I's leading here, but many of these AN/I cases were flooded with multiple boomerang proposals, new accusations, old grudges, and dozens of diffs. Admins are volunteers. Punishing them for not addressing a tangled case is not a way forward.Dialectric (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unserious. This suggestion in no way helps zero in on the actions of a select handful of Admins. The noticeboards were, as Dialectric says, flooded with drama. The last time Jytdog was taken to ANI, the response was that he then named 3 editors (including me) and tried to blame them. The community has allowed this drama to continue without calling it out. I believe that is due to a good ole boy's club mentality. But this does not speak to admins as a whole. This case should not be used to vent frustrations about admins in general as that distracts from serious measures mentioned above. petrarchan47คุก 16:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2) A source of conflict among WP editors appears to be the high search-engine rankings that WP articles often receive, as article editors feel they have an incentive to influence public opinion on the topic in question. Therefore, at administrators' discretion, articles that are subject to repeated conflict and edit-warring may be non-indexed to search engines such as Google and Bing in order to lower their search rankings.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose: This doesn't benefit humanity. Wikipedia articles are often the best source of information about a topic. I believe that we can transcend our ideological differences, and edit with the knowledge that what we do is important, and that every edit we make is either to the benefit or the detriment of humanity. We must edit in pursuit of reality, as it is, not colored by bias or wishful thinking. The high search engine rankings of Wikipedia pages is a testament to the great value of the knowledge presented therein, and this is why we take part in this historic project. SageRad (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are socks and meat puppets available to companies who would want to have their opposition delisted. This would encourage edit warring. petrarchan47คุก 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. If specific WP articles are lowered in visibility, agenda-driven editors, who are usually the ones causing the most problems, won't have as much incentive to fight to get the articles "on message." Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. When a new change has been reverted, editors should follow consensus building methods such as WP:BRD and gain consensus for the change before adding it back or making a very similar edit.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer. Modified from Tryptofish's proposal. Not intended as a remedy as BRD is not policy, but this should stress that editors need to go to the talk page once something has been reverted rather than revert it back again. This could however, be factored in to an admin's discretionary sanctions when they see multiple editors using their one revert rather than go to the talk page after the very first revert. I'm not sure if the "very similar edit" should be clarified more, but it's intended to prevent gaming the system where someone gets reverted due to low quality source only to add the content back with a different low quality source. This also should acknowledge that sometimes a small tweak is needed that should be apparent through edit summaries and not need talk page discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Aspersions
2) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company for a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI.
Comment: Generally i support this, except that it can be critical at times to point out problematic behavior in a dialogue in the very locale where it's happening, such as "In this dialogue, you are not responding to questions that another editor has asked very clearly, which seems to be breaking good dialogue." In other words, in-line comments on behavior is in the exact place where evidence exists and can be an important part of dealing with intractability, and should not be taken as a violation or bad behavior in itself. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have WP:FOC (which is policy) for a reason. It's very clear on this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's a good point, and very relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comment - I think it says a lot about this editor that he does not follow his own proposals. He is casting aspersions regarding me violating my topic ban within this case. I will adhere to his proposal and provide the diff as evidence here.DrChrissy(talk) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric, this proposal, especially the term misbehavior, comes exactly from a previously accepted ArbCom proposal. In short, there shouldn’t be aspersions about general misbehavior, but the focus in this case is on COI, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
When an editor makes repeated accusations of a hidden agenda without evidence, this is a problem regardless of whether these are accusations of being a corporate shill, an anti-gmo activist, or a meat puppet. All such accusations are a personalization of dispute. The 'misbehavior' wording is too general, as it could apply to a wide range of behaviors unrelated to Aspersions.Dialectric (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tag-teaming
3) Editors should not be accused of tag-teaming without evidence of purposeful coordination or to circumvent consensus. Multiple editors that oppose a change or are addressing behavior issues of other editors in appropriate forums are not inherently tag-teaming.
Oppose when discussed at arbcom or on the noticeboards and backed up with diffs. Also the DUCK test described in WP:AVDUCK can be used to determin a tag team, if it looks and acts like one, it probably is. AlbinoFerret 15:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Companies
4) In content related to corporations, editors are expected to maintain a neutral point of view. Content can be positive or critical of a company when properly sourced with adequate weight, but should avoid puffery or negative hyperbole. Editors should especially not be out to vilify specific companies.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer. This is mainly to remind people of NPOV and that editors shouldn't be casting aspersions like saying someone isn't opposing Monsanto enough, so they must wholeheartedly support the company. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Ownership
5) Editors should not be accused of ownership of articles for responding to valid concerns in articles they have previously edited or would be expected to have on their watchlist given their established topic interests.
Oppose when it is being discussed at arbcom or on a noticeboard and backed up with diffs. Also the DUCK test as described in WP:AVDUCK can be used to determine a tag team, if it looks and acts like one, it probably isAlbinoFerret 15:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Academically demanding subjects
6) Historically, experts are accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia. In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Neutral as proposer. Almost verbatim from two accepted principles from Pseudoscience case. [374][375] I'm a little unsure about the two accepted principals myself, but the core issue is that we are dealing with an academically challenging subject, so some competence in the subject is needed as an editor. Whether ArbCom still supports this type of wording or would prefer to make a simple competence is required statement instead, the discussion of the actual content on evidence pages would seem to indicate this is worthwhile to point out in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semitransgenic's mention of this11) alleviates my concerns about the other two principles when you combine all three. The main issue in all of this is still that discussion of sources requires some degree of competency. This isn't meant to give experts special status, but acknowledge that some editors may show they are not qualified to accurately interpret sources to the degree we do in reflecting sources for content (though not to the point of original research). Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If editors were not anonymous, like Kingofaces43 and Jytdog, etc., their resumes, work history and publications, etc. might be considered by an appropriate committee to determine if they are indeed experts in the subject matter area. I assume this is how other respectable encyclopedias like Britannica produce their articles. With an editor like myself, who is not anonymous, you can actually verify that I have a Bachelors and Masters of Science. Until experts declare their identity on their biography page, and Wikipedia creates appropriate committees to assess expertise, this is completely unworkable for anonymous editors. Using experts is not how Wikipedia is designed--as the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit--including the "incompetent". Because we do not know who you are, we have little capacity to assess your "competence" in the subject matter, and I find it very irritating when editors are accused of incompetence by people that have no ability to prove their own competence. Editors can question specific edits, but not overall subject matter competence. I have provided evidence of such ad hominem attacks in this proceeding. It is really unacceptable patronizing and needs to stop. This provision would only further justify such objectionable behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per David Tornhelm. This proposal and arguments in support would represent a fundamental shift in the operational principles, and in a worst case would institutionalize the ossification of articles into an "accepted" version. Dangerous and unacceptable. Jusdafax 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Can of worms alert. Cla68 (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"11) Experts are presumed to have an adequate command of appropriate sources for information they add or positions they take. Bare assertions of expertise without supporting sources are unacceptable, especially if there is conflict with other users." Passed 7-1 Semitransgenictalk. 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not relevant to this case. There is no reason GMOs should be considered too complicated for normal editors. Understanding WP:RS should suffice. As SomeGuy1221 says, "Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles." Many have witnessed just that in the GMO suite. petrarchan47คุก 17:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Guide to ArbCom"Proposed principles should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Don't offer proposals like "Topical experts should be given special deference"... petrarchan47คุก 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't noticed Petrarchan, my wording is from previous ArbCom principles and I explicitly said I was not entirely comfortable with a blanket defer to experts ideal. I wanted ArbCom to consider that previously used wording and the issue of understanding sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this or something like it. A persistent pattern in this dispute has been tendentious editing by people who demonstrate through their editing and talk-page commentary that they are not competent to read and interpret relevant sources. Contrary to popular belief, it is actually necessary to understand the source you're writing about, and its role in the broader relevant literature. Source misuse due to misunderstandings and cherry-picking has been a common theme in this dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there might be a point if it were hard science exclusively, but it's a huge subject space that engages multiple domains. Reams of material on this topic (socio-scientific, legal, financial, environmental, politico-scientific etc.) is approachable without said expertise; provided of course that the editor understands WP:RS. Such material is in plain English after all, it's not formulae. Semitransgenictalk. 08:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed findings of fact
Aspersions
1) Editors have cast aspersions about conflict of interest (e.g., shills) and "pro-industry" editing and used it as a weapon in content and behavioral disputes.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer. With evidence (on my evidence page) of shill comments from Abductive[376], Wuerzele[377][378][379] (especially casting aspersions about gender bias [380], EllenCT[381], and Prokaryotes[382][383]
Petrarchan has not specifically used the term shill, but frequently casts aspersions about being pro-industry with comments here at ArbCom such as, "[Kingofaces43] has always supported, and absolutely never opposed, Jytdog or Monsanto" [384]. In such an example, neutral editors who do not actively vilify a company can appear "pro-industry" to someone bringing in a strong negative point of view on the subject, which I have become convinced is the case with Petrarchan.
Aside from my current proposed remedy, I haven’t proposed others for the editors listed above. I do believe that topic bans should be considered for these editors for interjecting a disruptive POV with the aspersions, but I’ll leave that up to the committee to decide on instead of listing ban proposals for each editor. The actions described here do seem to show they cannot edit civilly in this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs to support your belief that I bring a strong negative POV on the subject, or strike this false claim about me. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 09:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided the diff above showing you cast companies and a very negative light in guilt by association arguments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that my saying "KingofAces43 always supports Monsanto" can be characterized that way you have. It is a true statement and points to your advocacy. Can you explain how you jumped from this one diff to your assertion that I 'frequently cast aspersions about being pro-industry'? Are we missing some diffs here? petrarchan47คุก 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page." I am not sure you can use a diff made after the evidence phase closed. Your aspersion remains unsupported. petrarchan47คุก 17:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This comment[385] was made by you at this very ArbCom case, as were more industry related aspersions.[386] Behavior at this case is subject to review just as items listed in evidence are and are ultimately for the arbitrators to review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Semitransgenic, please keep in mind you need to be wary of (ironically) casting aspersions about casting aspersions. No aspersions have been made in any cited diffs to this point on my part as everything I have said is directly supported by what I have cited. If there is something you believe is incorrect, then please directly point it out rather than just a broad accusation of aspersions at the relevant discussion. It could be you have misread something that I'm happy to clarify, but I cannot do that when you are being vague. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Semitransgenic, thanks for specifying the actual text in question. The first issue is that the your post over in my consensus finding of fact said, "the statement 'a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified food' is false." implying you think there is no consensus at all. Even if you actually don't think that, that's what your post currently reads as. Your post was in response to my proposed finding of fact that some editors think there isn't a consensus (not what the consensus actually is). Given that context it appears you only accepted part of the general consensus statement. The more complete phrasing is that GMOs as a whole are not inherently introducing novel risks in terms of food safety compared to conventional breeding, but each individual crop or event's safety (not inherent to being GMO but the gene) can only be evaluated individually. As you said, there's a lot of nuance in all that, and I get the feeling you missed a bit in my post as well. Either way, I struck the line in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
@Kingofaces43 you have just given a good example of the type of aspersion casting that should be avoided.Based on an earlier statement that makes my position very clear, would you mind retracting your claim? Semitransgenictalk. 19:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43 you made an unfounded allegation in stating the following:"@Semitransgenic...some editors, such as yourself, claim there isn't a consensus." You also linked to an earlier discussion from Nov. 2014.
In that very discussion I clearly stated my position:"...some of the citations clearly mention, explicitly, the matter of scientific consensus, I have no problem with this whatsoever, these are the cites that should be used.Let me reiterate the problem I have...We are engaging in questionable referencing behavior to make a point, this sets a poor example...many of the references do not explicitly support the sentence in question so should not be used here.
Now I would be grateful if you would be so kind as to retract the statement you made concerning my position. Semitransgenictalk. 23:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
2) Editors have engaged in edit warring after being asked to discuss proposed or reverted changes on the article talk page.
Kingofaces, you have provided 2 diffs as purported evidence of my edit warring. The first takes us to a section with many diffs and accusations; please could you be more specific with your evidence so I can refute it. The second diff shows my inserting material. This was from a sandbox set up to modify and discuss the article while it was locked. All recent editors were informed and invited to contribute. It was stated that the intent was to copy-and-paste from the sandbox to the live article when it re-opened. This was done several days after the article was re-opened. Jytdog reverted my copy and paste claiming in the edit summary that the discussion was far from over - typical stalling behaviour.DrChrissy(talk) 15:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am citing general evidence sections that describe edit warring behavior on your part. You are welcome to address those sections individually in the analysis sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Scientific consensus on GMOs
3) Editors have advocated for the view that there is not a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified food.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer Notably seen throughout this case with Petrarchan47[395] and David Tornheim [396]. ArbCom takes a dim view on those advocating WP:FRINGE and psuedoscientific views,[397][398][399][400] and especially in climate change.[401], but which one that applies depends on the article (e.g. genetically modified food vs. Vani Hari). The broad question is what to do with editors engaging in advocacy with this point of view? I don't have a proposed remedy for that, and I haven't been able to dig deep enough to see what they've done at climate change articles with respect to climate change denialism (seeing the same tactics in this case), but some guidance from ArbCom on this behavior issue would be helpful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Semitransgenic, the proposal clearly states exactly that some editors, such as yourself, claim there isn't a consensus. That is all. You are misrepresenting editors by saying that aren't including the nuance that comes in the scientific consensus statement. That's been included in every discussion on the topic cited here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My response to misrepresentation was in regard to, "that nuanced editing is something that certain editors would like to see quashed." There's no misrepresentation of that. Editors focusing on the scientific consensus have always been working to include the nuanced description of the consensus, which is contrary to Semitransgenic's insinuation Kingofaces43(talk) 18:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again @Semitransgenic, I have never mentioned you with respect to this diff you provide. [402]. As we are at ArbCom, I'm going to disengage from your claims that I misrepresented you after you mischaracterized my post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43 thank you, the point was, it's worth clarifying, in case uninvolved parties misunderstand what is actually being discussed here. And let's be clear, a statement such as "scientific consensus exists on the safety of genetically modified food" is wrong, because unless the additional detail is present, it implies that pipeline products, untested products, speculative future products, are included in this consensus view (suggesting some kind of GE carte blanche).
I think we need to remember who our audience is when creating article content, there are readers who could misconstrue things, that's why it should be spelled out. Anything that might appear to be a blanket statement about the safety of GE technologies, generally considered, would be problematic. Semitransgenictalk. 07:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla68, we've had countless sources from such organizations. This RfC [404] discussed a few times here mentions the following even just at a quick glance:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
UN (both FAO and WHO)
German Union of Academies of Science and Humanities
French Academy of Sciences
United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council
The Royal Society of London
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of Canada
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Mexican Academy of Sciences
Third World Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
The reason why I bring up the fact that some editors claim there isn't consensus similar to climate change is because a small handful of sources/people are always cited in opposition to whatever organization or source. Adding more sources results in conversations about citation overkill,[405] and the process continues. That's why I'm proposing this fact as written so ArbCom can address how to approach advocacy in scientific consensus discussions without de facto making a content decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a strawman argument about consensus of sources. The crux of the issue is that none of these sources specifically makes the broad agreement or consensus claim. Its WP:ORIGINALSYN because you are trying to show by a number of sources that the agreement or consensus exists by adding up a bunch of them. We need a reliable source that says this claim specifically, and some editors have questioned the reliability of the AAAS source, which come closest, but not quite. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS that I have included numerous times throughout this case shows that the science is not settled on GMO safety. If WP can't simply say this (and it can't, thus far) I think the problem is very clear. Site and topic bans are the only resolution. petrarchan47คุก 17:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you cite are considered fringe because they do not come from reputable journals or you are cherrypicking sources out of the much larger body of literature that shows consensus. Scientific consensus does not mean unanimity. You'll always find a few people advocating a fringe point of view. That is also a response to a climate change denialism talking point, which is why I keep bringing up the parallels not for a guilt by association attempt, but to point out similar topics have come up at ArbCom before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record - this is exactly what we deal with at the article talk pages; we are disallowed from adding RS based on arguments such as the above. "Unanimity" is a strawman. The science isn't settled according to the most recent MEDRS-compliant reviews (which are favored). King discredits his ability to use sources properly by calling these "fringe" and not reputable: Tufts University (2015) [406], and Domingo review (2011): [407] creds: [408]. petrarchan47คุก 18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AlbinoFerret actually brings up a great example of a tactic that needs to be focused on. Advocates against a scientific consensus will often say that sources are saying different things, so there's no consensus. In reality, the sources all agree (in the context that consensus does not mean saying exactly the same thing), but they all have different ways of saying very nuanced messages. This is another parallel with climate change denial tactics, and I'm not sure if or how we can effectively address that when it comes in through editors here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a misrepresentation of my comment, and you have shown its a syntheses by your comment. Here it is again. None of the sources make the consensus or agreement claim. Adding tougher a bunch of sources to claim consensus is WP:ORIGINALSYN. Per that section, the first sentence "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The conclusion formed is the consensus or agreement. This isn't a "tactic" this is adhering to WP PAG. I have no strong opinions about the topic, I was only involved in one RFC and stuck to PAG there. Ascribing a "tactic" is an example of ABF. AlbinoFerret 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the drama-raising re assuming bad faith. I specifically said you outlined an example in your above post only and made to mention of your involvement in the topic itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43 Here in your own words you describe me as using a "tactic" of "Advocates" "AlbinoFerret actually brings up a great example of a tactic that needs to be focused on. Advocates against a scientific consensus will often say that sources are saying different things, so there's no consensus." Implying I am an advocate when this is the opposite, and easily proven by the evidence that I have focused on PAG. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and I never said anything more than saying you provided a good example, and was careful to say nothing more. Please take your own advice and refrain from ABF for things I have never said or implied. My focus in this proposal has been on addressing and acknowledging general behavior issues for committee, not vilifying specific editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty we need to be avoiding. The kind of straw man argumentation we see here does nothing other than contribute to an already combative editing environment. Accusing critical editors of being akin to climate change deniers is bad faith, it is also a very clear association fallacy. This is a good example of a trend I highlighted in evidence. Note also the lack of clarity, the statement "a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified food" is false. The important bit is missing, which is, food that has been safety tested for human consumption, and is currently on the market, is accepted as safe by the majority of the scientific community. It seems, perhaps, that nuanced editing is something that certain editors would like to see quashed, and perhaps they see WP:FRINGE, and claims of pseudo-science, as the means to achieve this. We need to be very careful here. Semitransgenictalk. 10:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of climate change, a large, internationally represented group of scientists and academics have approved a statement from the UN stating that there is a "scientific consensus" on climate change. Therefore, the argument to put this statement in WP's voice has some weight. Is there a similarly weighted statement from the world's scientists, represented by the UN, on GMOs? If not, then a comparison with climate change actually works against putting this statement in WP's voice or attempting to assert that editors who advocate for adding alternative opinions in the related articles are "fringe". Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43 I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting my position. I find this combative approach worrying. Semitransgenictalk. 17:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad
4) SageRad is highly involved in article talk pages with 75% of total talk edits in the scope of this case.[409] This edit history coupled with battleground behavior and tendentious editing[410][411] indicates a largely single-purpose account and/or advocacy behavior in these topics.
@Cla68, this proposal focuses on the combination of focus on a single area coupled with the behavior issues. 75% is still extremely high with advocacy-like statements mentioned here without the other mentioned behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Why can't an editor focus solely on one particular topic area? A better approach would be to judge whether the editor in question is upholding WP:NPOV. I think Wikipedia admins came up with the "single purpose account" criteria because they were unable or unwilling to make actionable judgments on editors under the NPOV policy. Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim
5) David Tornheim is highly involved in article talk pages with 51% of total talk edits in the scope of this case.[412] This edit history coupled with tendentious editing and battleground behavior[413][414] indicates a largely single-purpose account and/or advocacy behavior in these topics.
Oppose 51% is not an SPA per the reading of WP:SPA. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as irrelevant. David has not hurt the project, he has been civil on talk pages and has not edit warred. He has made very few contributions to this project in general, and has sought help from a mentor for guidance in dealing with Jytdog et al. He should be commended for his diligence. petrarchan47คุก 17:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Petrar and AF. I'll add that DT is one of the most effective editors in questioning several editors and their edits, to the benefit of the editing community and the general readership. In my view, this proposal reveals how effective he has been. Jusdafax 13:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank you to the above three for your kind words. I have been an editor long before Jytdog took charge of the GMO articles, before I even knew what a GMO was. My interests shift from one subject to another, and I often concentrate on only one or handful of related articles at a time. When I see articles that have mistakes, lack information, have typos, etc., I jump in to address problems and improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes I take an interest in a specific subject like Shooting of Samuel DuBose and Eliphalet Ferris House, which I recently edited in. As I explained in Evidence (here) the reason for the large number of talk edits re GMOs, and virtually zero article edits is because of ownership and tendentiousness by both Jytdog and the proposer of my ban and the remaining tag team/gang that support Jytdog's control of the GMO articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Previous outside cases
6) Editors previously sanctioned by ArbCom in controversial science topics (e.g., climate change) have been involved in this case discussion including: Minor4th [415], GregJackP [416], and Cla68[417].
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer I'm not proposing any action based solely on this, but just making sure the committee is aware there is history with these editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
As far as I know, I have never made a single edit to any of the GMO articles or related talk pages and wasn't aware that there was a relation to the climate change topic until I saw your proposed principle above about "scientific consensus." I was drawn to this case because it appears to be another example of editors using bullying to try to win a content dispute with WP admins unable or unwilling to resolve the situation. Cla68 (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have hit the nail on the head! AlbinoFerret 13:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cla, I honestly debated listing your name as Minor4th and GregJackP are much more involved parties here. You are mainly listed as I mentioned in my proposal everyone that has commented here. I wanted to removal editorial judgement on my part from this proposal. Whether that has any bearing if at all here on your comments is up to ArbCom, but I only indiscriminately listed those who have commented here. This proposal is not meant to inherently have a negative implication due to mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG has also been the subject of previous Arb cases; there were FOF made about him and warnings issued. IMO it's irrelevant to this case, just as the instances you mention are irrelevant. Minor4th 16:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AlbinoFerret casting aspersions
7) AlbinoFerret has misrepresented editors with biased edits counts in their Editing statistics section, especially by using reverts of vandalism as evidence of wrongdoing focused solely on one group of editors.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer. The section counts “reverts” and claims the reverts don’t match up to talk page edits. This does not account for responding to other edit warring editors trying to get them to the talk page, but the major misrepresentation is counting disputes settled quickly through edit summary and specifically calling out reverting vandalism as evidence: “Reverted sourced information with no reason.[418]” The combination of biasing revert counts upward and not acknowledging these short comings while targeting only a select group of editors (as opposed to all parties) indicates battleground behavior [419] even though AlbinoFerret has not edited the topic directly. I only propose this finding as AlbinoFerret has now used these claims to greatly exaggerate edit warring in the workshop. This pointed behavior towards some editors who tried to address (and help with) separate advocacy at e-cigs at ANI [420], in sum, indicates a vendetta approach to this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are statistics, and nothing else. The reasoning for the edits/reverts was never provided in evidence and not presented in the workshop by me. They do not show wrongdoing, simply reverts. The comments by Kingofaces43 are just ABF and misrepresenting what he thinks I might have been trying to show by the statistics. I never drew conclusions from those statistics. As for lining up, it was done by date as the statistics show. Any mistakes are unintentional, and if any exists, I am sorry they happened, but at this point the evidence page is locked so they cant be changed or struck. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is proposed because there are very blatant misrepresentations that go beyond honest mistakes that are part of editorializing the numbers rather than presenting just numbers. I honestly don't know how your involvement in noticeboards related to these topics/editors should be handled, but this all up to the arbitrators to look at at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and they are not repeated or severe. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
EllenCT
1) EllenCT is banned from interacting with or alluding to Kingofaces43 indefinitely.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposer. This would be a one-way interaction ban. This is only interaction ban I'm seeking solely due to aspersions and shill accusations. I have repeatedly asked her to refrain from it, she's been warned at ANI,[421] and she still continues shill accusations here at ArbCom [422] while accusing me of vendettas when my more recent run-ins with her have been quite the opposite.[423] We do not overlap at all in topic areas except neonicotinoid some time ago. I have no intent to interact with EllenCT, but I propose the one-way ban because I have been civil the entire time while trying to get EllenCT to stop, so the sanction is only needed on her end at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comment. It may appear to some that my edits below and elsewhere focusing on Jytdog are due to my bearing a grudge. This is not the case. I remind the reader that I raised an AN/I against Jytdog in March this year and he was warned about his behaviour. He has ignored that warning and continued his incivil edits. I was already in the process of preparing a second AN/I against Jytdog when this ArbCom case was proposed and opened, and this therefore became the next step in trying to stem his continuing unacceptable behaviour.
Proposed findings of fact
Jytdog
Jytdog received a warning for incivility in March, 2015.[424]
Despite this, his behaviour since then has included further repeated and extensive incivility (in alphabetical order).
Attacks followed by delayed redactions: [425] after an admin's admonishment for this behaviour[426]
Bogus accusations: here and regarding COPYVIO[427]
Withdrawing from attempted dispute resolutions: here and [448][449]
Tag-teaming with Alexbrn: [450]At the Foie gras article, after I had a few editorial skirmishes with Alexbrn, Jytdog suddenly appears and starts disruptive editing supporting him, although Jytdog has never edited the article before. Foie gras is so far out of Jytdog's stated editing interests I cannot believe it was on his watch-list. I think this was my very first ever encounter with Jytdog, so it is extremely unlikely he would have followed me there from any of my pages or edits. This leaves the only logical explanation to be tag-teaming.DrChrissy(talk) 12:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposerDrChrissy(talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Over the 3 years that I've been witnessing Jytdog, his actions have gone from quiet advocacy editing (Summer 2012) to the extremely disruptive behaviours evidenced in this case, and described well by Dr Chrissy. He has received no repercussions, but only more and more support as his actions have become more obnoxious. petrarchan47คุก 07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: I have not double checked the diffs provided, but I do know there are diffs in evidence for everything alleged above. I will provided additional diffs from evidence if I find them and added new categories in bold:
Comment It appears that David has inadvertently placed material here in my section whereas I believe ArbCom desires it should be in a section of his own. I have left a message at his Talk Page to suggest he moves these, but I have no idea what time zone of the world he is in so I am not sure when he will read my message.DrChrissy(talk) 12:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am supporting your proposed Finding of Fact about Jytdog by providing additional diffs and references to other collections of diffs in this proceeding. It would be duplicative for me to provide yet another proposed Finding of Fact, when yours (and a number of others above) are fine. I provided diffs for a number of proposed FoF's as well, as have other editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks followed by delayed redactions:
Bogus accusations:
Claims about Copyight violations which make no sense: [451]
[459] is not unambiguously correct. It was unambiguously incorrect and shows that Jytdog started an edit war [460], [461],[462] over material that he did not understand - this has happened repeatedly when Jytdog gets involved with legal issues. Consensus was against him, see talk. This is one good example of his POV pushing. Minor4th 21:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC) from from Guy/JzG this section[reply]
threatens that things will get “ugly” [467] – David Tornheim
“The latest ANI that led to this case showcased the tendency of Jytdog to immediately attack almost anyone who disagrees with their views and suggest remarkably strong sanctions be levied. It troubled me that as each person weighed in, each was summarily attacked to varying degrees and a stunning number of people added to this case by Jytdog.” --Montanabw
Misrepresenting edits or editors/Misleading Edit Summaries:
Deleted sourced material critical of GMO's, but says, “fine, don't care”: [468]
Takes out tag that was appropriate, and edit summary makes no sense: [469]
"There is no deadline here - there is no reason not to wait and see how this is dealt with in secondary sources" [477] -- Evidence from David Tornheim (this section)
1) Jytdog is indefinitely site-banned from the English Wikipedia; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. In weighing up the proposed length of the site-ban, I have taken into consideration the bans proposed by editors considerably more experienced than myself in these matters, particularly Tryptofish. I also add that I could very easily be swayed to support a life-time.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
As proposerDrChrissy(talk) 17:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my earlier comments at Albino Ferret's section. (A lifetime ban is the best option. He has more friends on WP than any other editor I've seen around, so there is simply no doubt he would return in 12 months.) petrarchan47คุก 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia requires accurate and complete representation/summarization of scientific principles, evidence, and interpretation in all articles or subjects accessible to scientific investigation within the articles subject to this ArbCom. There is no room for POV.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Uncompromised Representation of Scientific Fact
2) Wikipedia represents accurate and complete representation both of majority/consensus scientific viewpoints, and of significant minority viewpoints, provided all such viewpoints are not found to be invalid, manufactured, biased, or otherwise wholly compromised from the perspective of scientific integrity.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Dual Viewpoints
1) For a period of one year, all parties are prohibited (within articles in scope for this ArbCom) from reverting or otherwise altering content added by parties which represent the opposing viewpoint, excepting incontrovertible violations of Wiki policy, editing to streamline/remove redundancy, or minor format/punctuation/grammar editing. Parties are, however, allowed to provide rebuttals to any content added, provided those rebuttals strictly adhere to WP scientific principles as defined above. Enforcement will occur through a named party informing an uninvolved WP admin of violations; direct action by named party is strictly prohibited.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
OPPOSE: Your proposals need to be grounded in evidence. Where are your Findings of Fact using evidence of the case to support this? From my partial reading of the evidence and testimony, I believe some of the parties named have not even edited some of the GMO article pages, while non-party editors--some who have participated in this discussion--have contributed to disruption of PAG based editing of the articles and talk pages. Treating each party to this case the same does not reflect the evidence presented at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
User Talk Page Ban
2) For a period of one year, all named parties are banned from all other named parties' User and User Talk pages, allowing for specific exceptions as requested by named parties and approved by this ArbCom.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose Unworkable and unnecessary. Nothing in this case warrants this drastic restriction. AlbinoFerret 04:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons stated by AlbinoFerret and reasons I gave in the previous section. David Tornheim (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unworkable and unnecessary.DrChrissy(talk) 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Badly constructed. There's nothing special about being a "named party"; in theory new parties might be added even now. You need to establish that each and every person you want sanctioned from talk pages has actually abused talk pages so badly that such a ban is needed. Because comments on talk pages are usually less disruptive than comments at, say, ANI, the level of proof/abuse required should be high. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Attacks
3) For a period of one year, all named parties are banned from content or statements that are construed by an uninvolved WP admin as personal attacks on other named parties, whether in Diff edit comments, reverted Diffs, talk pages, or any other recorded content of any kind. First intentional violation leads to warning, second violation to one month full WP ban, and third violation to permanent WP ban. Interpretation of what constitutes "personal attack" is the exclusive prevue of the uninvolved administrator.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment Likely to be covered by any DS passed by arbcom, so unnecessary.AlbinoFerret 04:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for same reasons I objected to Proposal (1). --David Tornheim (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The safety of GMOs is an issue of philosophy, not fact
GMOs are safe to consume. GMOs are dangerous. The distinction between these mutually compatible points of view is not a matter of evidence, but the philosophy of those examining the issue. A GMO can be constructed that is deadly, that is an actual bio-weapon, by inserting mutant human prion protein or the biosynthetic pathway for aflatoxin into a seemingly harmless vegetable product. Yet there is no evidence any such GMO, that any harmful GMO at all, is in circulation. Between these extremes, there is the question of whether a "pharming" product can inadvertently enter the food supply (for example, if yeast modified for morphine production contaminated a brewery), or whether an unscrupulous company that ignores allergy considerations and mislabels GMO products could do harm, or whether well-meaning products like canola oil modified for omega-3 fatty acids to be fed to fish for human consumption will turn out to have unexpected harmful impacts. There is no facile answer to a philosophical question. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment For an encyclopedic coverage of the topic, it is not so complicated. We have been hosting a distilled version of the statements of governmental and scientific bodies, rather than telling the reader what each body stated (and when), also known as 'context'. The distilled version is nothing but a pro-GMO PR statement and an egregious violation of SYNTH. If the GMO articles were written less as a promotion and more like regular WP articles, which is to say, including the actual statements being summarized, as well as including all reliably sourced views of the issue with due weight, the 'distillation' would be simply: "The science is not yet settled on the safety of GMO food." Not all studies show that it is safe. There are no long term human studies being done. The FDA considers GMOs as GRAS ("generally regarded as safe"), rather than as a food additive requiring safety tests before being released onto the market. It's not simplistic "dangerous vs safe". We don't know either way, and these facts are being kept from Wikipedia readers. petrarchan47คุก 20:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for this essay. I agree with much of it, although toxicity can be tested--and that is fairly factual, so I can't agree that safety is purely "philosophical". (I also agree with many of the things stated above in petrarchan47คุก's comment.) Having studied academic philosophy, I see it as even more complex than this. You have pointed out the kind of overly simplistic black/white thinking that has unfortunately infiltrated the articles (especially their ledes), including positions advocated by those who claim to be neutral, unbiased and "pro-science". Since ArbCom rules on behavior rather than content, this is unlikely to be part of the final decision, but thank you for talking about black/white positions. It would be nice to be able to openly discuss this further and how it could improve the articles without being subjected to the needless harassment by those who endorse their superior black/white position, which has occurred when the subtleties of GMO's (i.e. those things mentioned by by petrarchan47คุก' above) are attempted to be restored to the articles before the current owners took over in 2013. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I have to say that while I agree with the idea that genetically engineered biological weapons can be unsafe, and in fact are intended to be unsafe, that doesn't raise the matter of GMOs in general being more a matter of philosophy than fact. As someone who hasn't been that involved in the topic, I think the point of contention is probably whether GMOs which are created for the purposes of regular beneficial human use are or are not safe. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: Have a look at tanning activator; then look up how long psoralens affect sensitivity to UV, and what that implies for repeat business (and skin cancer rates). Don't underestimate what companies will do, and get away with. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed principles
MEDRS is limited to medical claims
High-quality medical literature provides the best resource for resolving medical claims: Is it dangerous (to personal health) to eat GMO corn? Can vaccination cause diseases, and if so what? How many people are killed by handguns each year in the U.S.? However, high quality medical literature holds no special power in regard to moral and political questions: Should GMOs be labelled? Should a cocaine vaccine be mandatory for all schoolchildren? Is the Second Amendment a bad idea? A neutral article must respectfully cover both medical and non-medical, both scientific and non-scientific points of view, with one proviso: these cannot be represented as the medical or scientific point of view. In some cases, one point of view may have a separate article from another - creationism and natural selection, for example - and each may restrict itself to one perspective. But Wikipedia separates them the better to cover both perspectives accurately, not to make one ascendant over the other, nor to wipe the loser from our knowledge. Wnt (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support This is appropriate, and causing non human and non medical claims to be covered under MEDRS can be used to keep information out. Saying that I will add that MEDRS is imho designed for keeping human medical information out, not animal information. The first line of MEDRS is "Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information." The source used as a basis for this uses human medical sites to compare to, MedlinePlus, a health information service from the United States Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health and mentions the patient–physician relationship. It does not say veterinary advice or mention any sites related to animals. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the GMO "safety consensus" RfC,[482] Wnt made this comment, which I find close to perfect:
"[I]n general I think an article like this should try to gather many sources and viewpoints. Certainly a preference for high-quality sources should not exclude the presentation of all notable viewpoints. A well-written article should say what the best sources think on safety, but also outline all the main objections as well as all the main arguments why they are safe. I think some people here sound like they expect a Wikipedia article to make it sound like the issue is settled and this is what the Truth is, but that's not what we're here for - we're here to help people research any aspect of the issues they want." - Wnt (11:39, 2 June 2015) petrarchan47คุก 10:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Nobody is supposed to win here
No matter how enlightened one side may be, no matter how ignorant the other may have proved itself, we should never expect Wikipedia to tell only one side of a dispute when both sides are heard in the world at large. Wikipedia's role in any dispute is to guide people through what is available for them to read, no matter what its justification. Even when one group has trounced its rivals (homoousian, homoiousian, heteroousian...) Wikipedia needs no dustpan to haul away the losers. Therefore, we should not expect an article about a subject where controversy exists to omit notable aspects of that controversy, except inasmuch as philosophically incompatible ways of looking at the question may be subdivided into other articles according to Wikipedia's summary style. Wnt (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support The only winner should be WP and PAG such as NPOV RS and VER. Articles that present all information by weight are the best. Multiple points of view and a broader coverage are to be desired. AlbinoFerret 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to behave in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While not expected to be perfect, they are accountable for their actions and should justify their blocks and warnings in a prompt and respectful manner.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Communication skills
2) Good communication skills is a prerequisite for adminship. A warning or notice must be firmly communicated in clear and understandable terms, but should not be expressed in such a way for it to be mistakenly perceived as an attempt to threaten, intimidate, or silence. The use of excessive technical jargon and inappropriate metaphors or slang phrases is generally discouraged.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Purpose of blocks
3) Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. After the risk of disruption has ended, an administrator should not make a retrospective block for edits that were performed before a warning was issued.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
The principle of equality
4) All editors are equal before the Arbitration Committee. No particular editor should be discriminated against, nor should anyone be afforded special protection.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support As per my earlier comments. petrarchan47คุก 02:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Adapted from Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think the project needs such a clause, especially when one takes into account the issues highlighted in this current case and in recent ones including the electronic cigarette dispute, where S Marshall puts it quite succintly: "there's a double-standard, where behaviour that would get some editors sanctioned is tolerated in others" [483]. Enacting such a clause will probably save the Arbitration Committee from a lot of drama and bring this place closer to a well-accepted practice of non-discrimination in much of the civilized world. -RoseL2P (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed findings of fact
JzG's inappropriate warning
1) On 22 May 2015, JzG issued an intimidating and inappropriate warning to SageRad, threatening him with this statement: "If you mention Gorski again, I will initiate discussion on the appropriate scope for a topic ban" [484].
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support This does seem inappropriate. petrarchan47คุก 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The example is not the worst of the threats and attempts to intimidate Sage Rad by JzG, as examination of his Talk page shows, but certainly illustrative. Jusdafax 06:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would not be tolerated if posted by an editor, let alone an admin.DrChrissy(talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This "final warning" by JzG is problematic in many ways:
First and foremost, it is not grounded on any policy or guideline. If the main concern here is a BLP violation, then there should at the very least be a reference to the relevant policy in the wording of the warning so that the offending editor understands what exactly he is being accused of violating.
Second, my understanding of "final warnings" is that they are usually issued as preventive measures against multiple violations of policy that are likely to occur in the future, rather than for a single edit or a string of edits performed in the past and have since stopped.
Third, unless someone has already been topic banned, they cannot be sanctioned for simply "mentioning" a topic area. Claiming that they cannot even "mention" something is beyond absurd. Some might view this as an attempt to silence an opponent, but I cannot rule out the possibility that this is simply poor communication on the part of JzG.
A more pressing concern is that SageRad's attempts to communicate with JzG immediately after the warning were apparently ignored. There were lots of comments by Jytdog and Kingofaces43 thereafter [485], but the next comment by JzG was not an attempt to explain or clarify the issue, but an outright punitive block. RoseL2P (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG's inappropriate block
2) On 29 May 2015, JzG retrospectively blocked SageRad for an edit made in the past. The rationale for the block is as follows: "You do not seem to understand warnings, so perhaps you will understand a block. Your comments re. David Gorski are pure trolling. They are unwelcome." [486]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support It is concerning when one considers that Guy's protection of Gorski may be due to an ideological alignment, and this may affect his ability to use the tools in certain topic areas. petrarchan47คุก 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Totally inappropriate.DrChrissy(talk) 12:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Again, this punitive block by JzG is problematic in many ways:
First, if someone does not understand a warning, then it is your responsibility to explain it to them in the clearest terms possible rather than blocking them for something they don't understand.
Second, the edit history of SageRad shows that he was essentially blocked on a retrospective basis. In fact, with the sole exception of this this edit (which does not appear very problematic and certainly does not warrant a block), he stayed away from the article after being silenced by JzG on 22 May 2015. So, what was the block for? SageRad thinks the block is not in order, I personally consider such a punitive, restrospective block to be grounds for summary desyopping.
Third, SageRad's subsequent requests for clarifications regarding the block were, yet again, not met with any serious attempt to explain the issue at hand. How do you expect someone who has barely edited for a month to understand the relevant policy if you don't even make a reasonable effort to explain it?
Everything about this block smells fishy, from the dubious "warning" right up to the block itself and his subsequent closure of SageRad's RfC, apparently as an "uninvolved" administrator. RoseL2P (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The block was for an egregious and malicious BLP violation, and SageRad's subsequent talkpage comments make clear that he had no intention of stopping and no understanding of why his actions were inappropriate. In that context, I think a block was entirely reasonable. MastCellTalk 18:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit showed ignorance of BLP policy rather than malice, and has not been repeated after the warning was given, which makes the block retrospective and punitive. Further, if SageRad did not understand why his action was inappropriate, then it is up to the administrator to make a reasonable effort to explain the issue at hand in a calm and respectful manner rather than escalating the situation with an inappropriate final warning. -RoseL2P (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG edit-warred
3) During this case, JzG has participated in battleground behavior in this topic area, including edit warring (See Minor4th's evidence)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Note that he was warned for edit-warring barely a month before that. If this was any rank-and-file editor, they would have been sanctioned several eons ago. -RoseL2P (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG's incivility
4) During this case, JzG abusively attacked several participants as a "fuckton of editors" on the arbitration case pages [487]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment A "fuckton" is a simple unit of measure, not an attack. However, a closer look at his comment reveals he holds a wildly inaccurate viewpoint regarding what the evidence shows:
"there are a metric fuckton of editors who are after Jytdog's blood for defending science on hundreds of pages related to crank ideas, pseudoscience, pseudomedicine and other nonsense". petrarchan47คุก 02:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multiple cases of incivility. I would have provided my own evidence of this but I was not sure if this could be raised against a non-named party.DrChrissy(talk) 12:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5) In 2006, JzG(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), along with all other administrators involved in the case, was generically admonished and instructed to "avoid... use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute". In 2009, JzG was specifically admonished by the Arbitration Committee and told "not to use his administrative tools in any situation unless he is uninvolved" [488]. Following an AE request in 2014, JzG was warned that his conduct did not meet the community's expectations in the conduct of administrators and that his statements could be perceived as "an attempt to use your administrator status...to gain an advantage in a content dispute" [489]. In January 2015, an AE request was closed with JzG being warned to "adhere to the standards of decorum expected of editors" [490].
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Just to note that I was a certifier on a user RfC about JzG in March 2008. I thought JzG did a good job adhering to the straight and narrow after that RfC, at least for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
JzG desyopped
1) JzG's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support Per the "principle of equality" and the evidence provided. petrarchan47คุก 02:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He has abused the faith the community entrusted him with. Time to take away the extra buttons. A very important point in this case, and his not being named was a mistake at the very least. Jusdafax 04:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He has abused the faith that goes along with this entrusted position. He needs to prove again he is worthy of this trust.DrChrissy(talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
His refusal to engage in civil discussion, silencing of SageRad and subsequent block of SageRad, closure of SageRad's RfC while appearing as an "uninvolved" administrator, multiple counts of edit-warring, and grossly abusive insults on the talk pages of ArbCom cases are all incompatible with adminship. Per the principle of equality, just because someone avidly defends Wikipedia against pseudoscientific ideas does not confer them any special protections. They are treated equally. -RoseL2P (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Note to ClerkUser:L235 There appear to be 2 sections relating to Petracharn47 here.DrChrissy(talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: Doesn't look like a big deal to me; each has its discussion. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - not a problem. Thanks for the reply.DrChrissy(talk) 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
L235 I am seeing evidence presented for the first time on this page, as can be seen in the LesVagas section below. Should this be struck, and since the editor cant do it presently, should one of the clerks or arbs do it? AlbinoFerret 15:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is back, and points out that this is the Analysis of Evidence section, not a section of Workshop proposals, although of course it's on the Workshop page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to a policy, guideline, or posts from the arbs or clerks that supports your stance. As I see it this is part of the workshop, and the arbs or clerks have already stated this page needs to be based on evidence supplied in the evidence phase. AlbinoFerret 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like good evidence, and should not be discounted with claims someone else made him do it. That is something every editor should have learned early in life from their parents is not an excuse. AlbinoFerret 17:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Trypto: Thank you, that was timely. I have started wading through some diffs of Jytdog's edits, actually from what you link here it looks very much as if while he flares up often, he calms down quickly and apologises, at least if he perceives his opponent as acting in good faith. I still think he's rude and obnoxious, but so am I so I can't really criticise him for that. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that these diffs hit the nail on the head re Jytdog's incivility. I had a problem of a similar kind with him, I believe re Jimbo's talk page, but at the time I just shrugged it off. The diffs here show that he flies off the handle far too frequently, and that has been my experience with him as well. I don't think that the apologies are meaningful considering his recidivism; they are not isolated events but a pattern of behavior. Apologies only make sense when they are sincere. I question whether they are sincere. Even if they are, they are meaningless as he keeps doing the same thing over and over again. So I think that Cla68's point, in his presentation, re apologies is applicable to this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, if someone called you a dirty name to your face, and then said sorry after each time. How long would it take to tell the apologies were not sincere? Would it matter if it were once a week or once a month? Maybe it would take time, but the pattern would get old real quick. AlbinoFerret 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[517] presented as evidence, but reference to WP:NOTHERE is inaccurate revised by DrChrissy following discussion at my user talk, and the discussion referred to shows roughly equal conduct by both editors. Contrast my own evidence here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy is correct here that Jytdog followed DrChrissy to some pages, and that's a problem. However, the chronology is that DrChrissy's negative interactions directed at Jytdog very much precede those incidents, and the relative magnitudes of the conduct by each editor reflect much more attacking of Jytdog by DrChrissy than the reverse. Also "Disengages from dispute resolutions with me" presents DrChrissy as trying in a friendly way to settle things with Jytdog and Jytdog unilaterally declining to cooperate; examination of the actual discussion (linked in my evidence) shows this is not the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have overlooked one aspect of the chronology of the interactions between myself and Jytdog: He had already received a warning about incivility before any of the evidence I have presented to this case. One would have expected him to be on his best behaviour. Clearly he was not.DrChrissy(talk) 13:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But neither were you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like good evidence and discounting it by saying "look at what you did" is just wrong and does not fly here or in real life. We are each accountable for our own actions regardless of what others have done. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish's evidence about me includes a link to a 2010 Arb case unrelated to GMO or any of the issues being considered in this case. I respectfully request that such outdated and unrelated evidence be summarily dismissed as stale (5 years old) and irrelevant -- especially since Tryptofish explicitly limits his evidence about other parties to focus on more recent conductMinor4th 21:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that Minor4th has some reasonable concerns about the amount of time that has passed, and I would not want to see any severe sanctions on Minor4th as a result of my evidence. However, the conduct at ANI that I presented is well within-scope, and it is appropriate to consider past instructions to the editor. Also, it's not quite accurate to describe my "focus on more recent conduct" that way, because there was a specific reason that I gave in my evidence for that focus for one editor, and the ANI evidence for Minor4th is just as recent. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was not suggesting that your evidence about a recent ANI be dismissed - I was only referring to the 5 year old Arb case, if that wasn't clear. Thanks. Minor4th 22:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall very weak in diffs when discussing negative behaviour. Tryptofish was able to find plenty of evidence to praise Jytdog, but little against parties he disagrees with. Sadly this is the basis for his heavy handed approach to those editors as he has stated all his proposals on this page are based solely on his evidence as shown in his comment in this section. AlbinoFerret 01:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain. First of all, I obviously had an upper limit for the number of diffs. More importantly, I actually think that it's more important that editors do not get harsher sanctions than they deserve, than that editors do not get lighter sanctions than they deserve. If some editors get off a little too easily, well, it's not the end of the Wiki. But if someone gets slammed without deserving it, that's seriously wrong. And you might just find that the Arbs are not too impressed with a defense that includes there were more diffs about someone else than there were diffs about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear by your evidence and sections here that you are giving slaps on the wrist to editors you agree with and taking a sledge hammer to those you dont. AlbinoFerret 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[518] presented as evidence of my dishonesty. However, the context is that I actually said this: [519], [520]. Jytdog then asked me this: [521], and I replied: [522]. Jytdog said: [523], [524], and I tried to be sensitive to what he said: [525]. That's it. There is no evidence of me being dishonest there.
[526] presented as evidence of barnstars. Those editors agreed with Petrarchan47 in content dispute at Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
[527] presented as evidence of good editing on medical topics. Award was distributed based upon the number of edits in content area, not on the quality or content of those edits.
As I said in my evidence, "Some editors will claim that the RfC yielded a different consensus", so I will link to the closing statement again here: [528].
About the WHO source, Petrarchan47 quotes a cherry-picked sentence to imply that the source concludes that it is not possible to conclude that GMO foods are safe. I've just linked again to the source: look to see what it actually says.
She quotes blogs by activists as evidence that AAAS is in Monsanto's pocket.
Yes, Sheldon Krimsky is a skeptic. He does not speak for most scientific experts, just for himself. The Domingo paper does not conclude that GMO foods are unsafe; rather it is an evaluation of primary sources that seeks to identify where there is not yet enough research, and it concludes that there are significant gaps in research.
Noting that the EU has made a political decision to not grow GMO crops contradicts nothing that I said. I made it clear that there is a widespread perception of potential danger in the general public. I also cited in my evidence the EU's scientific analysis, [529], and they drew a scientific conclusion different than the political policy decision.
I did not mean to insinuate that you were being dishonest, but that your purpose here was to advocate for Jytdog, not to give a neutral assessment.
I've said nothing about the RfC result except that it found there was no support in the sources brought forth. Unless the strict requirements for making a safety consensus statement are loosened, the sources have to literally say what we are claiming in WPs voice. The EU source Tryptofish mentioned in his GMO coverage refers to the safety of technologies, not GM food safety, but is being used to support "GMO foods are safe to eat". The WHO was indeed being misquoted, as Sarah SV noted here[530], (the AAAS Board's statement also misrepresents the WHO). I'm not necessarily making claims about sources, I'm merely repeating what we uncovered in the RfC, and showing why we failed to meet consensus that Jytdog's sources support the SC statement. It was agreed that the statement would have to be changed.
Independent scientists are referred to as activists by Trypto and others, while the AAAS anti-GMO-labeling position paper (that some of its own scientists have shown misinterprets the facts) is considered a good, neutral source. It appears that sources are being evaluated based on a pro-GMO POV, not the PAGs.
Sheldon Krimsky isn't representing himself, he's representing the science. He defines his skepticism thusly: One of the core values of science is ‘organized skepticism.’ When claims are made, you have to start with skepticism until the evidence is so strong that your skepticism disappears. You don’t in science start by saying ‘Yes, I like this hypothesis and it must be true.’[531]
Krimsky's recent meta-review,[532] is the highest quality WP:MEDRS source on this topic available to date. The MEDRS guideline is clear enough that this fact can be validated. Krimsky looked at every study and review of GMO food safety since 2008, concluding there is no safety consensus. See also from Tufts: Questioning GMOs[533]
The only other review of GM feeding studies available is Domingo 2011,[534] which found that the number of studies showing GMO food was perfectly safe was roughly equal to the number showing 'serious cause for concern' - this is stated in the abstract. (Nowhere have I suggested that Domingo concluded GMOs are unsafe.) We are required to use the best sources and represent them properly, whatever their conclusions. This is what many of the editors now being labelled troublemakers have been trying to say.
My note about the EU turning away from GMO crops was unrelated to Trypto's comments, but rather to the idea that anyone questioning GMO safety should be discounted as "fringe", a contention he and others used to originally frame this case. petrarchan47คุก 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying, and I have read and thought about everything that you said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. I'd like to TL;DR one of the main problems I am trying to elucidated in this case. TIME (in the UN piece) summarizes the GMO science in a vastly more encyclopedic and neutral way that any GMO article on WP, with this:[535]The science community holds a variety of opinions on GMOs. Some members, like...". From my experience, if we tried to add something like this, we would be labelled, harrassed, taken to noticeboards and perhaps end up at ArbCom. It is highly possible that WP hosting this "scientific consensus" for 3 years, a statement that Jytdog had to admit (by changing it slightly post-RfC) was unsupported, has affected the beliefs of our readers based on biotech PR, rather than science. petrarchan47คุก 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy, science is always changing. You may be mistaken on your views that 9 month rat studies conducted by industry are sufficient when speaking to human health long-term. The EU finds Seralini's study - which is based on Monsanto's own trials except taken beyond 9 months - valuable enough to now be spending millions of euros on a full blown cancer study replicating Seralini's 2 model.[536] There has been evidence in media lately that industry may try to influence what we know about GMO safety.[537] This makes it challenging when it comes to editing these articles. Dealing with editors who, despite the reviews such as Domingo 2011, throw those who want the science represented into the same category as climate change deniers is difficult. Further, there has been no evidence presented that anyone in this case is "anti-GMO". petrarchan47คุก 20:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I fail to see the relevance of the EU "turning away from" GMO crops, as this is a political, not a scientific decision. It demonstrates the success of the rhetoric of anti-GMO activists, but is not relevant to the scientific question of safety. You might just as well say that there is dispute over the existence of global climate change because virtually the entire Republican party repudiates it. In fact, the more science fails to show a result that political activists want, the more vociferous they are apt to become. Scientifically, anti-GMO is a fringe view, and the "science" of the anti-GMO camp (e.g. the Séralini study, which is outright fraudulent) is not at all sound. Climate change is actually the best model here, as we distinguish quite well between the scientific question and the political one, albeit with much Sturm und Drang over individual questions like whether climate denialists are denialists or "skeptics". Guy (Help!) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it particularly mean-spirited for Tryptofish to belittle Petra's Editor of the Week Award and to further belittle those who complimented her on it by saying that we had all worked with her on the BP article, as though there was something wrong with that. To bring up something so petty as that is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, IMO. Also, re the WHO's statement, a careful reading shows that their position is not really as clear cut as the Monsanto article presented it to be for years. This is just one of the many ways that show how an article can be slanted in subtle ways when a powerful editor, or small group of editors with a similar POV, take over an article. Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the section titled "Long term disruption (2013-2015)", there are many diffs purporting to show long term disruption by Jytdog. Look critically at them, because most reflect Jytdog's involvement with disruptions caused by other editors. It's false to imply that just because a lot of complaints were made about him, that the complaints were found to be valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are a sampling of diffs for a 3 year period, to illustrate that Jytdog's complained-of behavior is not a new phenomenon. This is meant to supplement other evidence presented about Jytdog's behavior. I believe that most of the diffs I posted in this sampling resulted in a warning or page protection, but they speak for themselves. I agree that in some instances Jytdog is not the only editor being disruptive - but in the diffs I provided I believe he is the primary catalyst, and his level of incivility surpasses that of any other party to this case. He has shown repeatedly that he cannot tolerate disagreement and frustration in this topic area. See, for example: This is almost too much for me to bear; and I am too angry to write more now.Minor4th 01:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In some new evidence, Minor4th has pointed to where Jytdog referred to her being a "meatpuppet" of GregJackP. (Redacted) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)Minor4th 10:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my error in judgment. Something that I do not want to lose in the rev-del is that I said that I do not entirely defend what Jytdog said. I still think that there is actually something of a factual basis for Jytdog to have said this, so it wasn't as much of an out-of-the-blue personal attack as it sounds like on first reading, but I also acknowledge that neither Jytdog nor I can actually know whether meatpuppetry actually happened, short of having a supernatural ability to mind-read. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you are still talking about this. Why are you speaking for Jytdog, anyway? How far are you willing to go to defend him? Something I don't want to lose in the revdel is that you engaged in OUTing in an effort to protect and defend Jytdog, and you should be sanctioned for your misbehavior on Arb pages. Minor4th 19:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Bowman v. Monsanto section, Minor4th claims I "parachuted in" and engaged in tag-team behavior with Jytdog. I was never involved in whatever Jytdog's dispute was, nor was he involved in this picture "dispute". Appears to be evidence of battleground mentality. What was omitted by Minor4th was that I removed the picture once thinking it was unnecessary, GregJackP reverted, and I attempted discussion with him. Nothing that would derail the GA nomination. Instead, GregJackP followed me to emerald ash borer, vandalized the article, and that caused the GA nomination there in part to fail. I did not include that in evidence since he is currently "retired", but the curious can check out the articles.
The example diff from the Battleground/edit warring during the case section relates to me removing synthesized content (entirely original research) from sources that never mentioned the subject of the article. The "suspiciously new, yet Wiki savvy" user was Roxy the dog, who is far from new.Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking a about Roxy - I was talking about the redlinked editor you reverted. Minor4th 01:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. The current version of a diff tends to be the subject, especially given the context, which is what my original comment was based on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like good evidence and discounting it by saying "look at what other editors did" is just wrong and does not fly here or in real life. We are each accountable for our own actions regardless of what others have done. AlbinoFerret 17:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Has anyone here ever seen Not The Nine O'Clock News? Constable Savage is up before his Inspector because he keeps arresting the same man, Mr. Winston Kodogo, for offences such as "smelling of foreign food", "urinating in a public convenience", "looking at me in a funny way", "walking with a loud shirt in a built-up area" "walking around with an offensive wife" and so on. His justification is:
Savage: He's a villain, sir, a jailbird
Inspector: I know he's a jailbird, Savage, he's down in in the cells, we're holding him on a charge of possession of curly black hair and thick lips!
S: There you go, sir
I: YOU ARRESTED HIM!
S: Thank you, sir!
So: a substantial chunk of Jytdog's regularity on the drama boards is related to transparent attempts by promoters of pseudoscience and fringe claims to abuse process in order to rid themselves of the "troublesome priest". Jytdog is absolutely not a saint, but we can and should draw a distinction between burnout induced by relentless POV-pushing and hounding, and those doing the POV-pushing and hounding. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where you see burnout, I see behaviour issues. Jytdog is not a new editor, in fact he is quite active on the noticeboards and has a good knowledge of PAG. If he was getting burned out, he should have taken a wikibreak, the standard thing editors do. If it is a case of burnout, instead he charges ahead and engages in behaviour he knows is wrong. That has concerns of competency written all over it. AlbinoFerret 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out I have supported Jytdog in the past.[538]AlbinoFerret 02:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just make one point, about the statement about "Core of the dispute". AlbinoFerret says that I made WP:SYNTH in describing "scientific consensus" as such. I've presented clear evidence of six sources, all demonstrably from representatives of the mainstream scientific community, that summarize the known science and say what I attribute to them, and I've shown that dissenting sources are either minority views or outright fringe. When all of these sources agree that this is what the science says, the fact that they do not necessarily use the word "consensus" to say it does not make it SYNTH to recognize that they all agree that this is what the science says. See also: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat#5. Reversed burden of proof and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat#6. Gaming. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've decided to comment on a second point. In the "Jytdog is usually helpful section", AlbinoFerret points out that most of the examples I gave in my Evidence are not specifically about GMOs. For one thing, that contradicts what AlbinoFerret later says, that Jytdog edits almost only in the GMO topic area, in an SPA-like fashion. It also seems to imply that a topic ban of Jytdog from GMOs is indicated, which is something that the POV-pushers would certainly applaud. But there really is a problem with the repeated claim that Jytdog is not helpful in the GMO topic. In my "Preliminary statement" on the Evidence page, I suggested that the earliest disputes in this case scope occurred in the now-archived talk pages of March Against Monsanto. It's worth going through those talk archives. One will see that the disputes begin with very battlegroundy and POV conduct by editors who are critics of Monsanto and GMOs, quickly accusing other editors of being paid shills from Monsanto, and are met by much more civil responses by Jytdog and other editors. Only over time does one see Jytdog's temper getting frayed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tryptofish misstates the evidence. The WP:SYNTH is the claim in the GMO Food article itself, sourced to 10 sources, none of which explicitly make the claim in the WP article. What the claim is doing is adding up all the sources to make the "general scientific agreement" claim. In fact Jytdog admits they were all "added up" in a diff from petrachan47's opening statement.[539]
I never said Jytdog "edits almost only in the GMO topic area", a strawman argument, but that his activity in GMO related articles is "SPA like". There is an unhealthy fixation on the topic that has lead to behaviour issues that others have pointed out. AlbinoFerret 03:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't clear to me that you meant the page, because you said it as a rebuttal to my evidence. Unless you are claiming that there was a specific conduct issue resulting in that SYNTH at the page, then it's unclear what ArbCom will do about it. As for SPA, I feel like you cannot have it both ways. You complain that his editing in that area is "unhealthy", but then you complain that I presented evidence of his being helpful to other editors in all kinds of topic areas. There is nothing unhealthy about having a particular interest in editing in a specific topic, and an awful lot of his edits in that area reflect the existence of edits by other editors who are abusing Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You presented evidence of him being helpful outside of the topic area. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I presented evidence of him being helpful both in and outside the topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In one instance, and in that instance there is an example of abuse of templating by Jytdog. AlbinoFerret 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On Albinoferret's comment on my mention of their topic ban, it's a topic ban that was coming either way if one reads the ANI. Interestingly in the cases where I'm mentioned here, I was adding minimal changes here that we had consensus for on the talk page (larger changes were still being discussed), and here where I'm removing content added by SageRad that was not in the source at all. Not sure why those would be mentioned here.
There is also major misrepresentation in their Editing statistics section. Using my edits as an example, they make claims multiple times my reverts don't match up to talk page edits, which ignores that most of my reverts were for vandalism, or specifically asking people to reach consensus on the talk page and follow WP:BRD because they weren't participating there. It also ignores that content disputes are sometimes resolved in two edits without the need for a talk page. AlbinoFerret says, "Reverted sourced information with no reason.[540]", when looking at the diff shows an obvious revert of vandalism. Another comment about Sulfoxaflor "which deal with using a company source on its own product" is painting a different picture than my talk page comments there where the journal publication was fine for non-controversial content, but not for other content. Overall, a lot of rattling off diffs and editorializing them to make them seem bad when actually looking at the diffs show the opposite of poor behavior on my part (though responding to some other editors behavior issues). Looks like arbitrators will need to look carefully at each diff AlbinoFerret lists in this section as they don't match up with the insinuations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your information on a "topic ban" is just a crystal ball and reading between the lines trying to look to events that never happened. As said before, on a topic that isnt at issue here. As for the statistics section, strangely enough, I didnt end up using any of the statistics material gathered on you for my section in the workshop. AlbinoFerret 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the common theme here has been for someone involved in Wikiproject Medicine or WP:FTN to try to work with an editor with problematic behavior (SPA in your case from ANI), the problem continues, the behavior is called out often at ANI, and the problem editor shows up at noticeboards where the editors pointing out the problem behavior are then targeted. That's partly why ANI hasn't worked out lately and we're here instead. I'm not going to engage you any further on that though as the Arbitrators will weigh what role your involvement plays here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im sure the arbs will, I am also sure the arbs will look at the evidence I presented that the idea of me showing up on the noticeboards for specific people is nonsense. The evidence provided by me on this is from Jytdog, who showed that the sections I participated in were varied and mostly contained people not even in this case. I didnt just pop in to protect people, but I was active as a lot of community members are on the noticeboards. The problem is both you and Jytdog want to ignore that and focus on a small sample out of that group of sections. The arbs can also look at your edit history, and I wonder what they will find in your activity on noticeboards. Will they show you showing up to only defend people you agree with? AlbinoFerret 13:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few diffs are presented purporting to show that Aircorn and I were working in coordination. Just because the two of us agreed on some content issues does not indicate the existence of a cabal. And I think that the evidence is very revealing about the mindset of the editors who claim the existence of Monsanto shills and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from those diffs we both thought that the article had problems with notability and relied too much (in this case exclusively) on primary sources. I can't see any problem with how we interacted there at all. AIRcorn(talk) 05:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Bayer section, the listed "criticism" source was never discussed in any diff. In the edit war diffs listed, [541][542] are interesting because I first asked people to follow BRD and come to the talk page, David Tornheim reverted saying "see talk page", and I had to remind him again to reach consensus first. David Tornheim also fails to mention in the AN3 they linked that they still incorrectly claim I violated 3RR, and I was mentioned by the closer as the person always trying to get people to the talk page instead of edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing your attention to your editing habits at Bayer. One only need to look at the history of the Bayer article to see the very interesting changes that happened with respect to the coverage of Bayer's pesticides. Let's look at the history:
November 25, 2002 -- Bayer article created. (Nothing about pesticides or bees)
Dec 2003 Pesticides and bees first added at Bayer Cropscience -- 1 sentence (~10% of the article)
Kingofaces43 edit wars to keep the study out here, here (<< IP user with single edit, who I assumed was Kingofaces43), here, here as reported here
during the edit war, KingofAces, Jytdog and Formerly98 (Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 talk who formerly had a COI declaration about pharma) decide to remove the entire section on Neonicotinoid pesticides, assuring the study does not see the light of day in the article. KingofAces43 made that edit.
April 12 (04:01) -- version after Kingofaces43 has removed Neonicotinoid pesticides -- 0 paragraphs
April 12 -- Formerly98 (Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 talk who formerly had a COI declaration about pharma) now takes control, deletes all the controversy section, creates new products section and puts all the controversy there, where it is much less noticeable. here. It is starting to look more like an advertising brochure.
April 13-April 27 Jytdog makes numerous changes diff
This section is supposed to be an analysis of the evidence provided by Petrarchan47. But yet again, JzG/Guy below uses this section to attack me - without providing evidence. This is at least twice (first instance is at the top of the diff here[543]) he has used the wrong section of this workshop to attack me without evidence. Why is my topic ban mentioned in this section? - it is totally irrelevant. It is totally outrageous and unacceptable for JyZ/Guy to continue to behave in this manner - especially as he is an admin and should therefore know better. I am now calling for action to be taken about his misuse of this Workshop.DrChrissy(talk) 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Guy, with regard to your remarks about Michael R. Taylor in the section below, because your comments rarely provide sources, I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you clarify and skip the snark?petrarchan47คุก 01:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made 0 edits to the Michael R. Taylor article. [544]. petrarchan47คุก 08:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch my comments about Taylor, I see Guy is not actually accusing me, but defending Jytdog's work there.
The assertion that I am citing my own words as evidence is incorrect. This diff[545] points to my summary of, and link to, a lecture given by David Gorski where, when asked about the safety of GMOs, he says essentially, "What's the big deal? We've been doing it for thousands of years." This is the opposite of "evidence-based". petrarchan47คุก 00:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence The Michael R. Taylor article was turned from an informative, albeit undeveloped, NPOV article into a defense of Taylor, who has come under criticism. The majority of the article is mostly based on primary sources and this puff piece (cited 8 times). In Jytdog's series of edits, one can observe the development of an OR/SYNTH defense of Taylor; for a while it had a disclaimer[546] posted to the page stating: "Note: the only place I found this information is in the Nestle posting just cited. I have asked Nestle where she got it. Will post that citation as soon as I get it". petrarchan47คุก 21:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Petrarchan states that "the fringe patrol has had a deleterious effect on the project". This assertion is backed by statements of opinion by a small number of editors; primarily in the context of DrChrissy trying to exclude QuackWatch, a widely cited source on pseudoscientific medical claims, from the article on acupuncture, from which DrChrissy is now topic-banned. QuackWatch is cited by other sources, not just Wikipedia, and the context of the debate is the fact that scientific sources tend not to investigate pseudsocientific claims. Jimbo thinks our policies on this are spot on (see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans) and several previous arbitration cases have upheld these. Essentially, Petrarchan appears to want to relitigate the body of past consensus on the conflict between science and belief - he refers to this as "large areas of content being controlled [...] by sdmall handfuls of people". In reality many articles are subject to relentless POV-pushing, and yes, a small number of people do carry a disproportionate burden of the effort in resisting this. Petrarchan puts this in the context of Wikipedia's "democratic purpose", but this is a fundamental misunderstanding: groups of editors with a specific POV cannot decide by vote that the science on a subject is other than as it is. Whether on acupuncture or GMOs, Wikipedia follows the scientific community, and the scientific community does not say what partisans want it to. This is our problem only in as much as it leads to endless drama as partisans try to change content against the science. One of Petrarchan's diffs ([547]) cites his own statement of opinion as evidence for the correctness of that opinion. The balance of Petrarchan's diffs seem, sadly, to fall into the category of "X said Y, I disagree with Y and am always right, therefore X is wrong". This is particularly the case with the WP:BLP, Michael R. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where there have been substantial efforts to WP:COATRACK a series of distinctly fringey and conspiracist allegations. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a quibble with the use of the word "innuendo" to describe my evidence. The use of that word mislabels what I actually said. There was no innuendo there. I linked to a discussion, and a review of that discussion will show that it developed as I described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "quibble" - now that's the Tryptofish I recognize based on my experiences. Ok, so in kind, I cringed a little over the word "grudge", so can we consider it a "wash"? The reason for my concerns weigh heavily on your insistence on iBanning or site banning nearly every editor who opposes Jytdog's own/stewardship over a substantial group of articles. Where else in the project is this allowed (other than medical articles where it is justified), and why is Jytdog (an anonymous psuedonym) considered more qualified than other editors? Who makes that determination and who, exactly, judges the credentials and competence of individual anonymous editors? The community? If the latter, it appears the community has spoken - quite matter-of-factly based on the diffs - and while I pray all is well with Jytdog, the fact remains that he isn't here now, and you have assumed the lead role in his defense. While I find that admirable, I also find it curious. Regardless, I can't imagine ArbCom iBanning or site banning everyone who has/continues to speak up against Jytdog's bad behavior at the noticeboards; the latter being the purpose of the noticeboards. Simply providing evidence isn't an indication that an editor harbors a grudge anymore than testimony by a victim or witness in a trial, so please forgive me for rejecting your POV. The relentless excuse for Jytdog's behavior is that "he edits controversial topics", but the fact that he makes those topics controversial is always dismissed. It's time for enforcement of existing policies now that the preponderance of evidence confirms the behavioral issues. Jytdog is a self-proclaimed advocate, and regardless of what side of the fence you stand, advocacies are not acceptable on WP because they fly in the face of NPOV. While I appreciate your efforts to find a fair and equitable remedy that benefits the project, your proposed remedies are controversial and fall short of resolving the real problem. Perhaps you should be asking yourself what I possibly could have done to bring Jytdog's wrath upon me that caused you to suggest a two-way iBan, especially considering I don't customarily edit in his topic area. It speaks volumes. Atsme📞📧 20:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Atsme. Please ask yourself whether you really want to continue to interact with Jytdog, or you really want him to continue to interact with you. I recognize that you do good editing, and I'd rather see you be able to do that without interfering drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto, your response is why I so adore and respect you. You truly are an incredible editor, regardless of your anonymity - I sense your humanity. From a purely professional POV, I do not hold any grudges against Jytdog, and in fact see him as an asset to the project. I actually have approached Jytdog regarding a question about a COI, but he was still pouting over the COIN abuse case I filed at ArbCom so he deleted my question without responding. I have always managed to move forward to great collaborations with editors I've had disagreements with in the past and while I would like an opportunity to mend bridges with Jytdog, I am mature enough to realize we can't please all of the people all of the time. My edit history and user page speaks for me, so that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Have a wonderful trip!! And thank you for all you do! Atsme📞📧 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Atsme lists "Jytdog - Kingofaces interaction", which shows an uncivil editor (not listed as a party) casting shill gambit aspersions about me and the level of exasperation Jytdog had with that situation. Atsme also omitted the full talk page section.[548].
In Yobol, Jytdog, KingofAces teaming, this is the close of an ANI where attempts to get a resolution on an extremely uncivil editor were derailed by aspersions of tag-teaming from the multiple editors who had been on the receiving end of the behavior. Note that names weren't mentioned, so there is editorializing going on here as to who was supposedly tag-teaming here (coupled with those on the receiving end looking bad too by association). The remaining diffs where I'm mentioned [549][550][551] show nothing problematic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - forgive me, but I failed to see where any other editors involved in those disputes used the profanity or bullying that was employed by Jytdog with support from you, much like what you're doing now - denying your involvement, and pointing the finger at others. As for the second portion, the same excuse you gave for the first portion applies equally regarding omission of the full TP section. We are only allowed so many diffs. I chose the meat and potatoes of the discussion, and left the broccoli as a side dish. Atsme📞📧 20:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to read the ANI you linked to to see discussion about an uncivil editor [552] while also avoiding guilt by association arguments. I've made it clear for awhile now that Jytdog needs to reign in the swearing and redacting. With regards to meat and potatoes, I included the full talk section because you left out my direct response to aspersions of shillery. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@King, if that's true, please provide a couple of diffs showing you have "made it clear for a while now that Jytdog needs to reign in the swearing and redacting". petrarchan47คุก 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote the closing admin regarding the diff in question: The others: consensus is one thing, but a rule of the majority is another, and some of you seem to enjoy ganging up on this one editor. All of you: seek proper dispute resolution. Get the experts in (oh! you ARE an expert! get MORE experts in). Move on. Drmies (talk). Common sense tells us The Banner was the editor Kingofaces labeled as "an uncivil editor" which is typical contentious labeling whenever an editor opposes them; either that, or they'll discredit them with labels like "advocate of fringe and pseudoscience", or "believer in the shill fallacy", or worse. Common sense also tells us that Kingofaces was one of the "others" ganging up on The Banner, and if not one who enjoyed doing so, he was definitely one of "all of you". His repeated denial and attempts to disassociate himself as part of the disruption is equally as problematic and validates the reason for his being an involved party in this case. A one-way iBan against both Kingofaces and Jytdog in an effort to prevent them from disrupting my ability to edit may be in order, and is clearly supported by the evidence I've provided. Atsme📞📧 10:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot more drama-raising and misrepresenting comments by Wuerzele here, so let's look at a few claims.
The ANI for EllenCT's disruptive behavior was closed as "It's been eight days, and we have no clear consensus on a topic ban, though there are plenty of valid concerns about EllenCT's behavior and temperament, as is demonstrated in this very thread by Ellen's reactions." Her hands were far from clean.
For DePiep personal attacks and block, the listed diff doesn't lead anywhere, but here is one from their block log at ANI demonstrating why.[553]
Under "WP:PRIMARY Dogmatic removals, never tagging", Wuerzele shows they reverted a revert of an addition instead of gaining consensus on the Neonicotinoid page, and provides yet another example from myself [554] and Jytdog[555] saying that we need to gain consensus on the talk for the change first.
Under the Kingofaces43 section:
Glyphosate: Claims I had a misleading edit summary yet fails to mention there was a larger discussion on how/if the new source should be included. I was saying it needs to go in the body first before inserting working into the lead if it would be included.
2,4D: Fails to mention the context of removing sources due to being primary/old and discussion about reworking the section entirely where pieces of content were being reinserted. I never cited WP:NOTABILITY, but was discussing in the context of noteworthiness/weight.
Neonicotinoid: The primary was left because editors such as Wuerzele were insisting on using them contrary to our various sourcing policies and guidelines to use secondary sources such as reviews (which also caution against using funding source to weight them). The newspaper was removed because our guidelines for scientific content WP:MEDRSWP:SCIRS strongly caution against their use.
Monsanto: The "you wouldn't believe" comment in their edit summary points to strong battleground behavior as removal had been briefly discussed, and it was a WP:BOLD edit on my part expecting discussion to come (hence the happy to discuss comment). Given the context of the edits, there should have been no reason for a civil editor to make the claim I was pulling a fast one.
Re-introduced bad source: I restored the source directly from the BLP subject commenting on allegations with proper attribution for such a source as opposed to Wikipedia's voice. That was also my first edit for the day on that content, and it became the version everyone was fine with. No issue there.
It's a huge problem with incivility when I say I'll go right to the talk page if something isn't right with my edit and Wuerzele finds that deceptive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This diff provided in evidence shows an example of a typical Jytdog pro-industry POV knee-jerk (20min.) revert: [556] The revert removes the note that the source in question may be biased because it comes from industry. The edit summary disguises what is actually going on, with false allegations of the editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
According to Wuerzle, [557] is supposed to show a "pro-industry POV". That is emblematic of the problem: it's an edit the anti-GMO partisans might not like but to characterise it as "pro-industry" is classic battleground mentality. I can't say the edit summary makes a lot of sense, but pro-industry bias? Not hardly. That's before you even get into the vexed question of whether pro-science (and hence pro-NPOV) and pro-industry are different things. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" this isn't just a 'pseudoscience' issue - there are multiple reasons for opposition to GMOs, many of which have nothing to do with the natural sciences as such, and it is a gross oversimplification to present this as some sort of battle against a fringe driven by irrationality."
"The debate also involves a complex interaction of economics, politics and sociocultural issues, and proper encyclopaedic coverage needs to take this into account."
Kingofaces43 provided 2 diffs as purported evidence of my edit warring. The first diff takes us to a section with many diffs and accusations. I requested his evidence be more specific so that I can engage meaningfully in the discussions, but this has not yet happened. His second diff shows my inserting material into Glyphosate. This was copy-and-paste from a sandbox set up (by myself and SageRad) to modify and discuss the Glyphosate article while it was locked. All recent editors of the article were informed and invited to contribute. It was stated that the intent was to copy-and-paste from the sandbox to the live article when it re-opened. My copy-and-paste was done several days after the article was re-opened. Jytdog reverted my copy-and-paste claiming in the edit summary that the discussion was far from over - typical stalling behaviour. In summary, unless Kingofaces43 provides specific diffs within his first diff, he presents no evidence of my edit warring.DrChrissy(talk) 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog "used very poor judgment" at talk page of Alachlor
Jytdog vigorously objects to including class action lawsuit against Monsanto in the article Monsanto legal cases in defiance of WP:NPOV.
"[L]ook at the March Against Monsanto article which turned into over 11 pages of talk because...Wikipedia needed to [paternalisticly] correct the marcher's belief [about] GMOs..."
"I believe it to be dangerous when just one editor, Jytdog who considers himself to be the "steward" of Monsanto's many articles, including even far-reaching articles such as the Precautionary Principle article, is found to be the top editor almost without fail."
"Selective use of facts, selective use of WP policies and guidelines, and the way that wording is framed in our articles can be used to bias our environmental articles."
"Chris Hedges...suggests that "corporations" have come to control every area of our lives...." "Wikipedia needs to take care to see that our encyclopedia is not taken over as well."
Semitransgenic correctly observes that, the GMO articles lack basic information about GMO regulation and regional variation:
"Despite the relevance of the matter, and the alleged scientific expertise of the editors involved, the following articles [558],[559],[560], fail to properly detail how safety testing works, how products are approved, how regulatory mechanisms function, what regional variations exist (European regulation is markedly different from the US - where the industry is essentially self-regulating and has done most of the safety testing itself - Europe has traditionally erred on the side of caution and upholds a case-by-case approach)."
In that discussion the current language for the "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO's advertised in the ledes of numerous GMO articles was proposed by AirCorn and approved by Jytdog on 30 May 2013. Editors who objected on grounds of WP:SYN and WP:OR--the same objections raised in this RfC--were dismissed by BlackHades and Jytdog as WP:fringe by comparing them to evolution and global warming deniers and conspiracy theorists.
Just responding to the comment above regarding my proposal for the "scientific consensus sentence". I was definitely involved in its formulation, but a better link to the discussion is here. My involvement in the discussion was relatively minimal. My main concern at the time was the addition of "broad regulatory consensus", which was removed after the discussion. I did however defend the remaining wording in future talk page discussions regarding the topic. Jytdog was the original proposer and I can see it has undergone a few evolutions since, but is still fundamentally the same as it ended up after that discussion. AIRcorn(talk) 05:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric: I'm not the authoritative expert to reply to your question, but you can see the official language about it at WP:IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tryptofish's proposed findings and remedies appear to be designed to merely clear the way for Jytdog to edit how he pleases without having to deal with other editors. Minor4th 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about BLP's - I think a particularly useful measure of the dispute is to look at the BLP articles in this topic area, and you'll see how PAG's are being misused to support BLP violations of the "fringe" BLP's and to support puffery and non-encyclopedic promotion of "mainstream" BLP's. See Vani Hari and Kevin Folta for example. There are others. Minor4th 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I mention this in my evidence here. Consider articles on GMO proponents Pamela Ronald and Jon Entine (identified as a journalist) and compare their pages to GMO critic Jeffrey M. Smith identified as a "consumer activist". Then look at the article on Consumer activism that includes these unsourced sentences: "The ideal goal is to push consumers to question the morality of a purchased product's origins." and "The activists and consumers in the movement hope to provide security and healthy standards for employed consumers." (according to Wikipedia consumer advocates do not care much for the unemployed.) Not exactly NPOV, is it? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an exceedingly large case, extending far beyond GMOs and including pharmaceuticals, as well as anything/anyone that opposes them, or could be used to replace them (natural medicine). It also includes groups of editors who coordinate and actively recruit new members to help push a specific POV, known as Quackwatchers or "Skeptics". Their views are always in alignment with the FDA, but not always with science. We also have the meta-issue of how to deal with WP being targeted by special interests. It's astonishing that we are being led to believe that those who support homeopathy, for instance, are more detrimental to the project than PR from biotech and chemical companies. We need to provide support for independent editors who notice (inevitable) spindoctoring, as well as for those who notice "fringe". I am unimpressed by the way Discretionary Sanctions have been used, which in my experience was to suppress normal, healthy talk page processes. This is why I am uncomfortable with relying on DS to handle the GMO suite. petrarchan47คุก 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Comment. This is such a huge case, and I hope Arbs do realize that there are many more editors who have contributed to the war zone through the years, but have not been included as parties in the case. There are also additional articles that have not been listed - I believe it is therefore crucial that the topic area of the case be very broadly defined in a way that will incorporate future articles and those that are not listed, and also that the articles themselves be subject to restrictions to alleviate the battleground (in addition to individual editor sanctions). I believe this whole case can be resolved by placing all GM and Monsanto related articles under permanent 1RR restriction; topic banning Jytdog and Kingofaces43, with no appeals for 12 months; warning Yobol about edit warring and battleground behavior; admonishing JzG about incivility and acting as an admin when involved in the topic area. SageRad has voluntarily agreed to work with a mentor, and I think that will be helpful - only because SR is a new editor and is an easy target for criticism and such, partially because of his writing style on talk page discussions. With those changes in place, I think the editing environment will improve considerably and the problems leading to this case will be resolved. There are plenty of editors who share Jytdog and KOA's POV who can still participate in collaborative editing and assure that a dissenting view does not become the predominant content. The editors who have had conflicts with Jytdog have notably been free of conflict with other editors, and there's no reason to think they can't work collaboratively in this area as well - if Jytdog and KOA are removed from the topic area and normal editing is allowed to resume. Minor4th 00:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The ongoing problem with this topic is that it is controversial and as evidenced in this case and tends to attract editors with problematic behaviors. It’s very hard for editors focusing on content not raising drama to stick around in the face of various behavior outlined in this case, but also in the sheer number of editors that have come out of the woodwork here either because of the topic or against specific editors. I for one am ready to get back to editing agriculture articles with the workshop closing, so I hope the eventual remedies root out a lot of the problem behavior and editors.
Some general questions for arbitrators as they read through everything, but what should an editor really be expected to do when faced with accusations of being a shill, dealing with editors trying to edit war in content without focusing on reaching consensus for it, etc.? That's going to make any editor trying to stick around look bad by association until someone looks really hard at the context of the diffs. I'm one example where I've tried to deal with all of that behavior nested in this topic as reasonably as can be expected and there are a now a large number of editors calling for my topic ban in addition to others who have tried to address those behavior issues of many of those editors the past. Removing uncivil editors will definitely help, but I'm hoping the all around revert restrictions and discretionary sanctions do the trick. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
i see that a number of interaction bans involving Jytdog and another invoved editor have been proposed. I have read the Iban policy, but am unclear on how an iban affects participation on articles in the real world. That is, is one of the editors effectively banned from an article if the other editor has made significant edits there? Can an ibanned editor, for instance, participate in an rfc that has been opened by the editor with which they have an iban?Dialectric (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tryptofish, but I still found the wording of the policy a bit vague in this area. Checking through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, though, answered my question. An ibanned editor can edit an article and contribute to talk/wiki discussions started by the other party, provided the ibanned editor discusses content only and does not discuss the other editor. A few other editors on the talk page shared my concern, which was essentially that one party in an iban could use 'first move advantage' to effectively lock the other party in the iban out of an article.Dialectric (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot to wade through, and some of the evidence is on its own fairly thin, but in aggregate the evidence shows a topic area that has been a dysfunctional battleground for months if not years. There is strong evidence that Jytdog has been repeatedly uncivil even after agreeing to accept a warning at AN/I - he cut out the swearing, but comments like the one he left on GregJackP's talk show that he did not change his behavior. Most of Jytdog's incivility has been in talk pages, though edit summaries are also an issue, so limiting him to talk would not alleviate this significant problem. As Jytdog is by far the largest contributor to the GMO articles, his behavior has in large part set the tone. If he is removed from the area, whether by subject block or total block, we may well find a way to work together and the overall tone would certainly become less hostile, particularly to new editors. There is much less evidence showing problem edits by editors other than Jytdog, from either 'side' of the dispute. If the edit wars that include jytdog alongside these other editors were removed, the conflict here might not even have made an arbcom case. Jytdog has also established a precedent of tendentiousness on many of these articles, allowing minor changes but forcing any significant change to the talk page for endless 'BRD' discussion - there are several rfc's in this area where the discussion exceeded 10k words over the inclusion or move of a single sentence.Dialectric (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above appear to be in response to a Finding of Fact or Proposed Principle from above on this page, but because it wasn't also copied down here, I don't know what these comments are referring to. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first two comments were general, but primarily in response to Tryptofish's call for a number of Ibans. My 3rd comment is also general, made on the last day of the workshop, and is my overall response to the workshop proposals thusfar. I haven't commented on an arbcom case before, so if this is inappropriate, I will remove it. If the workshop stays open for a few more hours, or if I am asked to provide them elsewhere, I will add the relevant difs from evidence.Dialectric (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
