An AE request Also an example where King seemned to make unwarranted use of DS tags, arguably weaponizing the result of the 2015 GMO case in an attempt to win an almost entirely unrelated content dispute. It was closed with 3 admins and a veteran editor unanimously disagreeing with King.
Talk:Insect & Talk:Decline in insect populations Discussion is long and probably doesnt need to be read in its entirety.
Appeal to get wiki project insect editors involved Per the unappealing tone of the article talk page discussions, its perhaps understandable they have not responded.
A neutral post on King's talk to explore possibilities for encouraging other editors to chime in, to which King responded non-neutrally, then immediately deleted, indicating he didnt wish to discuss further on his talk

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Dear arbitrators, I'm requesting attention to an issue that seems quite central to the reliability of our science coverage: Editors posting from an excessively pro-corporate POV seemingly using results like the GMO case to intimidate neutral main-stream science editors. This is exemplified by user:Kingofaces43 and a dispute concerning bugs. I'm not suggesting he's a shill. But one doesn't need CoI to make overly pro-corporate edits. Whether it's unpaid or not, determined PoV pushing can be equally harmful to NPOV, collegiality, and the reliability of our articles.

AFAIK, King has been most successful in advancing his PoV. Even possibly prevailing against the phenomenal admin Leyo, on a matter linking pesticides with Leyo's specialist subject (chemistry). If this is accepted, many more diffs are available showing King's past "triumphs" over main stream scientists. Part of his success seems to stem from support he sometimes gains from our very formidable anti-fringe editors. Some of whom are not scientists, and may have judged King to be on their side. It's interesting none has joined the debate for King in the bug dispute, perhaps due to the blatantly Fringe like nature of King's editing here.

There is unanimous consensus that insect population decline is a thing. A few scientists argue against warnings of an impending "catastrophic" collapse of nature's ecosystems. But even the most sceptical sciences accept the declines are happening. King's focused on two sceptical sources. The first, an ESA statement, says "recent studies that show declines in global insect populations" are "very concerning" . Yet King added a POV-title tag to Decline in insect populations as if to imply there's doubt.

King's second sceptical source, a blog by a junior ecologist, effectively self admits it's advancing a minority view ("…other scientists are confirming this, so why aren't you?") Yet Kings gives the blog at least equal weight to rebut the only available high level review on global insect decline. To top it off he insists on misrepresenting the blog in violation of WP:OR, despite this being clearly pointed out.

Expert editors have mostly not participated in the bug dispute, despite requests. Perhaps Im mostly to blame, though IMO its King who has been creating a chilling effect. Many diffs can be posted on this if you chose to accept. E.g. after I posted saying I'd accept WP:Onus favoured King if even one editor chimes in supporting him, King responds with …we'll have to look into ways to prevent you… I doubt he meant anything sinister, but as he was a strong supporter of a recently indeffed editor known for escalating to the real world, it might come across as threatening to some.

If this is accepted I'd not be looking for sanctions against King, and certainly not a resolution to the content dispute, but a solution to the wider problem of NPOV main-stream science editors being susceptible to intimidation from POV editors who (intentionally or not) weaponize past results like GMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Before I saw this, I was already planning to follow appropriate admin related channels shortly if problems continued with FeydHuxtable, so I won't lay out everything on edit warring or the battleground behavior directed at me (the below is still more than I wanted to type out after just getting home from work anyways) barring any questions directed at me since there's a lot to potentially unpack in the above comments.

This would fall under the GMO Arbcom case DS where they are broadly construed to topics involving pesticides. The underlying content dispute revolves around insect declines that are definitely a problem related to pesticides, climate change, etc., scientists cautioning that there had been a lot of haphazardness in interpreting related studies, and the media blowing it out of proportion as "Insect Armageddon". There was some initial confusion at the AE request against Feyd already mentioned because the content at the time didn't directly say pesticides, though the needed context being discussed did. There was no question the comments directed at me on talk did though.

More importantly though, we've had issues with shill gambits in the topic with disruptive editors frequently accusing others of being "pro-corporate" to bludgeon content disputes or further battleground behavior. We specifically passed this principle against such WP:ASPERSIONS at ArbCom: 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 to promote 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. . . Feyd was warned at the last AE, and they've chosen to violate that principle again with the accusation of it in this case filing. Considering this is a blatant case of still casting those aspersions when I've directly said pesticides are a problem here (quite the opposite of some "pro-corporate" claim), the principle really needs to be enforced this time around.

I was trying to work patiently with the behavior problems that the mired content discussions. I originally was going to request a 0RR restriction for Feyd elsewhere to see if that helped, but considering they've blatantly violated the principle ArbCom passed after the initial warning, I would like to ask for a one-way interaction ban or a topic-ban in order to prevent future harassment. I've never interacted with Feyd before this and don't plan to have any overlap outside this topic, so this seems like a rare case where a one-way interaction ban could work. I can request admins do that elsewhere, but poor behavior in a case filing can be handled here too without the need for a full case I believe. It's up to arbs or if a passing admin wants to issue a DS, but the writing should have been on the wall at the last AE because we get so many editors charging in pulling this kind of stuff resulting in sanctions already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblerox

I've read over this filing twice and it seems somewhat contradictory. The claim is that there is a systemic problem, yet the actual case seems focused on a single user, but the filing party says they don't want anything done about them specifically. The case has not been made in my opinion that there is a systemic problem or that this is ripe for arbitration after having exhausted all other avenues for resolving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kashmiri

Unsure what this is all about. COI editing? POV pushing, so essentially a content dispute? An editor's behaviour? For sure, on cursory glance I see that no standard DR mechanisms have been tried, e.g., RfC. I suggest to decline unless other mechanisms of seeking consensus have been exhausted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

This is the latest in a not-that-short but still too-short-to-already-be-at-ArbCom string of attempts by Feyd to game the system to do ... whatever it is he wants to do. I get the impression it's some sort of POV-pushing, but like apparently everyone else I've been turned off by the impenetrable wall of text on the talk page. Honestly, I've found Feyd's general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to be extremely disruptive, and his surface-level veneer of civility just makes it worse, but I have seen very little evidence to this point that the community is unable to deal with the problem. The fact of the matter is that this is at the moment a content dispute between two editors (and a friend of one of them who jumped in to "help") on a single article, and no attempts have been made to pursue dispute resolution by means of an RFC, DRN (cringe) or ANI (since I highly suspect the dispute is a problem of user conduct and not content), so ArbCom definitely is not the place for it at this time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tryptofish regarding GoldenRing's commentary (and by extension that of the other admins who stated the opinion at AE that DS didn't apply and might theoretically say the same even now that pesticides have been revealed to be at the core of the issue). While GR's good faith certainly is not in question, this is a complex issue that should not be litigated by anyone who hasn't thoroughly understood it, be they an admin an Arbitrator or any other third party.

It's also become increasingly clear that Feyd and his ally Andrew Davidson have been trying to downplay the role of pesticides in causing the decline, in order to create the illusion that GMO sanctions don't apply when they clearly do, and they have also been rejecting what little input has been offered from WP:INSECTS. When editors who primarily work on the relevant topic uniformly say one thing and those who say otherwise are "general" editors, that should normally be a strong clue who is "right".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Although I'm trying to stay away from wiki-dramas, there is a problem with the request that I find so disturbing that I feel that I must comment. As KingofAces correctly points out (and links to), one of the conclusions of the GMO case was that it is unacceptable to toss around accusations of pro-corporate edits without supporting evidence of an actual COI, a practice that had become an unfortunately common one within the GMO case scope, which includes pesticides. Ever since the case, users have tried to game that finding. Here, FeydHuxtable says: I'm not suggesting he's a shill. But one doesn't need CoI to make overly pro-corporate edits. That's like saying something like I'm not saying that you're stupid. But you seem to be unintelligent. Having been given a DS notification, that should be sanctionable at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the comments by GoldenRing, I looked at the discussion at GoldenRing's talk page and at the diffs GoldenRing provided here, and while I am certain that GoldenRing's comments are entirely in good faith, I think that he misunderstands the content and therefore misunderstands the DS scope. There is no way to discuss large-scale population declines in insects without it being at least in part about pesticide use. (And the reference here to "pro-corporate edits" is clearly about "the companies that produce agricultural chemicals.") To treat that as "weaponizing" DS gets it completely wrong. It's the correct use of DS, and ArbCom better not want to see the DS system fall apart due to "weaponizing" them the other way, such that anyone can nullify ArbCom findings by claiming that they are being bullied because they got a DS alert. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing (GMO)

I closed the AE case linked in this request. I don't want to comment on the wider merits of this case, but I will comment on my close.

The dispute (then) centred around FeydHuxtable introducing material into Insect which strictly described the decline of insect populations without contemplating the cause or the ramifications (diff diff diff). This caused a considerable dispute on the talk page.

In the course of that discussion, Kingofaces43 brought up discretionary sanctions (diff) and alerted FeydHuxtable about the GMO DS (diff), claiming that these edits fell under the GMO 1RR restriction.

Following this, there was some back-and-forth on the Insect talk page and then the complaint made at AE.

My view was that the only reason GMOs or agricultural chemicals came up at all in the discussion was because Kingofaces43 tried to make it about GMO DS. While I won't comment on Kingofaces43's motivations, it certainly has the appearance of trying to drag a DS topic into an unrelated conversation in order to win a content dispute. As far as I know, at the time I closed the request, no-one involved had actually made any substantive points about GMOs or pesticides.

Despite the fact the content was unrelated to pesticides and no-one had made any content arguments related to pesticides, Kingofaces43 contends that "the content itself cannot be discussed in a WP:DUE manner without pesticides ... because that's what the source(s) bring up as the main reasoning for their finding even if content specifically naming pesticides isn't included in the current version." (diff) This is too broadly construed to my mind.

I therefore closed the request with no action; the best way to stop these attempts to weaponise DS in unrelated disputes is to deny them. There was some follow-up on my talk page (part of which I have linked above) which led to a minor change in the wording of the close. The net result was still "no action". GoldenRing (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPS1992

The third diff presented by Goldenring (GMO) above was not made by Feydhuxtable, as asserted by Goldenring (GMO). Instead it was made by someone called Kingofaces43.

Oh, and the second diff presented by Goldenring (GMO) above was also not made by Feydhuxtable. Just look at it.

As you will have guessed by now, the first of the diffs presented by Goldenring (GMO) was not made by Feydhuxtable either.

Goldenring (GMO) probably needs to take a break from GMO topics.

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

This request seems to be about a single user's conduct, and relates allegations of misconduct that the community has never examined. The AE thread closed as out-of-scope does not count. This seems extremely premature and I decline on that basis. The parties should now seek input from a broader section of the community. The filing party's allegations of systemic bias and POV-pushing do not seem well-founded. Those allegations must be either dropped or substantiated. AGK ■ 18:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a low level disagreement between two editors. Such disagreements can be frustrating for those involved, but ArbCom is for larger disputes which the community cannot resolve, and there appears to have been no real attempt at community dispute resolution. I suggest Kingofaces43 and FeydHuxtable try other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution methods first. I feel that more discussions such as this: User_talk:Kingofaces43/Archive_4#Bugs, should be used in order to clarify the situation. It may well be that if Kingofaces43 and FeydHuxtable follow stage one in dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party, there may not even be a need to get others involved, let alone ArbCom. Decline.SilkTork (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This belongs at ANI, if anywhere. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as filed, certainly. FeydHuxtable's statement mostly describes a content dispute and regular dispute resolution hasn't been exhausted. However, several other parties have mentioned that this case request is part of a pattern of FeydHuxtable trying to game the system to "win" his dispute with Kingofaces43, and I'm inclined to agree. I'd consider an interaction or topic ban as a motion amending the GMO case. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I'm recused from GMOs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline for the reasons mentioned by other arbitrators, but namely that I am see no evidence that dispute resolution relating to conduct has been exhausted -- or even thoroughly attempted. Certainly no evidence that the community has been unable to resolve the issue. Mkdw ^talk 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as there hasn't been close to enough of an effort to settle this matter through standard dispute resolution. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender-related POV editing

Initiated by Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ at 03:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Mooeena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification A145GI15I95]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Mooeena

This user cannot separate constructive criticism and suggestions for changes to their pet project page from personal attacks. They take personal offense to editors who make suggestions that counter their agenda and argue constantly in talk pages that people who detransition, or "detrans people" as they call them, are oppressed by LGBT people as a whole, transgender people, and rogue political actors. The vast majority of their edits are dedicated to righting the wrong of detrans oppression or "spreading awareness" to their cause.

In addition, they seem to have developed a vendetta against me personally, and have accused me of interfering with discussions about Detransition for prejudiced, peosonal, or politically motivated reasons and attempted to get me banned from the topic. I find it suspect that this user keeps fixating on the fact that she believes me to be transgender in their ban claims, although I have told them multiple times that I am not.

[2] There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article Detransition. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page, stealth canvassed other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who appears to be a sock), attempted to close a WP:MEDRS discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
1. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
2. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
3. 14 March 2019 ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" (posting a canvassing warning) and "destroying the article."
14 March 2019 Because I have been discussing the article in its talk page, this user has accused me of bullying, doxxing, false claims, and "anti-detrans" prejudice.
14 March 2019 As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.

I believe that I have been behaving appropriately regarding this article and this user has become increasingly hostile towards me for continuing to hold this article to Wikipedia's standards. This user has proven that they cannot edit pages related to this topic responsibly and neutrally.

Statement by A145GI15I95

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Transgender-related POV editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Transgender-related POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 *'''Decline''' for the reasons mentioned by other arbitrators, but namely that I am see no evidence that [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] relating to conduct has been exhausted -- or even thoroughly attempted. Certainly no evidence that the community has been unable to resolve the issue. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * '''Decline''' as there hasn't been close to enough of an effort to settle this matter through standard dispute resolution. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
+== Transgender-related POV editing ==
+'''Initiated by ''' <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">[[User:Mooeena|Mooeena]] ● [[User_talk:Mooeena|💌]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Mooeena|✒️]] ● [[Wikipedia:A_primer_for_newcomers|❓]]</span> '''at''' 03:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
+=== Involved parties ===
+<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
+*{{userlinks|Mooeena}}, ''filing party''
+*{{userlinks|A145GI15I95}}
+;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
+<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
+*[diff of notification A145GI15I95]
+;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detransition&diff=887679867&oldid=887679507]
+* [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Detransition]]
+=== Statement by Mooeena ===
+This user cannot separate constructive criticism and suggestions for changes to their pet project page from personal attacks. They take personal offense to editors who make suggestions that counter their agenda and argue constantly in talk pages that people who detransition, or "detrans people" as they call them, are oppressed by LGBT people as a whole, transgender people, and rogue political actors. The vast majority of their edits are dedicated to [[wikipedia:Tendentious editing|righting the wrong]] of detrans oppression or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:LGBT&diff=prev&oldid=887761807 "spreading awareness"] to their cause.
+In addition, they seem to have developed a vendetta against me personally, and have accused me of interfering with discussions about Detransition for prejudiced, peosonal, or politically motivated reasons and attempted to get me banned from the topic. I find it suspect that this user keeps fixating on the fact that she believes me to be transgender in their ban claims, although I have told them multiple times that I am not.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detransition&oldid=887799665] There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article [[Detransition]]. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page, [[Talk:Detransition#Detransition_vs_transgender_desistance| stealth canvassed]] other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A145GI15I95&oldid=887685449#Other_accounts appears to be a sock]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detransition&diff=887770336&oldid=887768766 attempted to close] a [[WP:MEDRS]] discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
+##[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=887682320&oldid=887673528 14 March 2019] ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
+##[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=887816622&oldid=887762395 14 March 2019] ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
+##[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=887683850&oldid=887683826 14 March 2019] ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A145GI15I95&diff=887665277&oldid=886334795 (posting a canvassing warning)] and "destroying the article."
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detransition&diff=887676337&oldid=887674536 14 March 2019] Because I have been discussing the article in its talk page, this user has accused me of bullying, doxxing, false claims, and "anti-detrans" prejudice.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A145GI15I95&diff=prev&oldid=887766914 14 March 2019] As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.
+I believe that I have been behaving appropriately regarding this article and this user has become increasingly hostile towards me for continuing to hold this article to Wikipedia's standards. This user has proven that they cannot edit pages related to this topic responsibly and neutrally.
+=== Statement by A145GI15I95 ===
+=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
+Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
+<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
+=== Transgender-related POV editing: Clerk notes ===
+:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
+*
+=== Transgender-related POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
+{{anchor|1=Transgender-related POV editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
+*