Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Genetically modified organisms

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 13 October 2015 (→Evidence presented by Minor4th: {{Redacted}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed temporary injunctions

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]
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]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:JzG

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
From WP:ARBCC. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 30 September 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:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
From WP:ARBPSCI. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 30 September 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:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
From WP:ARBCC. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 30 September 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:
Comment by parties:
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]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute centres on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and covers a set of articles, including biographies of living people, which intersect with each other and with the GMO article. These include:

Comment by Arbitrators:
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 effected 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]
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

2) SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined Wikipedia in May 2014 but did not start actively editing until May 2015. He has made approximately 1,600 edits (as of 30 Sep 2015), breakdown by namespace. His most edited articles are Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Polychlorinated biphenyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Many edits to non-GMO articles also include content related to the GMO series of articles (e.g. PCBs in Housatonic River, PCBs in Lenox, Massachusetts, glyphosate in Crop desiccation.

SageRad provided evidence that he is engaged in off-wiki anti-GMO advocacy. Based on the dispute he linked, he made inappropriate edits to David Gorski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a WP:BLP (e.g. [3]).

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 [4], [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:
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 misrpresentation 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 and 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]
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: [6] - 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 by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog

3) Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined Wikipedia in January 2008 and has made approximately 55,000 edits (as of 30 Sep 2015), breakdown by namespace. His most-edited articles are mainly related to GMOs, including Genetically modified food controversies, Monsanto, Glyphosate, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified crops, Genetically modified organism. These edits support the mainstream view of GMOs. Some (e.g. [7], [8]) include framing language. Some (e.g. [9], [10], [11]) reduce the prominence of claimed health effects. However, some edits (e.g. [12], [13]) remove positive material.

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. [14], [15], [16]), other than in the matter of civility, in which he may be found wanting (e.g. [17], [18]). 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. [19], which was a replay of an earlier edit [20] which was self-reverted in order to make the combative summary more explicit [21]).

Jytdog frequently reverts edits which have an unfavourable slant towards GMOs and the related companies and individuals (e.g. {[22], [23], [24] 3 revert set}, [25], [26]). Many of these reverts (e.g. [27]) 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). [28] is not unambiguously correct. It was unambiguously incorrect and shows that Jytdog started an edit war [29], [30],[31] 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]
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]
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. Regarding matters of his own 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. [32], [33]). DrChrissy often makes large numbers of small edits in rapid succession, contributing to a high mainspace edit count per article edited (e.g. [34], 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" ([35]).

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: [36].

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]
Comment by others:
Proposed. 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:
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 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]

SageRad

2) SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year from the topic of genetically modified organisms,broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
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]
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 by others:
Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. 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:
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]
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]

Proposals by User:Minor4th

Proposed principles

Wikipedia purpose

1) Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can use, edit or distribute, written from a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
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]

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • 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]
Comment by others:

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.

(Sample diffs of long term disruption: Jytdog's reversion history on Glyphosate from 2013 to present; Jytdog's noticeboard history [37],[38],[39],[40],[41];Battleground behavior/comments: [42] (2013), [43],[44]; Faulty 3RR allegation while involved in content dispute:[45] (2013);Proposing a clear BLP violation of an opponent's article in this discussion:[46] (2014));

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • 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]
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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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]
Jytdog's battleground behavior

Jytdog has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and comments that were incivil or reinforced a battleground mentality.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • 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]

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.

During this case, JzG has participated in battleground behavior in this topic area, including edit warring. (Glyphosate:[47], [48].[49],[50],[51](led to page protection); Vani Hari: [52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58])

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer. Minor4th 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support petrarchan47คุก 06:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]

SageRad

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
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]
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]

Kingofaces43

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and incivil comments, that has reinforced a battleground atmosphere in the GMO topic area.(See Albino Ferret's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:
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]
Comment by others:

DrChrissy

DrChrissy (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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer. Minor4th 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

==== Skyring==== Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and incivil comments, that has reinforced a battleground atmosphere in the GMO topic area.(see Albino Ferret's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:

::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:

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).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support as proposer. Minor4th 5:14 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) (re-added Minor4th 19:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as not being supported by evidence at all, where I really see quite the opposite. --Tryptofish (talk) 5:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
Support Absolutely. petrarchan47คุก 21:46, 12 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]

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]
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 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:
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]
Comment by others:

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 6 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]
Comment by others:

SageRad

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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]
Comment by others:

Administrator JzG

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]
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: [59], 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]

Yobol

Yobol 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]
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]

DrChrissy

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]

Kingofaces43

Kingofaces43 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 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

====Skyring====

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]
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Tryptofish

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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:
Comment by parties:
  • 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]
Comment by others:

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:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

5) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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 by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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:
Comment by others:

Conduct on arbitration pages

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Jytdog

2) Jytdog has edit warred and personalized the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • 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.
--Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Petrarchan47

3) Petrarchan47 has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Prokaryotes

4) Prokaryotes has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

GregJackP

5) GregJackP has been previously sanctioned by ArbCom. He has engaged in battleground conduct on articles and talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

DrChrissy

6) DrChrissy has pursued grudges in articles and talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

SageRad

7) SageRad has repeatedly misrepresented sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Wuerzele

8) Wuerzele has repeatedly misrepresented sources and engaged in battleground conduct on talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

David Tornheim

9) David Tornheim has repeatedly misrepresented sources and engaged in battleground conduct on talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Minor4th

10) Minor4th has been combative on dispute resolution pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

AlbinoFerret

11) AlbinoFerret has been combative on dispute resolution pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Atsme

12) Atsme has pursued grudges on dispute resolution pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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]
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:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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]
Comment by others:

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 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]
Comment by others:
This would be a huge positive, IMO, but I would like to review more diffs. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 13 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:
  • 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]
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: [60], following a conflict unrelated to this case scope: [61]. 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]
  • Deeply 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]
Comment by others:

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]
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]
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:
  • 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]
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]
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:
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:
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:
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]
  • 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]
Comment by others:

AlbinoFerret – Jytdog interaction ban

15) AlbinoFerret and Jytdog are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SageRad

Proposed findings of fact

SkyRing/Pete

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]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Evidence presented by LesVegas

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 30 September 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]

Evidence presented by DrChrissy

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
[73] 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]
Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • 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 conduct Minor4th 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]
Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Petrarchan47

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  • [74] presented as evidence of my dishonesty. However, the context is that I actually said this: [75], [76]. Jytdog then asked me this: [77], and I replied: [78]. Jytdog said: [79], [80], and I tried to be sensitive to what he said: [81]. That's it. There is no evidence of me being dishonest there.
  • [82] presented as evidence of barnstars. Those editors agreed with Petrarchan47 in content dispute at Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
  • [83] 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.
--Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About "Claims about GMO sources":
  • 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: [84].
  • 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, [85], and they drew a scientific conclusion different than the political policy decision.
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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[86], (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.’[87] I linked to his recent meta-review,[88] which 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. The only other review of GM feeding studies available is Domingo 2011, 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]
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]

Evidence presented by Minor4th

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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]
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]

Evidence presented by AlbinoFerret

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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 by others:

Evidence presented by David Tornheim

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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]
Comment by others:

Evidence provided by Petrarchan47

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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 ([89]) 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]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Workshop&oldid=685574507"