Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision

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

Case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD Date

I'm trying to get started on this PD. As all involved know this is quite a large case with large scope, and so hopefully getting out ahead of it will be fruitful. At this point, I'm aiming to be on schedule, and think it's quite likely/feasible. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am already working on a version of the PD and I have asked the committee for additional support. This should be delivered on time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The wait

Waiting for the Committee to post the PD can be understandably nerve-wracking for the parties involved. It's common, therefore, that the parties end up bickering with each other here and on the other case talk pages while they're waiting for the PD to be posted. I've been guilty of that myself in the past. Unless new evidence comes out in the interim, I doubt anything that is said here will likely have much impact on the PD, unless someone really loses the plot and earns themselves a sanction just from misguided comments here alone. So, please avoid the temptation of arguing with each other on this page. It might help you to take this and the other case pages off your watchlists until 26 October. Just a suggestion, FWIW. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish's section

Older comments, from before the posting of the PD. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am back at Wikipedia, and, between now and the posting of the PD, the drafting Arbs should feel free to ask me here if you have any questions about diffs, and I'll be happy to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I looked again at the Workshop page, and I am specifically concerned about an Arb comment made while I was away from Wikipedia, at [1], because it seems to have been made without awareness of what I previously said just above it at [2]. ("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 never said that "the arbitrators can find the diffs if they look". I said very clearly that the diffs are in my section of the Evidence page. There is a huge difference, and I trust that the Arbs actually read the Evidence page. Perhaps I'm being a bit sensitive here, but I think that I have good reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) It would not be my idea, per Streisand effect, to link from here to either my talk page or to that of the editor directly below, especially because I cannot see how it would help with formulating the PD. But: [3], [4], [5]. I'm doing all that I can think to do, to disengage (a completely separate issue from that which I am raising with the Committee on my talk), but maintaining a section about me on her talk page kind of works against that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) In the time between the closing of the Workshop and now, most of the dispute underlying this case has been located at Talk:Kevin Folta and Talk:Vani Hari. I do not mean to imply any accusations in saying that. Rather, it is purely a matter of information, in case any Arbitrators would like to observe what is happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC) I would like to request that the drafting Arbs provide an update of when the PD will be posted. (The navbox on the PD page says Nov. 7, which obviously is no longer current.) Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments after the PD was posted

Collapsing older comments, to reduce the wall of text. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that the PD has been posted, I want to say thank you to the drafting arbs (who, all things considered, may be surprised that I am thanking them), for your hard work on a difficult and thankless task. I have read the entire PD, and looked for anything needing correction, and not found anything (although I will go over it more carefully again tomorrow, in case I missed something). I think that NF ended up doing an excellent job of working out the case. I also want to say to anyone reading here (who, all things considered, may be surprised at what I am going to say), that I agree with the proposals concerning Jytdog. That is because of his decision not to participate in a meaningful way in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC) I just read DrChrissy's comment, and I agree that a change from "genetically modified plants" to "genetically modified organisms" would be a good idea. And I would do that as well for the DS (as it already is) and for all parties subject to topic bans, with one exception, who is in fact DrChrissy. I feel very strongly that in DrChrissy's case, there is an excellent track record of editing about animals, and I would not want a topic ban to infringe upon that by extending beyond plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC) @NF: About the changes from "plants" to "organisms", there are still a few parties that haven't been changed yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Not yet done. Still needs to be fixed for Prokaryotes and SageRad.  Done I found a typo: in the topic ban for SageRad, it instead has Prokaryotes' name. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Done Very trivial: the Proposed Principles should have a header identifying them as Principles, Done and the Principle about edit warring should have a lower-case w for warring in the header. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Not yet done. A very general comment: one of the things that happened during the Workshop was editors lining up to vote (as opposed to !vote) according to which "side" they were on. I'm beginning to see that happening again here, so I would urge Arbs to be critical in terms of how much weight they should give to comments on this talk page that recommend taking a different overall position than what the initial PD has taken. (Obviously, that does not apply to editors making comments in their own defense.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Another general comment, but one prompted by what Coretheapple said below, about the diffs in the PD, as well as what I just saw Euryalus say on the page. I urge the Arbs, particularly those who are not drafters, to take the time to really go through the Evidence page (and I do not mean just my own section, but rather the whole thing), and see for yourselves. Also, the "Analysis of evidence" section of the Workshop page is important to read. For some parties, it simply isn't something that can be reduced to three or so diffs (nor to impassioned statements on this talk page, especially when those statement argue that everyone on one "side" is good and everyone on the other "side" is bad), but one has to look at patterns of conduct over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) About SageRad, I see some Arbs considering a site ban instead of a topic ban. I really think that that would be excessive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Where Cla68 said [6], I think that's a reasonable point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC) @Clerks (@Penwhale: @L235: @Jim Carter:): I am seeing editors presenting new evidence on this talk page, and editors engaging in threaded discussions. Perhaps you might want to take a look at those things. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC) @Thryduulf: and really all participating Arbs: I'm concerned about some of your comments on the PD. I think that you seem to have confused two of the parties, where you refer, in respect to one party, in the Remedies, to something that you said about a different party in the FOF. now fixed Also, about both those parties, I'm beginning to realize that the drafter failed to provide adequate diffs in the PD; however, that does not mean that the evidence was not presented in the case. I'm seeing some of you getting the facts wrong. (The fact that some of you seem to regard SageRad, and maybe DrChrissy, as having been more disruptive than some other editors, when the opposite is really true, is a problem.) Again, I urge all Arbs who are not drafters to read the entire Evidence page (not just my own section, but the whole thing), as well as the Analysis of evidence at the bottom of the Workshop page. There are chronic patterns of behavior that do not reduce well to just a few diffs. Also, please keep Proposed Principle number 1, "Purpose of Wikipedia", clearly in mind as you critically evaluate the evidence (the specific wording, in this case, of the principle; you are not simply looking at a POV dispute with two points of view). There's a lot of noise on this talk page, which reflects the problem that ArbCom has been asked to solve, but you should not be more swayed by that noise than by the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC) I also see that Minor4th is refusing to drop the stick about me. In the past, ArbCom does not make findings based on a single incident, but rather only for patterns of conduct over time, unless there is reason to expect that the single incident will become a continuing problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC) My name came up here again, this time with Wuerzele suggesting that NativeForeigner and I are in some sort of cabal on my talk page (not to mention me not being a content editor). NF explained here: [7], that he was responding to a comment that I had made, and it was "no more and no less". Given all the theatrics on this talk page, about editors who are allegedly pushing a "pro-industry" POV because they cite reliable scientific sources, ArbCom may find in this aspersion an example that you can relate to, about how the actual POV-pushers use slurs to impugn users they disagree with. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC) And I see now that Wuerzele's response to what I said here is an analysis of my activity spanning the time when I was away from Wikipedia due to my mother's death, and Wuerzele seems to conclude that I am not a productive editor on Wikipedia. I urge ArbCom to consider very seriously what it will take to bring peaceful editing to the scope of this case, and again, please look at the link in Aircorn's section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I sadly ask the Arbs to take note of the link given in Aircorn's section below. I fully understand how these proceedings can lead to bad feelings, but given the rules about conduct during a case, it reflects significantly on multiple parties here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I see that Albino Ferret is still commenting about me, and I hope that what I said just below sets that to rest. Albino Ferret is also repeating something (which he struck after my comment here) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) about Kingofaces43 that several other editors have said: that Kingofaces43 and Jytdog engaged in tag-team editing, as though it were something coordinated between them. That is not what really happened. Rather, these were two editors who agreed on content issues (and they were generally correct, according to sourcing and POV policies). The ABF in ascribing the edit patterns to a deliberately coordinated group is the same thing as the often-repeated claim that editors who care about MEDRS are part of an organized group, and the often-repeated claim that editors are motivated by secret pay from agricultural companies, and is an aspersion. That goes hand-in-hand with the mean-spirited copying of the blocked editor's deleted post, accompanied by gleeful mockery, referred to below in Aircorn's section. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I've been looking over the evidence that is being presented about Kingofaces43. I think I do see real evidence of edit warring, however much the other evidence has been spun. Arbs may want to consider whether the 1RR restriction added to the DS would suffice to address this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) David Tornheim just added more evidence about Kingofaces43. I've read it, I've tried to understand the point of it, but I cannot see anything wrong with anything Kingofaces43 did there, although there do seem to be some boomerang implications that the present PD does not yet address. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Again, please see what Aircorn drew attention to, in his section below. Please. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I was reading the candidate statements for the upcoming election, and some things I saw there prompted my memory about something, sort of an "aha!" moment. I'll point it out here, as a very general remark, and Arbs can take it or leave it, although I hope some of you will take it. Some editors observed that a problem with you, the present members of the Committee, is a tendency to judge cases by whether or not you see obviously policy-violating diffs, and thereby tend to miss more subtle problems with POV editing over time. I think that's true, and I hope some of you are responsible enough to take it as constructive advice, given in the best interests of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC) As I watch how some of you Arbs have been voting, I am becoming concerned that you may end up with a final decision in which there are contradictions between the Principles and the other parts of the decision. I am particularly concerned about Principle 1, where in part you correctly indicate that Wikipedia is not to be used to catalyze social change beyond what reliable sources permit, and Principle 5, where in part you indicate that it is disruptive to make shill-type accusations without using the proper dispute resolution channels. You all appear to be endorsing these Principles, as you properly should. But then, in the subsequent sections of the PD, some of you are voting that these things might not rise to the level of making findings. It comes across like only edit warring is really a serious matter. And that will make life difficult for administrators who will be tasked with trying to enforce the Discretionary Sanctions, outside of edit warring. If an editor comes to them, complaining that they are being unfairly called a shill or unfairly called editing for the industry POV, and citing your Principles, other editors will respond that what they are doing is no different than what they did prior to this case, and so there is nothing to enforce. You need to anticipate that, and figure out how to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC) A recent question on this talk page, [8], goes to the very heart of this case. And it goes to the very heart of what I said just above, about how it could become difficult for administrators to enforce DS. The Arbs really need to think about what it means. The most important goal here really isn't protecting the sanctity of ArbCom case pages, but making sure that content will be edited non-disruptively in the future. Let's all stipulate that this case has been rife with errors, some of them made by me, some of them made by other parties, and some of them made by Arbs. I hope that no one wants edits that are made to covertly advance a company's commercial interests. But when edits are made to comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:RS or WP:NPOV or WP:RGW, you better not let editors be accused of editing for a company's POV. Go down that road, and Wikipedia will end up reporting that vaccines cause autism and abortions cause breast cancer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC) There is a stray quote mark in "Locus of dispute". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)  Done Fixed. This comment here comes awfully close to arguing that two wrongs make a right. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC) I very much like Geogene's comment, just added below. But I'll also say that, at this point, it's really not about rehabilitating Jytdog, because I've come to the sad conclusion that that train has left the station. But what does matter, a lot, at this stage is that you not leave the door open for the POV pushers who are trying to tell you that they should get equal time with the science, and that it's just dispute resolution to go around calling other editors shills. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @Sage: I probably shouldn't reply, but I see it as being about protecting WP:RS rather than choosing sides about two POVs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) About Kingofaces43, I tend to think that neither an FOF nor anything else is justified. And about Gandydancer's recent comment, I'd like to clarify how I perceive it. Even if some editors were, hypothetically, to have an anti-GMO or anti-Monsanto or whatever POV, I would not see a reason for ArbCom to act on it. My concerns are not about editors' opinions. It's about conduct on articles and article talk pages. There is a difference between wanting an NPOV treatment of industries, which I support, and wanting a misleading presentation of scientific facts, which I oppose. And holding a personal opinion that a company is bad does not present a problem, but accusing editors who disagree of being shills does present a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC) And it disappoints me that this case will probably fail to address the kind of treatment of sources that can be seen here. (Right-to-know website good, New York Times bad, WP:RGW.) It bodes ill for the future of the pages in the case scope, and ill serves our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC) @DGG: Petrarchan47 was prompted to say that about me in reaction to my comment immediately above ([9]). In fairness, I can understand why she would be upset about my saying that, and there certainly has been no shortage of hurt feelings during this case, but I also maintain that what I am pointing out is justified, and accurately presented. And I'd hardly say that I have been getting everything that I wanted in this case, or that I have been automatically trusted. And in any case, if Arbitrators are not convinced by the diffs I present, so be it, but I nonetheless have presented them in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) In "Casting aspersions": "Editors are however remind → reminded". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)  Done As some of the Arbs have already noted, SMcCandlish's first point raises some very good issues about how to deal with COI issues. I think what is needed is to figure out a way to preclude aspersion-like accusations that editors have a COI, while at the same time not creating requirements for processes that cause more harm than they fix (such as mandating the order of reports, mandating outing, or for that matter just WP:CREEP). Please let me suggest something like this: If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI. they should not be made on article talk pages, but should instead be pursued according to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. In that way, you are not creating new policy, but instead simply ratifying existing policy. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Noting the most recent discussions about Kingofaces43, I want to re-emphasize my earlier observations that a careful examination of the evidence really does not reveal anything in the way of tendentiousness outside of some edit warring. The edit warring is real, but is less extensive than that for other named parties who have already been cited for it. The treatment of sources is much more NPOV than many other parties. On that basis, I want to suggest that the 1RR restriction for all editors should suffice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC) There is a discussion going on at WT:Harassment#Proposed clarification of Outing, that concerns Proposed Principle 5, "Casting aspersions". Editors there have been expressing concerns about "Editors are however remind[ed] that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes." I strongly recommend that Arbs who are thinking about this Principle look at that other discussion, see what some editors have been saying, and reply there if you want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I see on this talk page that other editors have been asking questions about the delay in finalizing the decision. For those who have not been following it, part of the reason is that the Committee is having its attention taken by another concurrent case, at AE2. See, for example: [10]. (That said, I remember that several editors asked for extensions of the evidence phase, and they might perhaps be wondering now why they were turned down.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC) @DGG: I read and appreciated your very thoughtful reply to SageRad. I agree with you about the issue of "articulating a POV". It is one of numerous things in the initial draft of the PD that really ought to have been revised. One of the problems that I see with this case is that Arbs are putting themselves in the position of voting against badly worded proposals instead of just revising the wording. In this particular instance, please let me suggest changing "and articulated a clear POV" to "and edited with a clear POV". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) @SageRad, since you asked me, I'll try to answer you. I actually do think that "editing with a POV" is a problem, and the comparison with respect to "pushing a POV" is just a matter of degree. I'll also repeat something that I said earlier: that I think that, on balance, you have been less of a problem than Petrarchan47, Prokaryotes, or Wuerzele, and that I see you as someone who has a good chance of having your restrictions lifted in the future. However, not all the Arbs see it the way that I do. But I will add that I think that the delay in finishing the case has resulted in very big changes in the landscape of the dispute. Some parties have left, and some have improved their behaviors, while other editors have started to show up and present new problems. And about how various Arbs have seen it, I want to say that AGK, based on all his votes, and Seraphimblade, based on his votes so far, have read the evidence exactly as I have been reading it all along, so I thank them both for that. And I'll suggest to the Arbs who voted earlier that you really ought to take a second look at Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes before the case closes, and consider what AGK and Seraphimblade have correctly recognized. It's the evidence, not the wording of the first draft of the PD, that really matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC) @Capeo: Everything that you asked about was discussed going back to the Workshop phase, and all of it is intentional. About the different wording for DrChrissy, Albino Ferret's explanation is correct. About the companies, I think that it is covered by "broadly construed". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Kingofaces, since you just endorsed Capeo's point about extending DrChrissy's topic ban to animals, I feel the need to repeat my strong opinion that DrChrissy does excellent editing on veterinary and animal welfare topics, and that the proposed language should remain as it is. I do however acknowledge that DrChrissy and some other parties who are about to be topic banned have been editing disturbingly heavily the last week or so in just those topics where they will be banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Response

Collapsing, in the hope that these errors have been put to rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I want to say thank you to Coretheapple and Newyorkbrad for your kind words on this talk page, and also to thank Newyorkbrad for notifying me, since no one else did (but of course I am closely watching here). You, ArbCom, feel it necessary to "remind" me that I should have provided diffs in the Workshop? As you should know perfectly well, the request to me to add diffs was made while I was blocked by the same Arb who posted the proposal to "remind" me. And I had made it very clear that I was, for professional reasons, about to travel to a conference almost immediately after the block was lifted, until after the Workshop was closed. Am I the first editor ever to present Workshop proposals without diffs? Was it difficult to go from my Workshop proposals to my Evidence? I arranged the Workshop proposals by editor, and I arranged my Evidence by editor, in pretty much the same order. All anyone had to do was to go from one to the other, and it all lined up. There was nothing like an "inadequately clear" reference. The WP:NPA policy is not written in terms of needing a specific format for providing reasons for criticism of other editors. And let's look at what ArbCom's own procedures actually say. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop: [11] 3. Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful. I followed those instructions. I referred to my section of the Evidence page. Providing diffs is not required. It is "helpful". If I wasn't "helpful" enough, sorry, but you have no business changing the rules after the fact as a sort of "gotcha". If you want to make it mandatory, then put it in writing, where participating editors can see it – beforehand. There is an appearance here of ArbCom giving in to demands that there must be some sort of "equalization" in how the PD treats parties, as well as the appearance that ArbCom is trying to cover your own posteriors after already having treated me badly and been less than impressive in handling this case. In an ironic way, it will be helpful to see how individual Arbs vote on these proposals. Because you can rest assured that I and others will be watching. (Oh, and you still haven't fixed "plants" → "organisms" for Prokaryotes and SageRad.) fixed --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [12]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Given that AGK has asked on the PD page which member of the Committee asked for the proposals concerning Guy, I will ask the same question as to which member or members asked for the proposals concerning me. Please identify them, and will they please explain themselves? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) In this particular case I was concerned about the number of FoFs without direct citation that noted that individuals had engaged in misconduct. Roger Davies brought this to my attention most vigorously. I am somewhat concerned by it, but you're absolutely right that the actual standard is lower. I'll plead ignorance, and that's my fault. It was an assumption on my part to think that more vigorous standards were required (in most recent cases there have been inline diffs, but if we go back a year or two it's less common, a couple years back even fewer). I'll withdraw it, the guide is clear this isn't the standard required. I think it really ought to be, and I'd advocate for requiring inline diffs for for findings of fact on direct editor conduct, as anything less is somewhat making the recipient guess what specific evidence presented is problematic. You're right that this would be applying a bit of a double standard, given the letter of hte law. I'll withdraw it as such. Sorry for this. NativeForeigner Talk 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you for withdrawing it. That's a good step in the right direction. I certainly hope that you will agree with me that I have tried to be helpful to you in this ArbCom case, even if I am, gasp!, not perfect. @Roger Davies: I think that you need to explain what you did here, as well as reply to what I previously said here, and maybe explain whether all of this grew out of whatever was going on in your mind here. (Oh look! I provided diffs!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I would generally agree with that. I've reviewed the guide to arbitration and it's quite out of date, and should be updated. I'd advocate for a change in the wording there that says that more specific linking for individuals is required. I think we're both about equally guilty for looking at it and thinking it was problematic. I don't however doubt that you meant well and that you've been helpful to this case. There was a reason it was a reminder (meant to bring attention to and remind, not necessarily warn). I also sincerely doubt that there is any connection between the link you provide and Roger's feelings on this mattter. I see nothing to indicate Roger would act puniitively against you for your edits there. NativeForeigner Talk 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Then I am sure that he can clarify that himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish:, I would not have gone down the route NativeForeigner chose for the FOF. Had I drafted it, I would have gone with a more traditional and straightforward formula, along the lines of Tryptofish has cast aspersions.[diff][diff][diff] There is also probably enough to add something about failing to assume good faith. By way of example of the issues, neither your Petrarchan47 FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct) nor your SageRad FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources) are supported by evidence (either as diffs in the /Workshop or with diffs in your /Evidence). You have made serious allegations but - contrary to the Personal Attacks policy - you failed/refused to provide evidence for them. This is unacceptable. I'm sorry that parts of the Guide to Arbitration are out of date. I have already started to get a group of people together to update it comprehensively. The part pertaining to the /Workshop has already been fixed. Having given the point that you raise some thought, the text that you have quoted does not override policy nor longstanding practice, though it is not really relevant to a "casting aspersions" finding.  Roger Davies talk 10:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Roger Davies, thank you for your reply. I will make note that I have exchanged emails with the Committee, and I have been very frank in my reply to Roger, as he has been frank in his reply to me. But I will say here, Roger, that if you had been drafting that FOF, I rather expect that you might not have been supported by other members of the Committee. As I said in one part of my email, "I presented evidence in good faith. Some of you appear not to find it convincing. That's fine, and I defer to your judgment, and that's how Arbitration works. I made Workshop proposals in good faith. You decided not to use all of them in the Proposed Decision (although, in fact, you used a lot of them, so apparently some of my proposals were helpful). That's fine too, and I defer to your judgment there as well. But the fact that you believe that my evidence wasn't good enough to justify some proposals does not lead to the conclusion that I presented them in bad faith." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC) And on re-reading, I just noticed your statement about my proposals for two editors not having diffs in my evidence. I did provide diffs. If you disagree with me about whether or not those diffs support my conclusions, that's your prerogative and I defer to you, because that's how this process works. But I hope that you misspoke in appearing to say that the diffs did not exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to SageRad

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, I'm putting my reply to you here, because it is separate from what I am saying to ArbCom, and they can either read this or ignore it as they prefer. After all, I'm not making the decisions here. But thank you for caring what I think, and I will try to answer your questions to me carefully. We can also follow up on this at my talk page or yours. Is it possible to edit without a POV? Yes. Of course, all editors have a point of view, but what matters is whether one edits disproportionately according to that POV. I've argued, for example, in favor of edits that might be regarded as "anti-GMO" on some biography pages, on the basis of BLP. An NPOV editor is willing to edit against their POV when that's right for the content. I see you as tilting very one-sidedly, but I also think it's something you can turn around. What about editors pushing in the other direction? Every POV dispute has two sides. So if one group of editors are editing for NPOV, the other editors will see them as editing in a POV way. Here, it's as much about WP:RS as about NPOV, and there is a complete asymmetry between parties. The anti-GMO editors take a POV that contradicts reliable sources, whereas the editors whom you might see as pro-GMO are really just editing for NPOV according to what the sources say. Do I see pushing as coming from one side more than from another? Yes, but that doesn't mean that the other side is blameless, and the PD makes it clear that this is not the case. Do I see it as POV-pushing versus science? I see it as POV-pushing versus the preponderance of reliable sources, and those sources happen to be scientific. Do I see improper conduct from editors on the science side? Yes, and I have come to see it more as the case has played out. The issue you raise about consensus is a complicated one, because there has been such intransigence on the anti-GMO side that, when editors give up on convincing other editors, it may look like not accepting consensus (especially if one just counts the number of editors on each side), but there is a difference in who is and who isn't using sources according to policy and guidelines. Unless the decision changes sharply, I think that the current PD gets it approximately right (failing to appreciate the problems with Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes, but otherwise right). If anyone wants to probe my thinking about what I emphasized in my evidence or my workshop proposals more deeply, let's do it at my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) SageRad, I read and thought about everything that you said to me in reply. I, too, appreciate that you are asking these questions in good faith, and I am happy to try to reply to you as best I can. If you want to follow up on this, let's do it at my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Loose ends

I see the discussions about wrapping up the case, and I am as eager as the rest of us to see this case done with. But there are some loose ends that the Arbs really need to fix before closing the case. Please do not ignore these things. As I see them:

1. You really should fix the FoF about SageRad, because the way it reads now is embarrassingly awkward. There are two possible ways to do it. One is to adopt DGG's alternative version. The other is to make a very easy revision in the first version: change "and articulated a clear POV" to "and edited with a clear POV".
2. AGK and Seraphimblade are right about Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes. It saddens me to see Seraphimblade's abstention about Prokaryotes, because it is really an expression of resignation about the Committee's failure to meet your responsibilities in dealing with the case. I hope that a few other Arbs will reconsider your earlier votes, because it wouldn't take too many changes for those proposals to pass. Please don't drop the ball on this.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th's section

Close outdated comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Arbs @Guerillero: @NativeForeigner: @Roger Davies: please see my comments here [13] and also see Tryptofish's talk page wherin he re-started the discussion. Thank you. Minor4th 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Noted. Case will be a bit late, I think. Other arbcom silliness has eaten my allocated wikitime. Nonetheless good progress has been made thus far, expect posting by the end of the month at latest. NativeForeigner Talk 02:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the update. Much appreciated. Minor4th 03:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) I last minute started a new job and that has reduced the amount of free time that I have --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Well congratulations on the new job. So what are we looking at for an estimated time frame for the PD? Thanks. Minor4th 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC) And I last minute interviewed for one. But that being said I think either 11/3 or 11/4 are likely. Reconsidering a couple aspects but I'm nearing the point where I'm happy with it. NativeForeigner Talk 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks again. Minor4th 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Analysis of PD Just absorbing the PD right now and checking diffs. I hope NativeForeigner did not feel pressured to post the PD before it was complete - I'm also curious about whether this version incorporates Guierillo's input or if he will be posting separate PD's? I will have more specific commentary and analysis after dinner :) Minor4th 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) There are only two things that I am going to add; however, our notes pretty much line up and we worked though the evidence independently. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) I am disappointed in the quality of the proposed decision in several respects and even more disappointed in the lame diffs that are provided in support of most to the findings - especially since editors and parties provided a huge collection of better quality diffs and analysis. Overall, it seems the arbs did not meaningfully consider the evidence provided and the workshop discussions -- I see some arbs being unaware that JzG participated in this case as much as any party, and had to be interaction banned with another party during the case and for edits he made on case pages. Also, Arbs are apparently unaware or indifferent to the fact that multiple editors requested that JzG be added as a party, multiple times throughout the case. Those requests were repeatedly ignored. It appears to me that this Arb committee is either burned out or lazy - or for some other reason unable or unwilling to step up to the plate and do the work required to really understand the case and take meaningful action where it is needed to alleviate the disruption in this topic area. Petrarchan47 - The diffs provided do not support the finding of fact or show any wrongdoing. I studied the editing behavior and patterns of each party and there is no evidence to support the findings or proposed remedy for Petrarchan. This editor actually seems very knowledgable about evaluating sources in the topic area. I believe there KingofAces43 - I am shocked that there are no findings or remedies for KingofAces43. If a finding that Dr Chrissy has edit warred, there should certainly be a finding that Kingofaces43 has edit warred per this and this and this JzG - I provided evidence of several edit wars he engaged in during the case; he had to be placed under a 2 way Iban for his behavior during the case. He has been admonished for similar behavior in past Arb cases, and he has used his tools and commentary to promote a battleground in the topic area - he has clearly stated his POV as well. His behavior during the case was worse than many of the parties who are now having severe remedies proposed against them. There is no question that his edit warring and behavior that led to the interaction ban during the case is conduct unbecoming an administrator. And again, if there is a finding and remedy for Dr Chrissy edit warring, there should certainly be a finding and remedy for JzG edit warring ...as he actually crossed the 3RR threshold on at least one article and edit warred on 2 others as well during the case. He only stopped when an interaction ban was imposed. Jytdog - he has been the most disruptive force in the whole topic area, across numerous articles and towards numerous editors. This behavior has continued for several years. A ton of evidence was provided about him. I am astonished that a site ban is being discussed for SageRad but not for Jytdog. What are you guys thinking?? Tryptofish - he was blocked during the case for his editing behavior on case pages, edits that were directed against parties he unilaterally added to the case and against whom he proposed sanctions. A finding should be included in this case and an admonishment. Their absence gives the perception that Arb was intimidated or bullied into inaction because of Tryptofish's numerous and voluminous complaints and demands for an apology - as if he were the victim! His addition of parties to the case should also be examined and I believe a finding would be appropriate.. he added me, GregJackP, AlbinoFerret and Atsme as parties and there was no evidence presented against us that would be in any way actionable. See Justdafax's comments below for further discussion of this same phenomenon. This proposed final decision looks like either gross incompetence from the committee or unacceptable bias. Please fix this, even if you have to take additional time to actually read and evaluate the evidence in order to make a logical and meaningful set of proposals. So far, you have missed the mark by a long shot. Minor4th 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Arbs are apparently not reading the evidence or workshop or this talk page before voting. Disappointing that such an important case is being handled with such carelessness. Minor4th 22:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) In retrospect I should have added him to the case when the talk page issues arose. I'd hope that if there are further issues/ds is needed the admin takes note of the behavior. That being said the assertion I'm ignoring evidence is pretty absurd. NativeForeigner Talk 09:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) NOTE: the following posted also on my Talk page, as well as Native Foreigner's: As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele is heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jusdafax 14:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC) @Petrarchan47: Arbs don't have to IAR in order to make findings and remedies against JzG. They have always had the latitude to make decisions about editors who are not formally named as "involved parties" and have indeed done so on a number of occasions in the past. Minor4th Pinging Arbs @DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Euryalus:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Roger Davies:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, @Thryduulf:, AGK (talk · contribs), @DeltaQuad: Could you guys please weigh in on this discussion? Please see comments and questions directly above. It would be helpful if you would at least acknowledge that you've considered the discussions on this page about the PD -- and better yet, provide some sort of feedback to those of us who have spent a great deal of time researching and providing evidence and proposed findings and remedies. Please. Minor4th 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Acknowledging that I have seen this ping, and that I will take a look again. However I will not have the time to do that before Monday. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much for your quick response. There's no rush, but I felt it necessary to ping the arbs because a number of votes were being cast while it seemed like the voting arbs had not really considered the other case pages or these ongoing discussions. Minor4th 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately I haven't had the time to do this that I hoped to today. At the moment it's 50/50 whether I will tomorrow but I promise I will get to it as soon as I can. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the update. Minor4th 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I'll only reply wrt JzG: ArbCom may, in the past, have passed remedies against non-parties (I don't really know), but we haven't done that for a good many years. And for good reason: being listed as a party is a warning to an editor that his conduct may be scrutinised; this allows him to know that he'll have to keep an eye on the case pages, if he wants, giving him the chance to comment on and rebut all evidence which may be submitted concerning his conduct. Proposing FOFs and remedies against non-parties at this stage deprives said non-parties of the ability to provide comments and rebuttals. It's not simply blind bureaucracy. I don't know why AGK declined the request to add JzG and I haven't checked if there were other requests to the drafters that were denied as well, but, the point is, JzG was not added and, under the circumstances, it would be unfair to pass remedies against him. This doesn't mean, however, that his conduct will not be examined. Anyone may file an amendment request at ARCA after this case closes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence re: Kingofaces43

Edit warring:

• Edit warring with Dr Chrissy on Glyphosate during this case: [14], [15], [16]. Note JzG was also involved in this edit war.

• Glyphosate March 2015: [17], [18]

• Glyphosate December 2014 with edit summaries that make no sense: [19], [20]

• Vani Hari December 2014: [21], [22], [23]

• Syngenta March 2015: [24], [25]

• Genetic engineering March 2015, Jytog/Kingofaces43 tag team: Jytdog [26], Jytdog [27], Kingofaces43 [28]

@NativeForeigner: I will likely provide more a bit later. Minor4th 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved issues as of 11-25-15

@DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Euryalus:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Roger Davies:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, @Thryduulf:, @AGK:, @DeltaQuad:

Please address these issues ASAP.

1. Please include a FoF and remedy for Kingofaces43. The FoF should read something to the effect of: Kingofaces43 has engaged in edit warring in the topic area [29], [30], [31] and has contributed to the battleground mentality. Since NativeForeigner asked for evidence supporting a FoF for Kingofaces43, we have received no further feedback, and no FoF has been added to the PD. This series of reverts by Kingofaces43 [32], [33], [34] took place on Oct 5, while the case was pending, and directly led to a temporary injunction imposing DS and 1RR on October 6: [35]
2. Please add a site ban option for Jytdog so that ARBS can consider it and vote on the proposal. At least 2 Arbs have recommended a site ban option for Jytdog due to his behavior during the case (outing, and outing again after being warned).
3. The Casting aspersions finding and remedy need additional work, as noted on the PD and on this talk page. As written, this section of the PD encourages outing and mandates a particular posting order to address COI. These issues need to be re-worked. Also, the finding/remedy only speaks to part of the issue - accusations of paid industry editing. The more disruptive behavior in this area is the accusations and name calling made by editors on both "sides" - e.g. "anti-GMO", "Monsanto shill", "anti-science", "FRINGE advocate", "pro-industry" etc. All of these labels are counter-productive in this topic area and the use of such jargon reinforces the battleground mentality and inhibits collaboration. IMO this is the very heart of the issue, and this case should not be closed until an acceptable remedy is passed to deal with it..
4. We need a finding about BLPs in the topic area. Please see the Climate Change arb case for a suggested template. The BLPs in this topic area are treated horribly - I believe the problem editing is mostly by a faction of editors who claim to be protecting science and beating down pseudoscience. This faction focuses on the BLPs who are not entirely aligned with the "majority" view, and they turn their BLP articles into attack pieces that make the subjects appear to be lunatic charlatans who should only be ridiculed -- far from complying with BLP sourcing policy, using derogatory and non-neutral terms to describe these BLPs and their activities and publications, and using advocacy blogs, editorials and retracted primary sources to smear the living persons who hold a different view. This behavior is unacceptable and is specifically prohibited by WP policy -- a consensus of editors sharing a POV cannot trump policy, but that is exactly what has happened. See Vani Hari for one example. See also G. Edward Griffin involving the same editors.
5. FoF that SageRad has expressed a POV. That is an improper finding and an improper basis to support a remedy against SageRad (or any editor, for that matter). I don't believe a finding of adding unsourced content should support a finding or remedy either. There are allowances for non-controversial, non-disputed content to remain temporarily unsourced. If there is not enough good evidence to support the proposed topic ban, then the proposed remedy should be amended or withdrawn.
6. The table of vote tallies does not accurately reflect the current votes. Please reconcile these.
7. Several Arbs have not voted. Some have provided no input at all in this case. This and considering NF's comment below, that Arbs are focusing on AE2 case, as well as recent comments from Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) - it has the appearance Arbs are not interested in this case and are disinclined to properly evaluate it and bring it to a meaningful conclusion.

Thank you, Minor4th 18:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

::Tap, tap, tap .... 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Or just ignore it completely. Either way .... Minor4th 00:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: Thanks for this [36]. Minor4th 14:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)|}

• @Kingofaces43: Why did you only mention Dr Chrissy edit warring on glyphosate when Boghog is the one who started it by reverting content that had been in the article for a long time, and has crossed 3RR to keep it out. And why do you think it's ok for you to jump in and join the edit war to keep the content out when there's an on-going full bore edit war already in progress? Is it because your POV does not agree with Dr Chrissy's POV and you saw that Boghog had already reverted 3 times? Just curious. Not that the arbs will do anything about it, but this is you pattern in this topic area - you swoop in for a revert in the middle of an ongoing edit war. I think it can be called tag teaming. Minor4th 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have reviewed your evidence regarding Kingofaces. While it is an edit war, I don't feel a topic ban is justifiable at this point in time over the edit warring alone. I get that it contributes to a bad atmosphere when someone edit wars but that's the case through this whole topic area. I feel that the remedies surrounding 1RR (particularly) and DS will be sufficent to address the issues you present, and if not, there is AE. If there are more issues and we sadly get around to GMO 2, then I'd be happy to include a remedy. But at this late in the game, and not much to justify additional remedies other than what is already in place, I don't see the point in adding to the case this round. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: PD

The PD has been posted. I view it as a minimum of what needs to happen, I may add one or two more FoF/remedies in the next day or two, but I think this represents the core of the issue. Comments welcome. As a reminder, no threaded conversation. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My own section

JzG should be added as party, given the findings and remedies. NE Ent 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy's section

I have just read the PD and I thank the admin for a careful and considered summary. However, I fail to see why Jytdog has been given "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted;" His extreme disruption and highly objectionable incivility has ranged wide, very very wide. I feel he should have a site ban, but at the very, very least, please reconsider why this topic ban is limited only to genetically modified plants. Surely, this should be "genetically modified organisms". I thank you for reconsidering this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to scope yours slightly differently, to not hamper your productive editing on animals. Somehow that wording snuck into his. It's been changed. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that - much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My current topic ban Several editors have commented positively about my current topic ban regarding alt.med, med and MEDRS being raised here. I am not overly concerned that this has been raised by the ArbCom. It is clear some people have seen one or two of my edits as potential violation of this, however, the ArbCom does not agree this has been a violation, or at least has decided not to pursue this further. I am able to appeal this current topic ban in just 8 days! (nope - I have not been counting ;-) ). I think we should let this matter settle here for the moment and if you care to join me on ANI on November 20th, I will welcome your company.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that 2 arbs have now voted in support on the section of my "Existing restrictions". Could I ask what ArbCom are voting on, please? Is this simply supporting the fact that one or two other editors accused me of violating my topic ban, or, is ArbCom voting on whether I did violate my topic ban?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It is noting that the topic bans exist, and that some assertions have been made about violations. It isn't in-and-of-itself an endorsement of those assertions. LFaraone 20:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for the clarification.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing Proposals In the Workshop phase of this case, evidence was raised against User:Kingofaces43, User:Alexbrn, and User:Yobol, yet there are no proposed sanctions remedies for them here. Does this mean there will be no action against them, or is the PD not yet quite finished?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I am somewhat perplexed about the apparently inconsistent weightings of the proposed remedies in this case. I'm sorry to have to raise this ArbCom - you certainly work extremely hard at this and it is a thankless task. First, I do not understand how it can be proposed that an editor such as Jytdog who has exhibited many types of actionable behaviour, in many areas of the project, and for a considerable length of time, will apparently receive the same remedy as myself (a proposed topic ban). Second, I do not understand how remedies are not being proposed for editors that are named parties and for whom demonstrable evidence has been provided at the Workshop for their actionable behaviours. I have summarised below the (potentially) actionable behaviours of several editors who seem to have slipped under the radar during the transition from the Workshop to the PD. This is despite their behaviours having been more widespread or long-term than my own, yet my own proposed remedy is a very lengthy and potentially very disruptive topic ban. An editor has already made the point that this is an extremely important, high-visibility case and the arbitrators need to send the right messages to the community. I do not feel these current inconsistencies in the weighting of remedies will send the right messages.

	Potentially Actionable Behaviour						Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
	Incivility	Edit warring	Tag team editing	Misuse of DR	Forum shopping	Battleground behaviour
Jytdog	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Topic ban
DrChrissy (me)	-	Y	-	-	-	-	Topic ban
Kingofaces43	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed
Alexbrn	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	None proposed
Yobol	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed

In the table, Y indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.

User:NativeForeigner & User:Guerillero, just noting the proposed remedy for User:Jytdog still reads "... genetically modified plants...". Was this your intention, or was it perhaps "genetically modified organisms"? This has been sorted - thank you.

Whilst sitting here watching with growing incredulity that it appears I am to be made a scapegoat for all the battles in GMO (which is ironic as I am perhaps the most recent contributing editor), I have realised the reason why. The PD FoFs have been structured and drafted to portray me individually in a totally negative perspective, especially compared to other editors. There are 2 entire sections entitled DrChrissy: Edit warring and DrChrissy: Existing restrictions. Other editors (e.g. Jytdog) have also been identified as edit warring by the PD, but for some reason, he did not get an entire section entitled Jytdog: Edit warring, it is simply listed underneath his name. These 2 separate sections for me but not others, along with their headings, are unacceptably biasing voter's opinion of me before they have even considered the evidence! All of the other editors in the FoFs are simply named without a prejudicial heading about their behaviour. Why do only I get a section identifying my current restrictions. This obviously portrays me as "He's been naughty before so he must be guilty here". Surely if editor's previous behaviour is relevant, there should be a similarly titled section for Jytdog e.g. Jytdog: Previous warning for incivility - this previous warning is fundamental to the evidence presented at all stages of this case, yet it is not even mentioned in the PD. Arbcom voters who do not read the evidence/workshop pages will be totally unaware of his history, but they are being made conspicuously aware of mine! This biasing of the PD against me is totally unacceptable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:, you recently posted your agreement that Kingofaces43 has been guilty of edit warring and then followed up with, "Arbs may want to consider whether the 1RR restriction added to the DS would suffice to address this". My table above shows that the current proposed remedy for edit warring is a topic ban. It would be inconsistent for Kingofaces43 to receive anything less.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Kingofaces43: Minor4th's FOFs inn the workshop had the following "(Examples of SQS/edit warring:[37], [38], [39] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [40], [41], [42]; revert history on Glyphosate: [43]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [44]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [45], see talk discussion here)" Please note the accusations of edit warring do not rely on any argument that there is a cabal. Please also note that it appears I am about to receive a substantial topic ban...for (arguably) edit warring. I think we need some parity here.

Procedural soundness of my remedy @NativeForeigner: @Guerillero: It is my belief that the proposed FOF are written in such a way that that they are highly and irreversibly prejudicial against me. I have been singled out by having multiple sections for my "offences", and these "offences" are stated in the headings next to my name. This structure of the FOF was not adopted for any other party. I believe this will have considerably influenced the arbitrators' consideration of the evidence (including 3 diffs provided as evidence for 1 instance of edit warring) and ultimately their decision regarding my remedy. Because several arbitrators have already voted on this, I believe it is now impossible to "turn the clocks back" for me to get a fair and paritable hearing in this case. It is my conclusion that any remedy for me is procedurally unsound. I believe ArbCom should therefore declare any remedy against me in this case as null and void.

@Coretheapple:. Please treat this as a friendly message. You are not named as a party about to receive a remedy. Some of us are, and we are greatly concerned by this for a range of reasons. Calling for a close to this case when there are several important and fundamental pending questions is not helpful for those of us about to have severe sanctions imposed. If this case process is causing you concerns, perhaps simply do not log into the page. Honestly, this is meant in a friendly way.

Jytdog's sudden contribution to this case must be seen for the insignificance that it is. The named parties have been asked to present evidence of any accusations or defences (i.e providing diffs) within a specified time-window. We have all worked hard to do this. Jytdog suddenly arrives and presents hardly a single diff of evidence either in his favour or against other parties. Even if he had, this is so late after the closing date as to be laughable and must be dismissed by ArbCom. His comments should be struck through, or perhaps even suppresed as appears to be happening on the Talk page for other editors' comments.

I note that User:Roxy the dog has now contributed to this page. Is this allowed? Can any editor simply edit this page to try and sway the opinion of ArbCom? If his suggestion is to be taken seriously (which IMHO it should not), then it must be applied across the board for all parties. To start with, I have created/started almost 60 articles (and made significant contributions to many more). I have contributed to several talk pages dealing with issues such as MEDRS, RS and others. I have written an essay on primary and secondary sources. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as [[46]]. Doesn't this also make me a "...model contributor to the project, and supporter of the pillars." and therefore deserving of such a description here?

Behaviour during ArbCom It is of massive relevance that Jytdog has been blocked today.[47] Will a separate proposed FOF section entitled "Jytdog: Existing restrictions" be created for him as it was for me?

My "Edit warring" I would like to point out something which although obvious to me, might not be obvious to some of the arbitrators supporting a topic ban for me on the basis of my edit warring. In the PD, 4 diffs were provided as evidence in the section entitled "DrChrissy: Edit Warring".

The 1st diff indicates a series of interactions between Jytdog, Alexbrn and myself on the Foie gras article. I ask arbitrators to look at these interactions carefully. To summarise, I made only a single revert and the majority of my edits were simply adding new material - I do not believe this constitutes "edit warring", simply normal expanding of an article.

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th diffs are from the same interaction between myself and Jytdog on Glyphosate. The 2nd diff (#17)[48] shows Jytdog making a substantial edit of my previous content addition. The 3rd diff (#18)[49] shows my reverting his edit (because my content addition had been previously discussed). The 4th diff (#19)[50] shows Jytdog reverting my revert. In short, this series of 3 diffs provided to Arbcom shows my input to this interaction was a single revert. I do not understand how this series can be construed as evidence of my "edit warring". There was no 1R-rule imposed on me or the page. Surely, a single revert in isolation can not be evidence for sanctions to be imposed upon an editor.

Inconsistent vote tallies In the PD section "3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban." There appear to be 6 votes on favour and 2 of opposition, however, in the table "Proposed Remedies" toward the end of the PD there are 8 in favour and 3 opposes. Which is correct?

The overall picture Although not stated in the locus, it is clear that problems in this topic area are entrenched, long-term and have existed for several years. So, let's look at the remedies that are currently being supported to solve the problem.

1) 1RR for all editors - that will help.

2) 2-way interaction ban for myself and Jytdog - Yes, that will stop the pair of us behaving like petulant children on one article in the topic area, glyphosate.

3) I am topic banned. I have never edited [[Monsanto] (that might be the first time I have written that word!), March against Monsanto or any of those multiple industry-based or BLP articles that seem to have been a focus of the long-term problems this case was intended to address. I am being banned for edit warring on just one page in this massive topic area - this was wrong of me - but will my ban change the overall picture? My first edit in this topic-related area was, I believe, in July 2015. How can I have been a participant in the previous years of conflict that have dogged this topic area.

4) SageRad is topic banned. SageRad, like myself, is very new to this topic area. (His account was only opened on June 10th, 2015.) How could he possibly be responsible for the long-term problems this case is intended to be addressing.

5) Jytdog is topic banned. I think almost everyone is in agreement this will be a good remedy.

So, we have 2 highly productive content editors new to this topic area being held accountable for the sins of many other editors over several years. Will these remedies work? No they will not. The main players from all "sides" will still be there. The disruption will start again within days of this case being closed if it stands. I urge ArbCom to see that what they are voting on is not an overall remedy. I believe the only sensible course of action is to restart this case with a neutral point of view, as has already been suggested. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to ArbCom @DGG: First, may I thank you sincerely for engaging with parties here on the Talk page. The fact that so many, many questions and comments in this case appear to have been ignored or unread by ArbCom has, I fear, not reflected well on this appeal process.

You indicated in your post to Atsme[51] that you believed there would not be an advantage to anyone by redoing this case. I respectfully suggest you are wrong. The entire Wikipedia project will benefit by redoing the case because, as it currently stands, I'm afraid it will become an oft-cited example of how this appeal process can be so very dysfunctional and damaging to content editors. I will indicate where I believe this general process has gone wrong, using examples from my own experience here (simply because I know these best).

• Very early in the case, several others and myself[52] requested JzG/Guy to be included as a party, or a clarification of why he would not be. I have still not read an explanation of why he is not included.
• There is a clear and obvious imbalance in that the proposed remedies, or lack of proposed remedies, are inconsistent between parties. Some parties whose behaviour has been problematic in numerically more areas and arguably more damaging areas (e.g. I believe severe and repeated incivility is far more damaging to the project than edit-warring), were not even listed in the PD. I posted a table illustrating this,[53] but it appears to have been either ignored or unread. I have posted it here again so readers do not have to go chasing threads.

	Potentially Actionable Behaviour						Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
	Incivility	Edit warring	Tag team editing	Misuse of DR	Forum shopping	Battleground behaviour
Jytdog	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Topic ban
DrChrissy (me)	-	Y	-	-	-	-	Topic ban
Kingofaces43	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed
Alexbrn	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	None proposed
Yobol	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed

In the table, Y indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.

There is a total opaqueness regarding why some editors are not listed for voting on a proposed remedy. If this was to be a fair and equitable process, all parties would be listed. Even if this meant that "no remedy proposed" was listed against a name and arbitrators voted on that, it would mean the process is transparent.

• I noted here[54] that the FoF's for the PD had been drafted in such a way that they were extremely prejudicial against me. There are 2 separate sections for me but not for other parties. One section is totally devoted to my previous topic ban, but the previous bans/sanctions of other parties were not mentioned. This problem could easily have been adressed after I brought it to ArbCom's attention, but it was not. It seems to me to be grossly unfair to single-out any editor, from any "side", in such a way.
• I posted here[55] a summary of my view on how I believe the overall picture of this case will be remembered if it is not restarted. Essentially, we have 2 highly productive content editors (SageRad and myself), relatively new to this topic area, being held accountable for the sins of many other editors over several years. This is grossly unfair and inequitable. Perhaps most worrying is that the major "players" will remain unchecked in their disruptive editing of the project. Restarting this case will address all those concerns and moreover, will show that this appeal process is sensitive to the thoughts and concerns of the community it serves.

During this case, several other editors have brought up more "mega" issues such as COI and outing. I will not address these here because this posting will then become a wall-of-words and I appreciate you and other readers are busy people. ArbCom is, to my mind, about finding remedies for undesirable behaviour on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I must respectfully suggest that ArbCom needs to find a remedy for its own undesirable behaviour in this case. I believe that remedy is to re-start the case with more transparency and neutrality. Whilst this would be potentially embarrassing for ArbCom, I believe it is necessary for the integrity of Wikipedia to be upheld, and for that integrity to be observable from both an internal and external perspective. I thank you for reading this and considering my thoughts.

Time wasted? @DeltaQuad: In your vote on the FoFs about Jytdog and myself, you stated that the second diff provided as evidence seems to be a wall of text wasting time. Please could you clarify whose time I was allegedly wasting. This was a discussion which involved only Jytdog and myself on a user's Talk Page space which she volunteered specifically for the 2-way interaction. No other editor or admin was asked to become involved. I fail to see who has had their time wasted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

you comment above "total opaqueness regarding why some editors are not listed for voting on a proposed remedy". But evaluating the relative seriousness of behavior is to a considerable extent a subjective process. I know no way to discuss them in detail in public without people feeling insulted, and we've had quite enough of that. But, as is obvious, each of us has done this differently. That's why we have a committee, and why we vote. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Looie496's section

"Editors have voiced concerns" is not a proper finding. A proper finding must assert that the concerns are valid. Looie496 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? That editors have voiced concerns is perfectly factual, whether the concerns are valid or invalid. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of findings is to justify the list of remedies. Concerns can't justify remedies unless they are valid. Every POV warrior voices concerns. Looie496 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw's section

1. I think much of the proposed decision is workable, but I would urge the committee to post the appropriate templates alerting people to the DS provision on at least the 10 or so most-edited pages. My own view is that the topic bans and interaction bans are workable and provide WP:ROPE to those who push the limits of civility. I am concerned that the specific "DrChrissy: Existing restrictions" section is vague and could lead to net more drama, I think the general topic bans this user is already under are a bit too broad, and JMO, I would prefer to see some of the existing restrictions relaxed a bit, but at the very least, if they remain in place, a statement such as "Editors have voiced concerns that some of their edits within the locus of this case may violate their restriction" is kind of worthless. I'd suggest saying that the "locus of this case" is defined in the following section and then clarifying what - other than this case - is in and what is out to avoid people constantly going after this user with a "gotcha!" attitude. I have seen other scapegoated users with ArbCom restrictions make good faith efforts to edit within the scope of their sanctions but get dragged to the dramaboards over and over again by editors who think they have crossed the line. DrChrissy is a useful and productive editor, invaluable on articles such as Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals, and I'd hope this user is given a bright line so ALL of us know where DrChrissy can and cannot edit - I, for one, would hate to accidentally ask this user for assistance on an article, have DrChrissy answer, and then have the reply to my own good faith question somehow run afoul of a restriction! (This has happened to Eric Corbett, so I'm not making up a far-flung theory here...) Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. I also agree that the restrictions on Jytdog (and anyone else, similarly situated) should read "organisms", not just "plants." Bacteria and such are not plants, but can be genetically modified. Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The plants was in relation to chrissy. I copy pasted it, although I meant to have organisms for the rest. I'm headed off but will review any further comments in the morning. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Cla68 comments

Looks like a fair decision to me in the proposed remedies. I would ask the committee, however, if there are any underlying problems or factors with this case that should be addressed if you think they might arise again and continue to cause problems in this and other topic areas, namely: Do established editors get more leeway to violate WP:CIVIL than newbie editors? Is it ok to continually accuse other editors of being "SPAs"? Are editors who claim to support "science" allowed to break WP's rules more than others? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One other thing, if you have a proposed principle that mentions not using WP as a battleground, I suggest having some findings of fact that state which editors you feel violated that principle. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax's comments below are on-target. The dichotomy in this case of him being listed as a party and then no evidence presented against him, but you all refusing to list JzG as a party and then using that as a rationale not to vote for any sanction against him, even though plenty of evidence was presented about his behavior, could be interpreted as somewhat bizarre. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of valid, quodlibetal questions have been posted on this talk page by observers of this case, so I hope they're being discussed by the arbitrators. And yes, I posted this comment just so I could use the word "quodlibetal." Cla68 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The way this case is currently unfolding is very supportive of the "hasten the day" vision that some of us have for Wikipedia. Great stuff. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Atsme comments

Tuck this section away as stale
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Petrarchan47 When Petra attempted to discuss some of the NPOV issues on their own TP, on the TP of a BLP and during a 3-O discussion on Tryptofish's TP, the result is the proposed TB in this case with no apparent consideration for the fact that Jytdog was both the lead COIN investigator and steward of the GMO articles at the time. He had also banned several editors from his TP. I also fail to see how casting aspersions is supported in the FoF against Petra based on the diffs provided. I am also thoroughly confused over the proposal to simply admonish Jytdog for his obnoxious treatment of other editors, his extreme profanity and overall disruptive behavior (reverts, SQS, etc.) Yet, a full blown TB is being proposed against Petra for a few legitimate, civil TP discussions attempting to resolve an ongoing issue of noncompliance with NPOV, one of WP's 3 core content policies. Those concerns have still not been addressed in this case, and many of us were hoping they would be. Please forgive my ignorance, but from where I sit, the diffs simply do not support the allegation that Petra cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith. The message you're sending to other editors is that it's okay to shout profanities at another editor and create disruption - you'll just be admonished for it - but don't dare try to discuss a potential COI that may be involved or you'll get a TB. The first diff is a discussion on Petra's own TP regarding an article being noncompliant with NPOV. The exact statements are: "not going out on a limb here to say that any article"; "If you find ONE article that Monsanto; "so the system, as you say, has been gamed." The latter was simply repeating what another editor had stated. The second diff is a discussion on the TP of a BLP regarding (again) noncompliance with NPOV. The section title is Rename article for neutrality? The statement Petra made was this article should be retitled. How is that an aspersion? The third and final diff is on the TP of Tryptofish discussing the ongoing issues editors have had with Jytdog. The crux of the statements made by Petra is (yet again) about noncompliance with NPOV, and a RfC that actually supported the position of those who opposed the noncompliance. How is that casting aspersions? If editors are going to be TB for discussing problems with an article's NPOV on their own TP, or on the TP of a BLP, or during a dispute discussion on the TP of another editor, then ArbCom will be TBing the majority of WP editors while contradicting their own beliefs that such discussions should take place at those venues. Again, keep in mind that Jytdog was the lead COIN investigator and also the steward over the GMO articles. I respectfully request that the committee more closely review the diffs provided before imposing a TB on a GF editor whose only concern has been compliance with WP policy. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 15:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC) DrChrissy It appears to me that imposing the far-reaching sanctions that have been proposed on an academic (DrChrissy) who is knowledgeable about animals, their diets and behavior may not be in the best interests of WP in the long term. I hope that ArbCom can find a malleable solution that isn't restrictive in "the broadest sense" as what has been proposed. Perhaps some consideration can be given to excluding sanctions that involve animals directly, much the same way medical doctors are given leeway and an advantage over medical articles. It appears far too much leniency is being given to biotechnology at the expense of experts in the areas that are affected by such technology. Biotech ag, chemicals, etc. are so intertwined in our everyday lives that determining whether or not a GMO, fringe, or whatever TB applies to an article about a horse's diet (example: eating hay from a field that was treated with Round-up) would be nearly impossible, and will create more problems than it could possibly resolve. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Atsme📞📧 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Excellent chart, DrChrissy - a real eye-opener. 👀 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC) ArbCom Curious - Guerillero and NativeForeigner, is this TP for editors to discuss things among themselves or do ArbCom members automatically read and utilize the information posted here? Is it necessary to ping Arb members to bring them here as with some of the other TPs in the Case? There have been several valid comments made here, such as what Jusdafax has demonstrated, along with a few other comments that preceded and have followed his, yet we're not seeing any changes or comments from ArbCom that addresses any of these very serious concerns. In some instances, it appears that some of us have wasted our time providing important supporting diffs that are unmistakable when all we had to do was include any old diffs and insist they support our argument whether that's true or not. It's embarrassing if not a total travesty. I've cringed at some of the off-WP reports regarding this matter, specifically how this case is being handled and how it will be remembered for years to come. I'm usually quite tolerant and patient, but some of the comments on the PD (or lack thereof) have become quite disconcerting. Atsme📞📧 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) One last comment - the section Behaviour on this page located at the top of this page is what I've always perceived to be our conduct policy across WP but based on current events and what I've seen happening here, it appears that it not only doesn't apply across the board on WP, it doesn't even apply here. Atsme📞📧 13:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Roger_Davies, NativeForeigner, Guerillero - I noticed new evidence was added to this case, and didn't realize that was allowed. If so, then the PD may need to be reworked in its entirety, perhaps just start over with new diffs and a whole new approach. Why isn't the evidence we already provided being used now since they clearly support our allegations, opinions and proposals as demonstrated during WS discussions? Arbs don't have to dig deep for them as what just happened to Petrarchan47. I am even more confused over NF adding diffs that demonstrate opinions Petra expressed during consensus gathering at the WS. They are not diffs pointing to problematic behavioral issues by Petra but to opinions regarding the problematic patterned behavior of Jytdog, so why weren't any of the diffs used from Evidence that support Petra's opinions? Why have the aspersions that were cast against us without one supporting diff not mentioned in the PD? For example, Kingofaces cast aspersions against me in WS and I called him on it. Roger is aware of what took place, and stated that diffs had to be provided, but they never were, so what exactly is going on here?

• Oct 16, 2015 Provided Roger Davies with the diffs per his request regarding aspersions against me by Kingofaces which should be added to the other diffs that demonstrate his behavior as indicated by other editors regarding the GMO articles. ^{added 06:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}
• Oct 20, 2015 Asked ArbCom to review Kingofaces aspersions again and the diffs provided in Evidence. ^{added 09:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}

When a member of ArbCom adds new evidence to FoF (after evidence is closed) to justify unsupported allegations (that were nothing short of casting aspersions) and basically ignores the in-your-face evidence, bad behavior, and unsupported allegations by our accusers, it creates a chilling effect. Another editor mentioned "double standard", and while I doubted it before, I don't feel the same after what just happened. I'm sure NF's additions were well-intentioned, but it just doesn't measure up to what one would expect from WP's highest court.

1. In the first newly added diff by NF which was from the WS wherein Petrarchan47 expressed an opinion stating (my bold), "this is an entirely separate issue of special interests promoted on WP, IMO." Is it ArbCom's position that opinions expressed during the WS are actionable even though the editor provided diffs during Evidence and WS that support their position?
2. Has ArbCom taken the position that there is absolutely no editing occurring at the GMO articles that indicate even a remote possibility there may be special interest activity or that resembles an attitude of "Monsanto can do no wrong and the science is settled"? I just want to be absolutely clear on the issues, if that's ok.
3. In the second newly added diff by NF which, again, was from the WS wherein Petrarchan47 stated her observations, ("From what I have observed"), I'd like to know if it is ArbCom's position that a TB should be imposed on an editor who states their personal observations during consensus gathering at the WS regarding behavioral issues that are subject of this case? Jiminy Cricket, is that not what the WS is about? Does ArbCom have information the rest of us don't know about that provides assurances regarding one side being absolutely wrong and the other side being absolutely right, especially considering new diffs are being added after the fact, and as far as I can tell, they still don't support the allegations? Atsme^📞📧 05:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional diffs demonstrating Kingofaces behavioral issues as requested by NativeForeigner

• - Kingofaces first ever edit on Syngenta he reverted Binksternet, an accomplished editor; Please review that short section on the TP as it further demonstrates bullying and the patterned behavior of the same two editors working together;
• - poisoning the well after I requested an extension on Evidence TP;
• - casting aspersions and further poisoning the well at this ArbCom case - "but we really shouldn't be spending time on larger issues we've had with Atsme" - denigrating me, making innuendos of "larger issues", none of his claims are supported by diffs. As I clearly demonstrated during the Evidence portion, the block I endured occurred as a result of a similar tactic, WP:POV_railroad, with lots of aspersions and no diffs to support any of it;
• - scroll down to the last section in this post and you will see Kingofaces comment: "Support - Atsme has other behavior issues that should be brought up elsewhere, but there are plenty of other editors that can do that." (etc.) Again, another aspersion and attempt to make me appear to be a combative editor with behavior issues.

The following diffs demonstrate same behaviors at G. Edward Griffin BLP and the group support. While I was not aware of the GMO controversy or Griffin's possible connection at the time, I later discovered he authored a book and gave lectures that cast a negative light on Monsanto and GMOs. What took place at Griffin with Jytdog, JPS, Kingofaces, etc. in their PAs and bullying was because I was trying to get the BLP compliant with NPOV (the RfC supported my position). The behavior I endured there demonstrates the same behavioral pattern being discussed now in this ArbCom case. PS: the attempt to get the Griffin BLP deleted was the 4th RfD for G. Edward Griffin (instigated by JPS), all of which have failed. The most recent attempt was initiated by JPS with support from Jytdog, Kingofaces and other familiar names in the GMO support group:

• Refers to RS as they relate to the information they reference as a "joke" and further states, "funny you are padding your list with such sources even." Again, another attempt to denigrate and discredit. When that tactic is used repeatedly without merit it takes a negative toll on the targeted editor's credibility. I've seen the same thing happen to other GF editors, such as Petrarchan47. Where Kingofaces, Jytdog, Alexbrn, and JPS are concerned, I have experienced an onslaught of meritless discrediting - but even though it was done in a civil manner, it doesn't lessen the effect.
• - he responds to Callanecc with diffs that do not support his allegations - repeating the pattern of responding to aspersions with more aspersions;
• - I explain the problem to him, hoping he will see the light and AGF;
• - I practically begged Callan to do something about the relentless attacks, not too unlike what's happening here now;
• - (→‎Griffin warning: Collapse a bit from Kingoffaces43 which didn't have evidence) Callan responded by hatting his aspersions so it isn't the first time he's been called on it. There comes a time when the targeted editor just gives up and ignores it, which I have done for months, but I'm only human and here we are today with more of the same aspersions cast my way. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of such bad behavioral patterns are attempting to make others believe they are the victims.

Kingofaces' edit interactions further demonstrate patterns:

• User contribs; See sections “Month counts”, “Top edited pages” then look at the edit counts on AN/I, RS/N, AN/Edit warring, Finge/N, COI/N, and AN. The stats show where he spends the bulk of his time on WP; i.e., Talk pages and drama boards. It's just an observation but with curious results nonetheless.
• Demonstrates interactions regarding GMO related sites further confirming the intense areas of interest for Jytdog and Kingofaces. Atsme^📞📧 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment in response to Kingofaces further aspersions - he just won't stop, which is why ArbCom needs to act. It's a serious behavioral issue. I stopped editing Griffin back in February or March, but Kingofaces' aspersions continue to follow me. Callan's hatting of them wasn't enough. Perhaps an iBan should be imposed to prevent him from causing further harm to my credibility. He simply could not make it any more obvious than what he already has throughout this case. Please, Arbs, please make him stop. Look at my edit history and where my focus has been as an editor on WP. It does not align with the allegations made against me by Kingofaces and it certainly didn't justify the WP:POV_railroading I already endured. You are witnessing him in action and you already know how repeated derogatory comments can destroy a person's reputation. His tactics have not changed - aspersions with no supporting diffs. Also keep in mind that the anonymity I once enjoyed has since been removed because of the COIN fiasco. I'm editing now as the RL me, not some IP or fictitious user name that protects one's RL identity; therefore, the aspersions are harmful to me personally. Please, just look at the pattern of harassment by the same small group of editors who appear to have made a game out of harassing me to see who can take me down - the patterned behavior and the diffs I've provided in evidence support my claims. Follow the trail - from the WP:AVDUCK essay to the WP:COIN fiasco which led to unwarranted attacks on the GAs/FA I edited and co-authored right up to the AN/I case I filed because of the harassment and misbehavior which led to an unwarranted boomerang that was based in aspersions with no diffs to support the claims. Please, please give this situation your careful consideration. Atsme^📞📧 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NativeForeigner, Guerillero - if a FoF doesn't pass, is it still possible that a Proposed Remedy based on that FoF will pass? Atsme^📞📧 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbs, please respond @DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Euryalus:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Roger Davies:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, @Thryduulf:, AGK (talk · contribs), @DeltaQuad: We added the evidence requested by Native Foreigner regarding Kingofaces43 and we need the arbs to please review it. See Minor4th's section as well as this and others where the evidence has been presented. You asked us to go the extra mile, we did, now please closely review that evidence, and before you close this case, we expect a proposed resolution. Please respond. Atsme^📞📧 15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the vast majority of it. Current efforts are somewhat centered around the AE2 case. Remedies almost never pass without a corresponding FoF (I can't name an instance where it has). If that's the case there needs to be thorough examination as to how that occurred. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Remedies need a Finding of Fact concerning a party to the case. I don't know why there isn't one. 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

There are ample FoF at the WS, so I don't understand why it was overlooked. See Minor4th's section, and also Albino Ferret's section at WS. I have no problem waiting a bit longer, and will do whatever the committee needs me to do. I just want to rest assured that all this work is not for naught, and that it's being properly taken care of. Thank you all for your time and effort - and those of you who celebrate turkey day, have a happy one! Atsme^📞📧 18:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Atsme I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you requesting a FoF and a Remedy with respect to Kingfaces? or that we support the remedy on Petrarchian? DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DGG - Yes, a FoF and Remedy for Kingofaces43 (apologies, I used 47 earlier but have since corrected it). The issues were addressed in WS wherein FoF were proposed and all was discussed again here with a request from NF to re-present the diffs, which we have done but nothing was done about it. Atsme^📞📧 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not complaining, just an observation regarding how some thought I was joking about early holiday shopping when this case was first filed. Atsme^📞📧 13:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Atsme and Minor4th: After reviewing your notes here on the talkpage, I'll head into discussions with other Arbs in regards to findings/remedies surrounding Kingofaces. If I don't find the discussion sufficient, then i'll see about working up an FoF and remedy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • DeltaQuad, thank you so very much for your time and consideration to this matter. Atsme^📞📧 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Amanda, perhaps WP:Casting_aspersions will prove helpful when drafting the FoF for Kingofaces43 since it includes a list of Proposed Principals and remedies regarding aspersions from prior ArbCom cases. In addition to editors' concerns over his edit warring, his seemingly endless aspersions cast against me both past and present are also a justifiable concern. Thank you again. Atsme^📞📧 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ^{And the AN/I case that Kingofaces keeps pointing to also begs your attention because if you will actually take the time to review that case and the allegations made against me, you will not find any diffs that support any of the aspersions regarding a very stale incident at the Griffin BLP by my accusers - see my evidence page for the chronology of how that all unfolded if you feel that AN/I is relevant and should justify the aspersions being cast against me here and determine that it is not a case of poisoning the well. If you find any supporting diffs in that AN/I to justify a reverse decision of the trouting by the closing admin, I will extend my sincerest apologies, accept whatever additional action you may impose against me and promise to never again mention that what happened to me in that case was the result of WP:POV_railroad.} 16:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Amanda, is there going to be further delay in drafting the FoF and proposed remedies for Kingofaces43 based on the diffs that clearly demonstrate edit warring and aspersions? I noticed that he recently raised concerns over other editors editing GMO articles subject of this case, which indicates to me a very real WP:OWN behavior and desire to rid the articles of opposition, which may or may not be worthy of arb attention. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Atsme: I apologize for the delay, I've had recent health concerns (as disclosed on my userpage) that have kept me more away from Wikipedia than I have wanted. Between that and the craziness of AE2, and voting in the election, I fell behind here. I have a day off Friday and will be reviewing DGG's proposal then, and if needed posting my own. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear about your health, Amanda. I thank you for the update. I got all my Christmas shopping done after the case first opened, 😆 so waiting isn't as big a problem for me as not knowing. Don't push yourself - your health comes first. Atsme^📞📧 09:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have reviewed what you have posted above, and my first and primary issue is that some of the evidence presented is out of scope. Also, sure Syngenta actions could be tag-teamed, but if I'm looking to sanction a group for tag team edit warring, I'd prefer it not include a retired editor and only one circumstance. @Kingofaces43: Should be presenting diffs when he makes his comments about user behavior (instead of after the fact), and I am recommending that to him now through this ping. Again though, they seem to be out of scope for this case as they reference other issues. My recommendation would be for you two to drop the stick, or go for an interaction ban at ANI (most likely 2 way) so that you guys can continue to collaborate without being an issue for each other. I will address the edit warring above to Minor4th. I will not be proposing any additional findings or remedies at this point in time. If you or @Kingofaces43: needs assistance in keeping things decent between you two, feel free to stop by my talkpage and I'll drop my two cents. Though, if I see enough of an issue, I can always request the IBAN myself also at ANI and let the community decide. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus, I just read your post [56] and agree with the no consensus regarding the one editor, but I was wondering if perhaps you were unaware of what Amanda has been working on? While some of us wanted this case to be over shortly after it began, there is still a bit of unfinished business. Are you of the opinion that ArbCom should just drop everything while there are other pending issues that remain unresolved, one of which Amanda said would be tended to today? Atsme^📞📧 13:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• @DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, AGK (talk · contribs) - Please see the above two posts. Atsme^📞📧 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a separate "watch list" (actually a recent changes list" for all of this so will see whatever Amanda does when she does it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Concerns @DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Euryalus:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Roger Davies:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, @Thryduulf:, AGK (talk · contribs), @DeltaQuad: - While I may inject a bit of humor from time to time, and have always tried to show kindness and patience in stressful situations, I hope my intentions haven't been misinterpreted as not caring about what happens in this case. After being made an involved party under protest along with Jusdafax, I did my best to be polite, factually accurate with supporting evidence, and accommodating to the committee. Unfortunately, the in-kind consideration from ArbCom has been lacking, with few exceptions. My reason for expressing my concerns now was triggered by a few comments made on this TP in response to legitimate concerns raised by involved parties, and also some of the comments made in the FoF and PRs. Quite frankly, I am aghast over this [57] and this [58]. The former illustrates an arb's attempt at psychoanalysis resulting in a personal diagnosis of a GF editor as having a personality disorder (deep hostility). I was under the impression that an editor's behavior and the resulting remedies (if determined to be disruptive) would be based on the FoF and supporting evidence, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening in some instances. Granted, we don't all see things from the same perspective, but it is inappropriate to accuse an editor of a personality disorder based solely on one's personal analysis of that editor's intent; i.e., reading something into a comment that isn't there. As a result of inappropriate accusations and the haphazard manner in which this entire case was drafted, Petrarchan47 has retired based on the reasons given in her section under Final Comment. Is this the kind of result ArbCom is seeking? If so, then it is working because Petra is the 2nd GF editor who has left WP because of this case; both were content producers, one of whom was a FA promoter. Sadly, other editors are also considering retirement. How can anyone possibly consider such a result as being helpful to the project, the latter of which should be ArbCom's first priority? While I commend Doug Weller and DGG for their efforts and thoughtful attempts to dig down to the root of the aspersion problem, there is still a long way to go. Granted, anonymity should be protected but there are far worse aspersions being cast than just COI issues and simply asking an editor if they have a COI when their behavior exemplifies it. The real aspersions - those which damage the reputation of a GF editor and actually contribute to the issues WP is having with editor retention - have been completely overlooked, such as with the repeated requests to add a FOF for Kingofaces43. Based on what I've gleaned, the FoF and PRs I've read demonstrate a rather serious dismissal of WP:Etiquette and WP:NPA, and because of the time it has taken to get this case drafted properly (which is still not done), there may even be a measure of neglect involved. With all due respect to this committee, I have reached a point that, after waiting patiently for something to be done about the FoF and PR for Kingofaces43, and after losing 2 good content creators who have since retired (possibly more will follow) because of the handling of this case, it may well be time for the community to conduct a serious analysis of how much good actually comes from arbitration vs the negative effects like (a) a considerable time sink that hurts productivity, (b) creates animosity by pitting editors against each other, and (c) potential for wrongful remedies resulting from misapprehension of evidence. I am also of the mind to support other involved editors who have expressed an interest in formally challenging this case on the basis of improper handling. Above all, I am disappointed in myself because up until this very moment, I was willing to accept everything as is - right or wrong - simply because I've grown weary of the hassle. Atsme📞📧 21:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC) I do not think there would be an advantage for anyone in redoing the case. It is not going to be worth it in any practical sense. Nobody is being banned from WP. Nobody is getting desysopped. Nobody is getting a broad topic ban, or a topic ban for anything wider than the actual immediate locus of dispute "genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals". Everyone one of the editors has interests wider than just this, which will not be affected. But if people want to be vindicated, this is not going to happen: I hope none of the parties mentioned in the decision think their behavior on this subject is being vindicated or applauded, even if not being made a specific FoF. It's usual during a case for people to feel that since their behavior is criticized, they are not comfortable remaining on WP. In my opinion, none of the parties here should feel this way, but if they do, how can we possibly help it? Anyone who feels that the esteem for them at WP has been lowered, can restore it by future npov editing on other topics, which is presumably what everyone here wants to do in any case. Of course, it is easier to give this sort of advice than to take it--how I would react were it I might be another matter, so neither do I blame anyone who does feel their work deprecated. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Deep hostility" is not a personality disorder. No one is trying to psychoanalyse anyone here. I can't see a problem with an observation that an editor's behavior is very hostile. Doug Weller (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Not to be contrare, Doug, and please don't be upset with me for my observations, but even though it may have been an unintentional diagnosis, use of the term deep hostility to describe one's edits takes it to a much different level. It is a diagnosis nonetheless which is clearly representative of a personality disorder and should be avoided in the future. ArbCom is issuing TBs based on general aspersions and should not be exempt from them. See the following links which meet MEDRS guidelines for usage here: [59] (see: Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL-90-R) [24] is a self-report tool, used to identify psychopathological distress, consisting of nine psychopathological dimensions: I. Somatization; II. Obsessive-Compulsiveness; III. Interpersonal Sensitivity; IV. Depression; V. Anxiety; VI. Hostility; VII. Phobic Anxiety; VIII. Paranoid Ideation; and IX. Psychoticism.), also [60] [61] [62] plus many more. I want the committee to recognize how hurtful such terminology can be so they will avoid it in the future. I'm not referring to the generalization of the word hostile so please try to understand, especially when it appears far more consideration was applied when describing Jytdog's behavior as noted by the following (my underline): Although noting he expressed regret soon after for the show of temper in the second diff.... Using show of temper vs deep hostility is very telling, especially in light of the evidence. Atsme📞📧 17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC) You are saying that anyone that shows a lot of hostility towards someone or something has a personality disorder. I have deep hostility towards racism, does that mean I have a personality disorder? Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Doug Weller, you know we're not allowed to offer medical advice or make referrals. ☺️ Besides, a self-admitted diagnosis is not a PA. Petrarchan47 has not admitted to having any deep hostilities in any shape, manner or form to anyone or anything involving this case. The diffs indicate her concerns over the neutrality of content as a result of spin-doctoring, nothing more. Atsme📞📧 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Ok, forget about me. Are you saying that anyone that shows a lot of hostility has a personality disorder? Because I don't think anyone, even George Kelly, has actually said that. But that's beside the point because the word has a meaning in everyday language - strong opposition or antagonism to something. It's also used in warfare - hostile action, cease hostilities, etc. Nothing to do with personality disorder, so can we please drop that argument? It wasn't being used as a diagnostic term. Doug Weller (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Ok, but I can't promise I'll forget about you. 😁 Atsme📞📧 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirected sidebar question to DrChrissy's section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:::I thought threaded discussions were not permitted on here - is this different for the arbitrators? I would very much like to disagree with DGG, but where is the appropriate place for me to do this?DrChrissy (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC) DrChrissy, it is acceptable for arbs to respond directly to a post when pinged which helps keep everything in one place. You would be best served to move your response to your section, then ping the arb(s) to get their attention. Atsme📞📧 23:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Many thanks - I did not appreciate there was a difference in the rules. Please feel free to hat my question, delete it, or treat it however you wish.DrChrissy (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)}}

Regarding advocacy

WP:AVDUCK actually addresses the issues being discussed now regarding POV pushing, advocacy, COI, etc. Any perspective from a true NPOV will see two sides to that coin, both requiring equal consideration irrespective of one's preference to heads or tails. Atsme^📞📧 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad comments

Some editors: Prokaryotes, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Minor4th, Tryptofish, Atsme, wuerzele, AlbinoFerret, Gandydancer, David Tornheim, Tsavage, Dialectric Some arbs: In actu,LFaraone,Thryduulf,NativeForeigner,Euryalus,Salvio giuliano,AGK,DeltaQuad, DGG, Doug Weller

So far, i have asked many times for a solid and real explanation of why this case has gone the way it has gone. Why it feels like a McCarthyism. Why it feels like an ideological split in which editors of one leaning are heavily railroaded, while those of another leaning (save for one, the token worst one) are untouched.

I started editing regularly 9 or 10 months ago. When i entered the topic of glyphosate, which was my interest, i found an atmosphere that was heavily charged with attacks and hostility. I was also new to Wikipedia, having edited mundane articles in the past, but never in such a contentious atmosphere. I was baptized by fire, you might say. I learned the guidelines by having every acronym hurled at me in clearly POV pushing attempts, so i then got the sense that Wikilawyering was the norm, and i got defensive. Who wouldn't? With negativity coming at me from the likes of Jytdog and Pete/Skyring and others whose apparent purpose wasn't to be collegiate, but to try to game the system to push content. So i learned that was the way it works -- it appeared to be a battleground -- because it was and still is -- but that was not me causing a battleground to appear. It was me, a newcomer, finding this to be what Wikipedia appeared to be. As time went on, i learned the guidelines solidly, and how to actually work for the true mission of Wikipedia: to reflect reality in a verifiable way though the use of good sources represented accurately. My modus operandi changed, and then my "pushing" was only pushing for integrity -- for genuine dialogue, honesty, and respect for all valid points of view, to make NPOV articles. There was a whole month of contention just to include one sentence in the Monsanto legal cases article on the recent group of lawsuits by major U.S. cities about PCBs contamination. That was a clear case of POV pushing in the opposite direction, and i persevered along with several others, through an RfC that was then closed in a non-neutral way by JzG/Guy, who then refused to recuse, and while Pete/Skyring put up images to mock me when i wrote on the talk page, etc.... hostility and gaming of the system, and i and several others continued to argue on the principles and guidelines that it deserved to be included, instead of assenting to the railroading tactics being used to block its inclusion. This was a rather clear case of POV pushing in the direction that would be to the benefit of the industry.

So, 6 months ago i shot a reply to Jytdog like "Stop hounding me, dude... ever heard of copyediting?" ... while i could have been more "polite" it was an accurate defense in that context. Is that the basis on which i'm probably being topic banned? Or that i revised the Norman Borlaug article to be more accurate, despite Kingofaces43's pushing to the contrary (contrary to the sources, by the way), and his bringing it to AN and misrepresenting it there, etc...

And we have some arbs actually calling me "pugnacious" and suggesting that i should be site banned and that i have "plainly inflamed the topic area" here ... Is this alright to be coming from arbs? Have i actually "inflamed the topic area" or was the topic area under heavy POV pushing and i pushed against that pushing, thereby becoming a lightning rod for attack? Shooting the messenger. I did not make this an inflamed topic area, and if having deep discussions on whether there is POV bias in the area is "inflaming" it then we need it to be inflamed, sort of like an infected area of the human body gets inflamed -- to bring immune defense to the problem.

I edit according to guidelines, and sourcing, to bring articles closer to NPOV. I learned a few months into my editing, about 3 or 4 months ago, that i did not want to push an agenda. I have a POV, a valuable one, but i don't want to push it into articles. I give attention to things like whether glyphosate harms the ecology, but that's ok. I don't push that into articles. As you can see in the recent discussion at the glyphosate article, i spent some effort to figure out, from sources, what sources were most reliable, and how to use them well.

I am writing this to call for a discussion -- a threaded discussion at my talk page, or some other more neutral location where we can use threading -- to actually try to understand why i'm being topic banned. As it stands, i feel like it's an agenda-based railroading of some editors, and it is definitely going to result in the topic area being biased. It feels like those who question the industry-friendly POV are being identified as a "problem" in a biased way, and railroaded out. If i cannot understand what i've done wrong, and why i'm being identified as an "enemy of Wikipedia" in this topic area, and in general (by the statements of some of the arbs) then i will never know how i can improve. I know i have improved and i know i do good work by the guidelines of Wikipedia. If i'm being banned on the basis of a few naughty words from 6 months ago, then what's this world coming to? What's this encylopedia coming to? This really does matter. It's a matter of human dignity, and justice, and human knowledge. It's not a game on a computer screen. When some people hold power over others, they ought to use it with integrity. The Sword of Damocles is real.

I'm calling for a threaded discussion to occur on a neutral page, and for arbitrators to write something like a decision, along the lines of what courts do upon making judgments, to explain and justify why it's reasonable to ban me from the topic area, and not others who have other sorts of POVs of the sort that make them want very badly to exclude cases against Monsanto regarding PCBs from the article on cases involving Monsanto, for instance. Or who want to exclude the fact that glyphosate seems to reduce the viability of earthworms from the article on glyphosate, for instance.

So... i can't let this decision go down without voicing a deep lack of confidence in its soundness, and a call for explanation and discussion about it. It's too important to let it drop. It's not just "oh well, it's only Wikipedia" -- it's about human dignity and what sort of power dynamic we allow to determine what represents human knowledge. As it stands, this decision looks to me like a biased dynamic rules the day. I know arbs are busy, and it takes time to go deep, but it must be done. I've got work to do, as well, and i've sunk a lot of time into this as well. I never asked for anyone to stand in judgment of me, but if it's going to be that way, then it had better be with unbiased integrity or i'll call it what it is.

SageRad SageRad (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Replies in current dialogue

Seraphimblade, that's really heavy and inaccurate language against me. I resent that inaccurate accusation: behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban. Just ridiculous accusation and recommending a site-ban because i've been standing up to bullying and talking about it. Another in the long saga of this ridiculous trial. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The above is literally one of the arbitrators making an untrue blanket statement and accusation against me. Let's call this whole damn sham of a trial off. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, your ill advised and incorrect comments in this case have already been used against me by other editors in discussions. You haven't answered me yet about this language that you used. You said that my behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban. Do you really hold this to be true? Do you really think that i use constant accusations of bullying against anyone who might disagree? What remedy do you propose when another editor uses your words as was done in the above diff to attempt to discredit my contributions in dialogue? What remedy is right here? No remedy, i'm asking the very arbitrator who cast the aspersion in the first place. I hope you see the damage your incorrect comments have done to my ability to edit even in other topic areas outside of the scope of this case. SageRad (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This being an unthreaded page, dialogue looks like this (hard to follow but important):

DGG, i find the idea of preventative topic bans puzzling. I'm not sure i understand the concept. It's not punitive or based on wrongdoing, but you think i'm going to do something bad in the future? I'm trying to understand this and failing. Do you think i'm going to be a problem in the topic area in the future? I don't think the community is asking for the arbitrators to judge the content of the topic area, but only the behaviors of editors. Do they follow sourcing? Are they civil? Are they able to work out solutions with editors with differing points of view? This sort of thing ought to be enough to determine who is a persistent and unteachable problem in an area. I believe i am teachable, but all i am asking is to be able to understand what i did, or am supposedly going to do, that makes me a problem in the topic area. I'm very receptive to understanding this, but i don't understand it yet. That's why i've been asking for explanations from arbitrators as to why they think i'm a problem more than most others. SageRad (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point that additional people should be topic banned also. But the best argument against topic bans for all parties who may be somewhat overinvolved is that new ones will just come to repeat the same behavior. As for judging on the basis of the subject, not the behavior, I do not think the committee topic banned predominantly on one side of the argument. If we did that, there would be justifiable complaints that we might be letting our opinion of the merits of the underlying subject discussion influence our decision. (I observe that most Arb com cases involve a subject disagreement at the base of it, thought some seem to be predominantly personal animosities.) DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other here. I didn't suggest that additional people should be topic banned also, but rather i said i don't understand topic banning people for things they did not do. My comment on judging on the content was solely in response to your mention of it in your comment. I'm asking for the arbs to judge based on behavior solely, and then asking what are my predicted future behaviors that merit a preventative topic ban? This all feels so strange. SageRad (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you suggest changing "and articulated a clear POV" to "and edited with a clear POV" in the FoF. I'd agree with that, but i still don't think this is grounds for a topic ban. I would say "pushing a POV" would be grounds for a topic ban, if the person refused to knock it off. I think i've knocked it off. I'm editing for the best representation of reality in the articles, not to fulfill some POV propaganda need. I'm seriously here with a desire to make sure the articles follow reliable sources, follow WP:DUE, and represent subjects well and with dignity. If a chemical appears safe, so be it. If a chemical appears risky, so be it. If a river was polluted, so be it. If a Tory's cave is not notable, so be it. A food activist doesn't deserve to get smeared any more than a plant scientist who worked with Monsanto. We need balance and we need respect. I do edit with a point of view, as does every single person who is an editor here. Some do so consciously and respect others. Some try to push their point of view. Some try to deny that they have a point of view at all. Some try to say that their point of view is the only one. It all comes down to sources and civility and good dialogue, in the end. I'v edited with a clear point of view, but so has nearly everyone else who has edited in the topic area. It's alright for there to be a tension between editors with different points of view, like advocates in a courtroom. If we follow the policies and guidelines, i think it works out very well. SageRad (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thanks for your response. I want to ask you outright, do you think its even possible to edit without a POV? Secondly, i want to ask you outright, do you think that editors who have a pattern pushing the other direction are not a problem at all? Do you see all "pushing" as coming from editors like myself. Do you see pushing coming from the "other side" as well? Or do you think there is "POV pushing" on the one side, and "science" on the other? I'm really trying to understand, because i honestly don't understand how you see the landscape of the topic area. I'd like to name editors and ask your opinion about whether they're pushing a POV, but that wouldn't be very polite. So in general, i am sure you can think of a few editors who have been pushing pretty hard and sometimes without much regard for consensus or rules of sourcing, in the other direction. Or can't you? Do you think all pushing has been in the direction that i've been grouped with? Thanks. I really do hope to understand. I'm really not beating a dead horse. I'm just kind of feeling like i see the landscape of editors here very differently than you do. SageRad (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Kingofaces43 is correct that there is some rampant POV pushing at glyphosate right now. The problem is that the topic bans that are decided will [63] not solve all the issues. It seems there is some serious POV pushing being done by editors who are not up for sanctions. Thankfully, other editors, including some who are up for bans, have done some looking out for the integrity of the article. Ironic, isn't it? SageRad (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Getting in fights to push a POV" ... a fight takes fighters on both sides. I didn't bring fights. I've learned how to defuse and bypass fights more and more. The shallowness of this decision is remarkable. Where is the use of judgment, getting into the details, using discernment? It's so easy to judge by a couple diffs and tone of voice, buy I'd really like to see a deep reasoning involved in the judgments made about me and others here. I'd like to read a decision like the Supreme Court publishes. However, that's not what we get. We need arbitrators who can understand human behavior and see goading where it's apparent, abs ingenuine dialogue where it's apparent. We need arbitrators who can go more than surface level in looking at conflicts. SageRad (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, i really do care what you think, and really trying to understand it. Thank you for your reply to my questions. I have a few more.

Is it possible to edit without a POV? Yes. Of course, all editors have a point of view, but what matters is whether one edits disproportionately according to that POV. I've argued, for example, in favor of edits that might be regarded as "anti-GMO" on some biography pages, on the basis of BLP. An NPOV editor is willing to edit against their POV when that's right for the content. I see you as tilting very one-sidedly, but I also think it's something you can turn around.

I agree mostly, and i have also on a good number of occasions edited against what would be seen as "my side" and stood up for sourcing instead of pushing, even when the pushing might have been good for "anti-GMO propaganda". Ironically, i'm not even really anti-GMO. I have no strong opinion on the technology. I see dangers in some traits and some chemicals, and i don't trust the industry fully. So, please know that i've pushed against things that would have been called "anti-GMO" many times here in the last 6 months or so. I'd prefer integrity to the sources over propaganda in articles. That said, everyone edits according to their passions and what they think is needed in articles. So when i see an article that appears heavily biased toward what is seen as "industry POV" or by some "science" (though i will contest that label as biased in itself), i felt compelled to edit article to lessen that POV, toward NPOV. Vani Hari was a case in point. I came to that article and saw an attack piece against her, written as if by the authors of "Fear Babe" themselves. That was unacceptable bias, especially in BLP but for any article it's a bad bias. I think i've turned around, a few months ago, from wanting to push a side, toward wanting NPOV integrity in articles. I really mean that. Reality is the only arbiter. Solid sources reflect reality.

What about editors pushing in the other direction? Every POV dispute has two sides. So if one group of editors are editing for NPOV, the other editors will see them as editing in a POV way. Here, it's as much about WP:RS as about NPOV, and there is a complete asymmetry between parties. The anti-GMO editors take a POV that contradicts reliable sources, whereas the editors whom you might see as pro-GMO are really just editing for NPOV according to what the sources say.

Yes, i fully grasp the relativity of points of view. That's why i want to base any sanctions on behavior, and not on POV, as should be the case. Having a POV and editing with a tendency toward a "side" should not be sanctionable, but rather if someone's pushing contrary to good sourcing and contrary to WP:DUE then that behavior should be sanctionable. But of course the relativity of POV makes it hard for anyone to really be objective about that judgment.

Do I see it as POV-pushing versus science? I see it as POV-pushing versus the preponderance of reliable sources, and those sources happen to be scientific.

That may be true in many cases, but can you see that it may be flipped in other cases? Such as the recent question of glyphosate's effects on earthworms. Some seemed to be pushing, against available scientific sources, to represent glyphosate as having little or no effect on earthworms, or to omit the information if it had to say that there is some effect on earthworms. In this instance, which "side" was aligned with science? Science does not take sides. People do take sides when they interpret science, omitting some and magnifying other studies.

In the glyphosate article over the last few days, there was an editor pushing hard for a POV-based take on effects on earthworms. I took part to make sure the sources were followed correctly and a POV not pushed against the actual science. In this case, it did show that glyphosate has some effect on earthworms. The editor wanted to make it seem as if glyphosate has no effect on earthworms but that's not what the best unbiased look at secondary articles would say.

Do I see improper conduct from editors on the science side? Yes, and I have come to see it more as the case has played out. The issue you raise about consensus is a complicated one, because there has been such intransigence on the anti-GMO side that, when editors give up on convincing other editors, it may look like not accepting consensus (especially if one just counts the number of editors on each side), but there is a difference in who is and who isn't using sources according to policy and guidelines. Unless the decision changes sharply, I think that the current PD gets it approximately right (failing to appreciate the problems with Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes, but otherwise right). If anyone wants to probe my thinking about what I emphasized in my evidence or my workshop proposals more deeply, let's do it at my user talk.

Thank you for the acknowledgement above, although i think this decision didn't get it right by a long shot, but that there are complex issues involved.

I see sides get polarized. When it seems like a group of editors is hellbent on including or excluding content, and they don't respond to rational arguments, and they don't show good faith in dialogue (using strawmen and condescension and such things), then one is tempted to throw up one's hands. And then if Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms also seem to side with obstructionism, as it sometimes does, then one just feels like the "proper channels" don't work, and good faith dialogue doesn't work, and it can feel like articles are owned by oen "side" without any recourse.

Thanks for this dialogue. It helps me to know what others are thinking. I know you're probably a busy person. I am really trying hard to understand, and to see things from other points of view. I hope you are, too. Thanks, Tryptofish. SageRad (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@AGK:, how did i force anyone's hand? What is meant by this?

• That diff you provided is from June 9th, which is quite old in regard to this case, and it was a case where Jytdog appeared to be following me around to pick on my edits, and i was indeed copyediting noncontroversial (so i thought) material and therefore accusations by Jytdog about unsourced material were off base. There are reasons for such things, and in the light of how i had been consistently treated by Jytdog, my tone there (mainly calling him "dude") would be understandable to many people, though you highlight it there making it seem like i'm unreasonable and mean or something. I ask you and anyone else to read the context of that diff, and think about why i might have reacted to Jytdog in that way, in that moment. SageRad (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Did an arb on this case just say that they put a lot of the evidence from the case directly into their recycle bin? [64] It appears so. How can anyone feel confident in the outcome of this case? SageRad (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• SageRad, you take me out of context. Specifically I was speaking to evidence presented towards a single user, and when the evidence doesn't line up (as in your diffs don't support your words), am I just supposed to accept every piece of evidence at face value? Or do I dismiss what isn't legitimate? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tide has again turned so that i'm topic banned.... for having a point of view? Everyone has a point of view. Pushing a point of view is wrong. Having a point of view is called "being human".

And still, nobody who votes to topic ban me has dared to answer my questions.

Kingofaces43 has a point of view. Pete/Skyring has a point of view. Roxy the Dog has a point of view. Ronz has a point of view. Having a point of view is not wrong. Pushing a point of view against WP:UNDUE and against WP:RS is what's wrong. Show me doing that in any sort of flagrant way any more than any of these editors, and i'll accept a topic ban. Otherwise, it continues to look like opposition to an editor based on an ideological bias because my point of view is not that of the industry's preference.

SageRad (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like pages where the discussion cannot be threaded, but still feel i must register my deep concern, that this case does matter, and a topic ban does matter. It matter in a few ways:

1. Biased banning of people from the topic area will cause a bias in the topic area moving forward. 2. It affects the editors (like me) who feel their integrity demeaned and unappreciated. 3. It affects the sense of integrity in Wikipedia as a project on the whole. 4. It affects the sense of whether justice can be obtained by appealing to the highest court in the land (ArbCom).

All these, mixed together. I don't think i'm a "sore loser". I think i'm rather indignant because i know where i was coming from in my editing in this topic area, and i am proud of the editing i did once i learned the guidelines in spirit and practice. I've removed bias from articles, and i've helped to resolve conflicts, or at least delineate them accurately and see what was the real lay of the land, by making positions explicit. So, i have to vote no confidence. SageRad (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No answers yet from any Arbitrators on my questions below.

IS IT AGAINST GUIDELINES TO HAVE A POV? THIS CASE AND THE JUDGMENT TO BAN ME CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS. However, guidelines say the opposite.

What we have here is a new McCarthyism, and shooting the messenger. It's an ugly system and state of affairs and a lot of people ought to be very ashamed. SageRad (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey arbitrators who voted to topic ban me,

I'm really, really interested to hear your honest opinions as to why it was the right thing to do. Please take a minute to provide that for me. I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, how am I going to learn? Thanks.

I'll boil down a couple of main points that i would love to have you respond to:

1. One reason i'm being banned is that i "articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case". However, according to the guidelines, having a point of view is not wrong and is not disallowed and is even embraced in many senses, because it leads to a richer, more diverse encyclopedia. What is wrong is to push a point of view, which means to Wikilawyer and bully and that sort of thing to get your desired content in, or to not listen to others. So, having a point of view is one thing. I grew up near polluted rivers, from the old hat industry in my hometown. I saw nature destroyed by chemicals, mercury and PCBs and things... so i have a point of view like everyone does. I respect sourcing and dialogue and content guidelines.

2. Another reason i'm being banned is "added unsourced content". However, according to the guidelines, not all content must be sourced. Simple things that are commonly accepted, like in the article Dog it says "Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals." That is not sourced. The one instance for which i'm being cited for "adding unsourced content" it was rather innocuous content -- simply that pesticides are not sprayed solely from helicopters but also from floater sprayers, and also that glyphosate is "the most widely used systemic herbicide". That's pretty common knowledge to people who know about glyphosate, and upon challenge i would be happy to source it. Wikipedia works on a challenge system, i thought. Nearly everything i ever added, i have sources, but that one little factoid about glyphosate being "the most widely used systemic herbicide" i thought wouldn't be challenged, as it's not even POV related, it's just simple. Or maybe is it simple copyediting like this which is being called "unsourced"? Anyway, as i understand it, this is not a chargeable offense to the guidelines. If someone is adding controversial unsourced content all the time, then sure, big problem -- but my record on content is very little unsourced, and nothing that i thought was controversial.

3. Last thing i'm being banned for is to have "cast aspersions" but the diffs are reaction to really jerkish behaviors... and from long ago ... and everyone has their moments, especially when spoken to badly by others, and really, at this point Jytdog is not even banned but i am, and in terms of casting aspersions i thought he had no equal in this topic area. I was treated really badly by a lot of people in the topic area, time after time, and i am the one being banned for "casting aspersions"???? Really it's unbelievable to me. So what is the reason?

Please, please offer comments, to the arbs who think i should be topic banned.

It would help me really to understand.

-SageRad SageRad (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43

I posted this reluctantly, and in the text i provided my ambiguous feelings. I wrote this in all honesty, with integrity in respect to the incidents involved. In each case, Kingofaces43 was in the wrong or just being obstinate and not actually being WP:HERE, whether just auto-piloting on opposing anything i ever did, or what, i don't know. I'd just removed this, but upon KoA's denial of any fault in the interactions, i return it here for others to look at and to point out his current blatant misrepresentation of these incidents in his defense on this page itself. He had some good points, but is not "drama-raising" to insist on integrity of representation of sources, and to focus on the article for the sake of the readers. In both cases, KoA made that process unnecessarily difficult, a pattern i've seen often. Polarized editors need to actually read each others' comments and respond in good faith to them.

Two incidents:

• A basic obstinacy and failure to assume good faith, and to listen in dialogue, shown in this dialogue in the glyphosate article, after i removed a sentence from the article that just seemed out of place, for flow reasons. I was not pushing any point of view. The content was pretty neutral, it was just out of place and extraneous. You can see in this short dialogue a sort of obstinacy on Kingofaces43's part, refusing to respond to my questions, using condescending tones toward me, and not hearing the actual question i was asking: is this content good for the reader, in the article? Perhaps it can be boiled down to my quote in that dialogue, "Your seeming confusion on who said what, and yet continuing to simply disagree, makes me think you're just being oppositional. We are editors supposedly working together to make a strong article about a chemical, to be read by millions of people. We are talking of editorial matters. I don't get your dismissal of these matters." -- which may seem harsh in isolation but if you read that whole dialogue, it makes sense why i am so frustrated by that point, and shows the problems with KoA's behavior in that section.

• On the Norman Borlaug article, Kingofaces43 had this tussle with me, in which he told me to "please refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS, especially since your behavior is being discussed at ArbCom" when i did not cast any aspersions. He also removed an old "citation needed" tag which in that context seemed contentious, without noting it. I brought that up in the talk page too and simply noted that his appearing there, reverting that edit in that way, had an appearance of hounding. I said that to clear it up and it left him the chance to say it was not hounding. I think that's civil. When i asked "What aspersions do you refer to? Please be specific." he didn't respond. Then he posted the issue on the RS noticeboard in which he misrepresented the conflict there. I had to correct the misrepresentation. Through an IP user's participation, we seemed to figure it out. Kingofaces43 finally acceded that the edit made sense, but it just took so much angst to get there and there was unnecessary contention. But also very important, he misrepresented the Science source here saying that it documented that there was "widespread famine" on the subcontinent, when it didn't, it said "One need only recall the close brush with famine on the Indian-Pakistan subcontinent in 1966 and 1967, a famine that was averted" which seems hard to make a mistake about, if one takes care.

In his response here, KoA cited this diff to say that i "accuse[d] him of hounding" but in the diff, i said "It has the appearance of following or hounding me, as you and i have had contentious interactions in the recent few months, as well. That's another reason for being a but more cautious in your editing on this, after my bringing this point up." The "appearance" is different from accusing, and allows a chance to respond. He could have responded without getting up in arms and saying "stop casting aspersions".

He said my question on Norman Borlaug article referring to a non-existant widespread famine of the Indian Subcontinent in the 1960s was a "personal point of view objection (rather than finding other sources to dispute it or even reading the source in question at first)". Actually, i did some research and found no evidence of any such "widespread famine" but there was "food shortage" which is a very different thing, and so i did more looking into it, and flagged a pretty glaring inaccuracy in the article. For that, he accuses me of a "personal point of view objection" and says i didn't find sources? I was right in that whole conflict. The source did not back up the claim, and the source was also a biased piece of reporting, so it was two levels wrong how the article was before. I was working for the article to be right -- this is not pushing a point of view. So once again, he's misrepresenting easily verifiable things, which wastes everyone's time, and i think is an aspect of contentious and obstructive editing.

And he said that in in this conversation he characterized me as "removing sourced content based mostly on personal views (i.e., the source didn't include other species)" whereas i clearly say in the conversation, "Reasons i did this: this statement seemed out of place in terms of weight (level of detail too small for summary paragraph)" and that "the statement was sourced to hearsay reports from a dated agricultural extension page that is no longer on the Internet, and was using the "Wayback Machine" to source it". I noted that there are many other plants with resistance to clover as well, but this being a sub-lede, it was not appropriate level of detail. This is all so clear in the conversation, and KoA is misrepresenting both of these incidents right here and now, which shows again the way in which interactions with him can lead to edits taking up way too much time and effort, because of inaccurate representations on his part.

It's this sort of thing -- unnecessary contention, not responding to dialogue in a whole and honest way -- that are subtle and yet really get in the way of good editing. It's hard to really see, but it feels like obstruction of solid editing. I'm in it for the articles to be right and the article contained a falsehood that i was trying to correct -- the false story of a more widespread famine than actually existed (at Norman Borlaug) -- and therefore i was actually trying to remove a POV bending of facts that was already in the article. I got that level of contention and obstruction from Kingofaces43. It worked out in the end, but why should it take hours of back and forth to get the article right. It felt like Kingofaces43 just assumed that i was pushing a POV in both of these instances, whereas i was seriously trying to improve the articles. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that in the end, both articles were improved and that i was not pushing a POV but only fact checking and copyediting. KofA describes it as if I were pushing POV and he was saving the articles. SageRad (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

And there's always just plain old what looks like POV editing like here. That is some very useful knowledge being deleted. SageRad (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor note on mistake in evidence presented against me by Kingofaces43: I didn't notice until now, but in evidence presented against me by Kingofaces43 they cite a diff in which they say i used the aspersion "King of Scoundrels" but i did not. I said, "Censorship is the refuge of Kings and Scoundrels, and the two are the same," and i still stand by this statement. It was not name-calling. It was a statement of principle in which i meant that those who wish to dominate knowledge by censorship are scoundrels. This evidence was used by @Salvio giuliano: to characterize me as "pugnacious" meant to imply WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and so i think it's relevant to correct the record on this little error. Perhaps it tips a balance. In that case, it was a misrepresentation of myself to say that i had name-called and used the term "King of Scoundrels" when i did not. Thanks for taking this into consideration. SageRad (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, i see a reference in your section to Kings and Scoundrels... I came up with it myself, perhaps from some long-filed memory of some other reference but not consciously, and i meant it as i said it. I did not call Kingofaces43 a "King of Scoundrels" as his evidence states. But i'm happy to hear of an archetypal sort of memory based on this phrase. SageRad (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to SMcCandlish

@SMcCandlish: First off, i want to say that i appreciate your comments, and i see you've spent some time digging into the case, to an admirable and time-consuming level. Thanks for that. On the topic of the alleged outing of my real-world identity and use of that to poison the well against me, I sent evidence of JzG's alleged outing of me to the email address given by an arbitrator when requested long ago, and another piece of evidence since, and have heard nothing except confirmation of receipt on that. And JzG's actions toward me were often abusive and accusatory and head-butting, and many many other things were problematic there. Just so you know, i have sent evidence of JzG doing "opposition research" (here is a more focused diff) to the arbitrators and didn't get any action response or judgment yet. He did that and did make remarks on many occasions that seemed very solidly intended to shut me up, i.e. have a chilling effect, to stereotype me, and to "poison the well" quite strongly, in many, many instances. So there is serious violation of policy against outing, for doing opposition research and then using allusions to outside-Wikispace identity to do ad hominem argumentation in disputes about article content. Discussing content should be discussing content. Discussing principles should be discussing principles. Thank you for your comments. Just wanted to clarify this. Yes, i did originally post this comment without a diff but i added one when this was questioned. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Following Geogene's comment

I find Geogene's comment astounding, because it presupposes what the topic area should say. Geogene saying that "Arbcom's hands may be tied here" means that he wishes ArbCom could somehow retain Jytdog for holding of a Wikipedia "party line" in regard to biotechnology (a single line, not the complexity of the real world). He laments the loss of Jytdog, as if he were "holding the line" against the unwashed rabble who cannot read the Good Science seal of approval that guarantees that all biotechnologies are safe.

If Wikipedia decides who stays and who goes based on ideological agenda or affiliation in this way, it's shaping the outcome without reference to sources and actual cooperative tension among editors. The real knowledge is in the sources, in the nitty-gritty details, in the secondary papers, in some primary papers, in positions of various organizations, in the expert assessments of many, many people. There is not a single conclusion reached by "science" that says "Biotech is safe! You can go home, everyone, it's safe." There are some studies that show relative safety of transgenic plant X or herbicide Y, or the combination of the two. There are some studies that show that pesticide Z causes higher rates of cancer in rats. These are all relevant. Wikipedia does not exist to be a platform either for industry, or for activists. It exists to be a reliable summary of sourced knowledge.

Behavior of editors is what matters. Does an editor follow sources? Represents sources honestly? Does not push a POV unduly? Does an editor work cooperatively with other editors? Have good dialogue? All of these things matter. With good dialogue, and following reliable sources, the content works itself out. That is the way of Wikipedia. Editors follow sources to write articles, and talk about it cooperatively. ArbCom should not be in the business of seeking a specific point of view or outcome in articles, should it? SageRad (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I wrote a long comment but it got lost. You're probably lucky :) Anyway, i see Geogeone's response to my comment, and i appreciate it very much. I respect Geogene. However, in brief, i don't see the problem that Geogene is seeing in terms of demographics and dynamics. I am in science, worked in science, co-authored papers, designed experiments, went to conferences, read thousands of papers in the literature, etc. I have contributed to the topic area using sources, and hopefully providing balance. I've edited both "sides" as the controversy has fallen upon the razor's edge of industry vested interest versus industry-skeptical activism. There are many many questions. It's a simplification to say there is a "scientific consensus that GMOs are safe" as the questions are more specific, like "Is Bt toxin corn safe?" "Is glyphosate safe?" "Are 'superweeds' a big problem?" and so many questions within each of those. As a person who's worked in science and has edited in the area, i think it's more harmful to allow bad behavior in the area than to limit bad behavior. I do see the line of reasoning Geogene is positing, but i don't agree that it's applicable. I don't think that there are a minority of science-minded people who got henpecked and then lost their cool, and therefore are getting railroaded here. I see more of the opposite in fact, that those more critical of industry-desired outcomes have been the more henpecked ones. It's not only about the science, too. I recall the very weary and loooooong discussion about including a single sentence about three lawsuits by three major cities in the U.S. against Monsanto for damage from PCBs. This is not a question of the science, and this was the longest and most wearying discussion, quite remarkably long, in fact, over a single well-sourced line of content. SageRad (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by an individual arb. The "articulating a clear POV" part of that finding is absurd. I and Doug Weller have already urged my fellow arbs to remove it, but they have paid no attention. I can't understand how it was ever written. I certainly can't understand how it remained in the finding.

More generally, it has long been my view that in the case of a dispute of this nature, it is not productive for an individual to continue past a certain point. This has been discussed before of so-called "no-fault topic bans." There were in the past very strong opinions in the community against ever doing anything of the sort, on the basis it was punishing the innocent. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of arb com and arb com sanctions. The purpose of these, as for all similar sanctions by the community, is to prevent further disruption. There is no reason for us or the community to ever be handing out any sanctions whose purpose is punishment. Some sanctions, however, do inevitably imply behavior for which punishment might be thought appropriate, but this is an inevitable side effect of banning someone for such things as repeated copyvio or legal threat or personal abuse. But even here, that's not the purpose--the purpose is prevent further such actions. Even if we de-admin an administrator, it should be because we are concerned there may be similarly wrong actions in the future and need to prevent them. I see topic bans as entirely preventative. The problem is trying to use them in such a way as not to overbalance any one side of an issue. I think we have done that in this case, but I can understand why each side of the dispute sees it differently. I can also understand why if I were myself to receive such a sanction I would be very likely to regard it as punitive also. But trying to do anything else would involve us judging the underlying topic dispute. That's one thing all arbs and the entire community agree about, we all agree we should not be doing this. (my experience is that it takes considerable mental effort to avoid doing that or implying that in any actual case. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple comments

I have to go through all the diffs cited in this decision, but I started with Petrarchan, as (full disclosure) I have seen her around quite a bit on other articles outside of the GMO area. I have to say that absolutely none of them support the statement made in the proposed decision. These are not necessarily the most serene comments known to mankind, but in context are quite consonant with a heated discussion, typical of heated discussions everywhere, and certainly not sufficient for a topic ban in any rational sense. Arbitrators, don't rubber-stamp this please. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Having read through the diffs, I have to agree with Jusdafax (except re JzG, as I am not all that sure his conduct was quite so bad). It seems to me that Arbcom sort of went on autopilot, and issued a fill-in-the-blanks boilerplate "let's topic ban everyone and try to be evenhanded" decision, irrespective of the merits. The total absence of merit of a Petrarchan topic ban illuminates my point. There is "no there there" in her diffs. There just ain't. Let's not make a mockery of the situation, arbcom. Seriously. Make believe there is supposed to be due process, evidence and all that. Just pretend. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing about "casting general aspersions": in my experience, administrators, those delightful example-setters we all look up to as models of behavior, are masters at "casting aspersions," "general" or otherwise. (One recent example, from an admin-checkuser with 500 years on-Wiki and an in-your-face and admitted COI, cheerfully supplied upon request.) Let's be honest. Yeah, I know "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS," which is Wikipedia parlance for "Let's be arbitrary and inconsistent." Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that an arbitrator, reacting to comments concerning the paucity of evidence against Petrarchan, has added two more diffs, both not from the articles but from these proceedings. Parties and non-parties are asked for evidence and commentary against other editors, and that was provided. But seriously folks, you're going to use this diff to topic ban Petrarchan? Seriously? This diff is similar in wording and tone to much of the other evidence. If it's so terrible, strike it out. Don't take it and shove it up the rumps of parties who are simply trying to do what they're supposed to do.

Re JzG: I'm not enamored of his behavior. He was clearly involved. But if he was behaved so terribly, why wasn't he brought in as a party? You screwed up, arbccom. Just ain't fair to take any action against him. I'm against admin abuse more than most but you got to at least pretend to be fair sometimes. Addendun: I agree with Cla68's comment at 23:50, 12 November 2015, which I just noticed. "Bizarre" is correct. Yes, I know, this is not a bureaucracy, not a tribunal. But you call yourself an "arbitration" committee, which implies a quasi-judicial function. This tends to raise expectations, so perhaps a name change is in order if you're going to name people as parties despite the absence of evidence against them, and then propose sanctions against editors who are not parties. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan: yes you make a valid point. However, I think that the monumental incompetence shown by arbcom in these proceedings really needs to be highlighted. Also I would not trust Arbcom frankly to utilized WP:IAR correctly. Dragging in Jusdafax, forcing him to participate at Jytdog's behest, despite a paucity of involvement, indicates to me that arbcom needs to obey the rule on a uniform basis. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So now, well into the process, there are penalties proposed for two additional editors, Tryptofish and Wuerzele, the former for the terrible felony of not providing diffs in the workshop phase of this arbitration? Unreal. Bring this mess to a close, please. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the above (and apologies for the untoward length of this section) I'm deeply distressed by Wuerzele being yanked in to these proceedings for diffs that fail utterly to support any sanctions. And, obviously by the outing for which Jytdog was recently blocked. Clearly a site ban is in order. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax's section

The call for sanctions for JzG, including ArbCom removal of the the administrator title and buttons, is appropriate. I see an argument is being made that because he is not a named party in this case, that he is somehow immune to correctional action here. That argument is specious and should be rejected.

• After a questionable block of SageRad, JzG hounded him, a named party in this case, and used chilling tactics including repeated use of the phrase "I know who you are" on SageRad's Talk page and on a case Talk page itself. Moved by outrage at this ongoing breathtaking abuse by an involved admin, I objected on SageRad's page and vehemently on the case Talk page, and JzG was warned to knock it off and handed a stern warning and an interaction ban with SageRad. JzG's response was instructive: he wiped the warning off of his Talk page and ceased all editing, with no apology, no admission of wrongdoing and acknowledgement of his need to act with the proper neutral decorum that a Wikipedia Administrator must have. Not to take corrective action here and now against JzG would be a serious error, in my view.

• JzG is not a named party in this case in the first place because of several ArbCom members objections to doing so, with one, AGK, stating that Administrator JzG was doing the "wiki's work." That act led to a climate that allowed JzG to act with astonishing impunity. I have previously asked for an explanation, and I now demand one: something is clearly wrong here. ArbCom needs to act with scrupulous fairness, and how in good conscience can this sequence be called fair?

Site ban option needed for Jytdog. In vivid contrast to JzG/Guy, I was added as a party to this case despite virtually no involvement in editing any of the articles in mainspace. This was originally done by named party Jytdog as retaliation for my statement, which pointed out a number of glaring facts regarding Jytdog; his action to add me was an obvious tit-for-tat move that continued his overall pattern of abuse of process. Like JzG, Jytdog abruptly ceased editing while this case was in progress after things started looking bad for him, including several pointed warnings on Jytdog's Talk page regarding his grave dancing to named Party GregJackP, who stood up to Jytdog effectively. The sharp administrator warnings were then removed from Jytdog's Talk page by Jytdog. GregJackP's opening statement remains relevant and important as Jytdog is the primary actor in this case.

• No evidence was subsequently presented against me, presumably because it would have looked silly, and the obvious conclusion is that I was added as an attempt to shut me up with a chilling effect. I ask that a site ban of Jytdog be added as a solution in response to a years-long reign of terror that needs to be permanently ended. I also ask for a review of the process that added me to this case: it is arguably an abuse, given that Jytdog led Arbitrators to do so within minutes of my statement. It is extremely likely that the timing indicates bad faith editing and is symbolic of this entire case: speak out, and get slammed. This tactic violates the core principles of collegial editing that must remain Wikipedia's daily operational model. Otherwise we drive away the editors who ask tough questions and edit boldly.

I ask proposed sanctions, including a topic ban, for KingofAces. Not to do so, yet point to other editors as deserving of such, is a serious error, as I see it. KoA has been highly disruptive and he merits corrective action. NOTE: added Nov. 15, 2015: In this diff, Kingofaces supports another editors deletion of two entire sections of links to documentaries and books about or relating to Monsanto. When Wuerzele replaced the deleted sections and objected, Kingofaces characterizes his comments as "ranting" on the Monsanto article Talk page in an attempt to belittle and intimidate Wuerzele. I eventually had to issue Kingofaces a formal warning on the Talk page after he continued to talk down to Wuerzele and SageRad, who both stood up to Kingofaces' ownership tactics. So is it any wonder SageRad is subsequently targeted, repeat, targeted for harassment? Any wonder that Wuerzele is now added to the sanctions list on the Proposed Decisions page at the insistence of Kingofaces? These two editors, Wuerzele and Sage Rad, stood up to bullies trying to whitewash the Monsanto article. We see what has happened to Wuerzele and Sage Rad. This is, as clearly shown in the diffs, not acceptable behavior by Kingofaces and needs to be acknowledged by ArbCom as sanction-worthy. Nor is censorship acceptable. Our very concept of a free encyclopedia is at stake, in my opinion.

Proposed topic bans for SageRad, Petrarchan47, DrChrissy and Prokaryotes are deeply wrong. These people are legit editors who without exception have been bullied and harassed on their own Talk pages, article Talk, and elsewhere. I repeat: the proposed sanctions against these editors are flat-out wrong. Proposals to site ban SageRad are, per Tryptofish above, excessive, and, I feel, incredible. He has learned and matured from his early errors, and he is an important contributor to Wikipedia. The proposal to topic ban Petrarchan47 is shockingly thin. "Casting aspersions?" 3 diffs, including one from a conversation on my Talk page? You have got to be kidding.

No mention of Pete/Skyring despite obvious substantial and prolonged disruption at Monsanto legal cases. I am astonished by this.

Conclusion: I am in general profoundly disappointed with this Proposed Decision (PD). I call on Arbitrators to make corrections promptly. I believe this case is crucial to the future of Wikipedia, and I feel it will be referred to by future Wiki-historians. The choices made here will reverberate for years to come, and the responsibilities to act fairly are now up to the Arbitrators. I urge that the final decisions be made in a spirit of justice, and wisdom. Jusdafax 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @AGK: You specifically refused to include Administrator JzG in your vote to take this case, saying he was doing the "wiki's work." JzG subsequently had to to be warned and handed an interaction ban from his involved hounding of SageRad. Regardless of this, you then use the fact that he is not included as a Party to question his inclusion in the PD based on the fact that he is not a party. How is this in any way ethical? This is a major Point of Order regarding process, and you need to answer. Jusdafax 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think I really do. Please stop being obnoxious. AGK [•] 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@jtrevor just below who is not a Party to this case: My statement above includes a goodly number of diffs and links. You present none to support your broad contentions, and your statement in my view carries little persuasional heft. Those interacting with Jytdog for years have presented a strong case in favor of serious sanctions, and your just saying it isnt so leaves me cold. Come on, man. Jusdafax 02:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• @AGK: In order to stop doing something you need to be doing it in the first place. I see no evidence for your accusation above. Will you please consider removing it? Leaky Caldron 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jtrevor99's section

In direct response to Jusdafax's call for a site ban of Jytdog: The facts simply do not support such a call. A permanent site ban is a very extreme measure, to be used only in the worst of circumstances when no other recourse is available, to deal with users who have not, or cannot, contribute positively to WP. This does not describe Jytdog; the evidence abundantly proved, despite his attitude and sharp words, that he is quite capable of making positive edits and enforcing WP policies. This is true even in the areas that ArbCom is considering topic-banning him in. If a site ban is considered for Jytdog for behavior, it must by necessity be considered as well for his opponents such as DrChrissy which exhibited strikingly similar behavior. Failure to do so would indicate unacceptable bias on the part of ArbCom. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I will make one more comment, but otherwise will reserve judgment on the PD until it is more complete, as it clearly is a work in progress. If Jytdog and/or JzG are topic-banned from this area, then other editors will have to step up to fill the vacuum left behind. These two authors, in my opinion, have done the most to provide a counterpoint to the constant push towards a non-scientific (or dogmatic!) viewpoint in the articles in question. In other words, they have done the most to preserve WP's intended stance on controversial, scientifically pertinent articles. Their attitudes, particularly Jytdog's, are a direct result of the constant drain caused by this neverending fight. I hope the next author(s) do not respond similarly to the onslaught. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

At least one person has incorrectly interpreted this comment as a threat, and has told me as much. It is not. I thought that was clear to anyone reading the entire comment, but to ensure it is clear: I am stating someone will need to step in to ensure the GMO articles remain balanced and adequately express the body of scientific evidence if Jytdog and JzG, who have been doing much of this work to date, are topic-banned. Hopefully, whoever does step in will not exhibit the same personality issues and behavior that have been at the core of this case, on both sides. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax I don't need to provide additional diffs beyond those already provided during the evidentiary gathering. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47's section

I am at a loss. I would really appreciate if someone could spell out for me what I have done wrong, otherwise I don't know how to respond or defend myself. Every diff that's been presented against me in this case shows an edit or comment that I stand behind today; I wouldn't change a thing. I take my time before pressing enter, and I don't drink whilst editing. So I know there are no gotcha's out there lurking, and that it isn't possible for anyone to come up with diffs to prove that I am problematic. They don't exist. The 3 chosen to show that I am casting aspersions do not show anything of the sort. Claims against me in this case have ranged from POV pushing, fringe pushing, battleground behaviour, edit warring, WP:NOTHERE, and more. Yet it all boiled down to a (IMO, bogus) claim of aspersion casting. That means that there were numerous aspersions cast against me (perhaps even including the PDs) that never had evidence. Aspersions cast during ArbCom should result in sanctions. petrarchan47คุก 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• My evidence ended with the phrase "The foxes are guarding the hen house". I linked to Sarah (SV) saying (during another ANI where Jdog was attempting to have someone banned for questioning his POV) that Jytdog is the author of the very rules the Arbs are now quoting in the PDs, which she argued astutely could have a chilling effect. She furthered, "We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point. Editors should at least be allowed to say that they believe it is happening, without risk of sanction."[65]

From the PDs (Jytdog's addition in bold):

"If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI."

I would agree with Minor, and many others: it does appear that our evidence was not taken very seriously, and the PDs are very disappointing, overall. ArbCom was my one last hope. petrarchan47คุก 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Coretheapple Regarding Guy, the Arbs should apply "Ignore all the rules" if for no reason other than to save face. JzG should have been added as a party (see other comments on this page, especially Minor's), and the failure to do so needs to be addressed. petrarchan47คุก 22:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Update: (* [66])

@Coretheapple 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 - this applies to Tryptofish and anyone who made claims but were unable to back them up. Yes, sanctions are in order for the claims made against me that were never substantiated or true to begin with: edit warring, POV pushing, FRINGE proponent/pushing, battleground behaviour, etc. The way it is framed makes it sound laughable, that he didn't provide a clear link to evidence. The issue is that he didn't have substantiating evidence. It is a waste of everyone's time and trust to bring false accusations to noticeboards, at the very least. Aspersions, including and especially ones codified into proposals, are sanction-able. ping

The group that followed Jytdog to this case from his last ANI framed this by yelling FRINGE. Yet we haven't seen any evidence or even heard the term in a good month. That main definiting accusation was quietly dropped and never mentioned again. This whole thing seems like it was an attempt to get Jdog off the hook by throwing a bunch of glitter in the faces of the arbs and then hoping it would confuse or burn them out so that there was a good chance nothing rational could emerge. There should be heavy sanctions for this. People who haven't been paying close attention for a few weeks or months have missed a tremendous amount of the facts, please recognize that. petrarchan47คุก 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Native Foreigner, you said, "I could present a siteban for Jytdog, but I wouldn't be in support and it almost certainly wouldn't pass"

Please do, the evidence to support a siteban is overwhelming. That you don't support it personally and believe it wouldn't pass are not reasons to exclude the proposal. It is my opinion that if Jytdog isn't site banned, what you are telling the world about your standards for conduct here will be regrettable. petrarchan47คุก 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Ping

• @Wuerzele, in response to:

"the proposed decision does not remedy the problem of industry-POV editing in the GMO suite of articles, but kicks the can down the road."

Please see this comment by Native Foreigner. The 'drafting Arb' seems to have some influence over the PDs and entire case, and, if I am reading this correctly, has determined the idea of industry POV editing in the GMO suite to be a conspiracy theory with no basis in the evidence. As a side note, there is discussion among some of the more serious participants in this case to call for some type of mistrial, for a variety of reasons (the aforementioned not being one). petrarchan47คุก 23:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• The proposed decision does not include the instances of outing that occured during this case. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Diffs" and "evidence" are not synonyms. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes.

Why especially companies? I've been called a "POV pusher" throughout this entire case. What is the difference? That label has been used "to attack or cast doubt over [me] in content disputes", and in this ArbCom case, without substantiating diffs. But there is no mention of this in the PDs. petrarchan47คุก 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish - One small point of clarification: my comment on the Workshop page referring to Kingofaces43 as an editor for whom "Monsanto can do no wrong" was an entirely serious one. It is based on my observations of his remarks at various talk pages and noticeboards. Across the board, regardless of the veracity of sourcing, if those sources put Monsanto in a bad light, the argument was always against their inclusion. I don't make this claim without knowing that evidence supports it. "Monsanto can do no wrong" was the TL;DR version of my observations. petrarchan47คุก 07:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Arbs, please see my comments from Sarah SV above. The idea that one must visit the talk page of an editor with COI-like editing behaviour, and confront them face-to-face, comes directly from Jytdog. We showed you how people are treated when they encounter this user. Why would any sensible person want to confront him directly? After being shown this evidence, you've responded by attempting to codify Jytdog's idea into WPLaw. Jytdog has been questioned about his COI-like editing nearly the entire time he's been here, with good reason. Rather than to change his MO, he apparently decided to change the COI guideline, and became very involved in COI policing. He has harassed many innocent people using this 'law', and I see him being congratulated for this work. petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• @DGG Editing with a COI is not a crime In relation to this comment, I want to be clear that what I have been discussing, ever since the March Against Monsanto article, is COI-like editing, meaning that it is biased, in this case in favor of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. This bias is a 'crime', especially when taken to the the level elucidated by the evidence: so egregious that other scientists have publicly berated our GM foods article for misrepresenting science, and for creating a false claim of "scientific consensus" - one that Jytdog was forced to change after three years because it was unsupported. Those scientists were right. [67] petrarchan47คุก 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Damage done? Although no evidence or recent mention of "fringe" pushing has arisen in this case, we are already being denigrated at the administrator's noticeboard with the term 'fringe crew', with Kingofaces43 suggesting that our input, since we are accused participants in this case, is worthless, and that obviously we are partisan Voting rather than !Voting (something Trypto says as well). Unfortunately there is no PD for treating individuals like this, for gaming an ArbCom, calling people derogatory names, or misusing sources as shown above. If indeed there was a breakdown of some sort within ArbCom during this case (with regard to earlier complaints of being overworked and too busy), out of respect for the facts, and for those who gathered evidence, I suggest we restart this case from a neutral position. petrarchan47คุก 18:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Pro-industry bias The message we are receiving is that it is quite acceptable for people to label me and others various terms for "advocate" (seeing as there are no sanctions), whilst speaking out about advocacy on behalf of profitable companies is of great concern. It turned out that indeed BP was writing their Wikipedia article, and it was quite obvious. I mentioned it (quoted here by Gandy) in a way that would likely see me sanctioned with the new PDs. The official word seems to be that someone can call an editor 'fringe' or "POV pusher" without a problem, but we are not allowed to suggest bias if it's pro-industry; there is no safe language to address this. You either file an official COI case, or shut up. petrarchan47คุก 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• @DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Euryalus:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Roger Davies:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, @Thryduulf:, AGK (talk · contribs), @DeltaQuad:

Please remedy the PD based on Roger Davies' words here. "This is unacceptable." It almost looks as if longtime users are treated differently than those of us who are unfamiliar to you, given the current state of the PDs. petrarchan47คุก 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the point about long term users. Based on the voting so far, some long term users are being topic-banned, some not, depending on how many arbs are persuaded of the strength of the evidence in each case. isn't that what is supposed to happen? DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I might compile a list of the requests made by Trypto (the only "long term user" I meant to address) that became part of the case, especially those with no basis, and a list of very valid requests made and evidence presented, by me and others, that is being ignored. That would help illustrate what I'm seeing (Dr Chrissy's chart is also elucidative of this). I wondered why Trypto seemed to be getting everything he asked for, and why it seemed his complaining was actually effective (in that proposed sanctions against him were removed) rather than off-putting. I then noticed that he has been active at the ArbCom talk page longer than even Roger Davies. It looks in this particular case as if preference is given to a very familiar, trusted voice, even when there is no actual justification for it. For now though, I'd rather focus on the specific request I've made: proposed sanctions for Tryptofish. petrarchan47คุก 22:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• IP, it is not so simple. Protecting WP from corporate spin is just another way of saying "pro neutrality", which is our primary mandate. You said editors "on the right" who feel their integrity is questioned daily simply for having a different POV. This is not the situation, regardless of what is being claimed. They were questioned for literally misquoting the WHO and creating a false claim about the consensus of scientists on GMO food safety. This is the bulk of my complaint (besides the bullying and other bad behaviour). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Petrarchan47 and Talk:Genetically_modified_food/Archive_6#WHO_source and the result of this. petrarchan47คุก 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Final note

I have been attempting to tell you all for over three years about a bias that is staining the reputation of Wikipedia, and am being ignored and demonized. When readers found out that BP was allowed to pen much their article,[68] there was an outcry from the public, with many calling for a boycott by ceasing donations. The readers abhor the idea of corporate spin on what appears to be the most unbiased source available on the web for most subjects.

Jytdog and supporters misused sources such as the WHO, and created through SYNTH a false claim that has had independent scientists crying foul for a few years now. I first noticed the bias (is "COI-like editing" safe to say?) from a group of editors when working on the March Against Monsanto article, and went to DGG for help. He agreed that their attempts to insert scientific claims about GMO safety were not appropriate for that article, but Jytdog and the group continued to guard that material as recently as this August,[69] which is after the RfC found that his sources did not support this claim of "scientific consensus" on GM food safety. To this day, a web search will turn up only one other source for this claim, the AAAS. Jytdog had to admit, by changing in this diff after close of the RfC, that his claim posted to numerous articles for roughly 3 years was unsupported. (The new version of the claim, "general scientific agreement", is based only on a poll of AAAS scientists, and coupled with more SYNTH that again doesn't support the claim.)

This misuse of sources has to be one of the most egregious ever in your history. ArbCom rules on the misuse of sources, but there is no PD yet.

There is a PD for speaking out about the aforementioned, but no PD for calling me a supporter of fringe science, one of the worst things that can be said about an editor here. I dedicated myself to learning the MEDRS guideline, and have been diligent about using sourcing correctly; no evidence has emerged to prove otherwise. But I am being demonized regardless, as are others in this case, for "pushing fringe".

No support was offered for claims of 'POV pushing', or 'anti-GMO editing', even though this entire case was framed around this story-line. And that's all it was. I'd call it "spin-doctoring an ArbCom". There is no PD for all of the false accusations, just as there is no PD protecting me and others (who aren't editing with a pro-corporate, or any, bias) from continuing to be called derogatory terms.

Once the PD is passed giving greater support to editors who are using your site to push false claims than to independent editors trying to alert you all to it, Wikipedia will have officially crossed a line, representing a move that I, and arguably your readers, disagree with vehemently. If you do favor one 'group' over the other, it should be in favor of those protecting the veracity of your content, not those harming it and your reputation. petrarchan47คุก 22:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

*@Atsme, As a result of inappropriate accusations and the haphazard manner in which this entire case was drafted, Petrarchan47 has retired. I reject this interpretation of my motivation, but thank you. My "final note" above says it all. One arb's opinion of me had no impact on my decision. 174.71.67.48 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme, the un-bolded part was correct. "As a result of this case" should remain in your statement. 174.71.67.48 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dr Chrissy, for this: (Which builds upon what many of us have been saying, including this from Dr Chrissy, and especially this from Minor.) 174.71.67.48 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom is, to my mind, about finding remedies for undesirable behaviour on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I must respectfully suggest that ArbCom needs to find a remedy for its own undesirable behaviour in this case. I believe that remedy is to re-start the case with more transparency and neutrality. Whilst this would be potentially embarrassing for ArbCom, I believe it is necessary for the integrity of Wikipedia to be upheld, and for that integrity to be observable from both an internal and external perspective.

wuerzele's comments

was called here by the clerk saying this is a proposed decision. I could not believe this is it, waited for two days, until now, to post. Being naive to Arbcom proceedings, Arbcom politics, Arbcom everything I feel baptised by fire: where is reason, where is the decision coming from, why the glaring double standard? none, if any wrist slaps for pro-GMO editors in general and harsh sanctions against bona fide editors who insert critical next to the mainstream information. the division is along exactly those lines that I had established in my first post on the evidence page. seems like a 180 degree turn where those who stepped forward to confront Jytdog were treated more harshly than him.

yes, it was a difficult case, large scope, house move and whatever, so we endured the more than one month delay, but this decision (if no more FOF's are forthcoming) is so unbelievably one-sided, penalizing serious, critical editors, while letting arrogant, editwarring rhetoric wielding editors off the hook, it is profoundly POV.

Is Arbcom captured? are there too many scientism-dogmatic folks in its own rows? Is it too difficult to disagree with arbcom systemic mainstream? are too many involved administrators watching? --Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

since it appears, that what we write here is for ourselves and whoever watches/follows these proceedings, the public, I am not pinging any arbitrator.

For the record, I do not understand ...

• the decision's numerous irregularities and peculiarities (mentioned by Jusdafax and Minor4th, incl. the strikingly many sections for DrChrissy in their resp. sections).
• that demonstrated misbehavior by JzG as well as Kingofaces43, who as Jytdog's key ally continues to tag team/revert with jytdog's replacement editor(s), is unsanctioned,
• the special leeway arbcom grants Tryptofish, who is no administrator, when the drafting arbitrator posts an update about the proposed decision on Trypto's personal talk page), as if he was part of an elite group. Maybe, this is because he has focused more (the word 'campaignin' comes to mind) on Talk, User pages, User talk (13%), Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk internal pages, see in the overwhelming majority of his WP edits ie 86% this year, and not on content creation, with only 14% of his edits on face pages. by the way the sheer number of edits racked up over 7 years is no meaningful evidence of productivity on the encyclopedia.
• why arbcom chose the diff evidence it did (from the huge amount of evidence we collected and presented), which appears not to correlate with its decisions, as observed by both pro GMO and GMO-critical editors.
• why a WP Arbitration policy of transparency even mentions transparency, since discussions are private and the Committee does not make public "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases".

in closing:

• the proposed decision does not remedy the problem of industry-POV editing in the GMO suite of articles, but kicks the can down the road.
• arbcom sanctions for jytdog appear to be rather "pro forma", and mild. yes, jytdog temporarily laid down his work, punctually at September's end; using past behavior to predict the future: since he has not continued all of a sudden reappeared on this very page yesterday November 15, 19:33, (suppressed and commented out by arbcom clerk) "to present personal information (which looks a lot like opposition research) about other editors which is wholly and completely unacceptable" he may very well continue to edit at wikiproject medicine and wp:coin, where no sanctions will impact him. he might indeed not come back.
• the decision does set a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy_and_precedent, that "previous decisions will be taken into account" that one can get away with this type of behavior for years and just get topic banned.
• the behavior of involved administrators, not having been party to this case, will need to be brought to Arbcom's attention in future hearing(s).
• valuable dissenting content editors have been lost GregJackP or wont be available in the area like DrChrissy, Prokaryotes, Petrarchan47 and SageRad.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Prokayote's section

(in response to wuerzele's ping)

Sorry, it is just that i am super busy. prokaryotes (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Incompetence

viewing from the sidelines, the way this whole things has been dealt with, it's a fucking joke. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Unregistered user section

Looking over the comments above, it's striking how many of the responses to the committee's proposed decision can be summarized as follows:

• The proposed decision is unjust because sanctions are being levied on me and/or my allies, whose behavior in every instance has been a model of collaboration and objective editing.

• This injustice is exacerbated by the insufficient breadth and depth of sanctions against those on the other side of the issue, whose behavior has been atrocious.

As I understand it, the purpose of sanctions is not to punish, but to protect the encyclopedia. Bearing this in mind, and taking the comments above into account, the committee may want to consider whether a return to civility and collaboration in this subject area will require restricting the editing privileges of additional editors. Otherwise, I suspect this issue will be revisited here within the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.143 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sage, I think it was a pretty straightforward comment relating current behavior to potential for future edit warring. But what you've done here is to ignore the rules of this forum, which require you to restrict your comments to your own section, in order to question my motives and accuse me of "insinuations" that are not in evidence.

You might want to consider the possibility that this type of behavior is part of why you are one of the subjects of today's discussion. It certainly is not supportive of a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.210.139 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sage, I appreciate that you removed your comments from my section, but your edit summary significantly undercut the impact of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.210.139 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to urge the arbitrators to think very carefully about the issues of casting aspersions, COI and outing, as I think the long term ramifications of this issue are perhaps more central than those that this arbitration was raised to deal with.

We have a tremendously diverse group of editors here, and just as some here have expressed a strong stance on the importance of protecting Wikipedia from "being taken over by the corporations", others, who do not necessarily have any conflict of interest, believe that the content of our articles sometimes has taken on an excessively anti-corporate, anti-capitalism, or even an anti-science POV. It is good and healthy for editors of both viewpoints to interact, and to try to generate content that balanced and WP:NPOV.

As it is now, there is constant bad feeling between these two groups, and a battleground mentality. What would help would be a crisper process for dealing with COI concerns. If we can eliminate the suspicion of those "on the left" that they are dealing with covert corporate operatives, and the anger of those "on the right" who feel their integrity is questioned daily simply for having a different POV, we would have a much more productive and collaborative atmosphere.

It won't be easy to design such a process, but I think this is the crux of the problem.

73.162.132.47 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret

While I understand the reasoning that Jzg was not included. This editors actions during the case should merit more than an admonition, at least a warning, slightly stronger wording, should be included. The reason they were not included was up to the arbs, but the continued actions in the topic area after the case started merit some looking at.

Jytdog did do some good work at COIN, but evidence is clear that he also used it as way to attack those he disagreed with. The incivility alone is well documented and I wonder if those who place themselves in such a high profile role, even though they are not an admin, should be held to a higher standard of civility. Good work in some areas should never be a reason to discount issues in another.

Kingofaces deserves at least a warning for his part in all of this.

The diffs against Petrarchan47 do not seem to rise to the level of a topic ban, nether do those against Prokaryotes.

I am concerned with the sanctions against SageRad, a newer editor who was in a area with more seasoned editors in content disagreements. I would request that the appeal time be lowered to 6 months.

I would also suggest that everyone who in the end is topic banned, take these words into consideration. Its not the end of the world. WP is a big place, and there is lots to do. Try and find an area that is less contentious and be productive, time will fly by. Stay far away from any topic thats even close to the ban. Base everything you do on PAG, and learn as many of them as you can. When you can appeal, these things will be in your favor. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The evidence against wuerzele is very questionable. Battleground consists of one post to Sagerad, and one heated discussion that doesnt really prove the accusation. Edit warring is one report the user was already blocked for, and a lone revert on June 20th. Incivility, again I dont see the issue with the diffs, perhaps I am missing something? Its perhaps one questionable post, the other are replacing an attempt to solve a problem on a users talk page that other editors are removing. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish

Tryptofish on the other hand had a massive case of casting WP:ASPERSIONS and he is just reminded? AlbinoFerret 15:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What is even more concerning on the reminder of Tryptofish, is that an Roger Davies, an arb, asked for the diffs in 10 places from Tryptofish [70], and none were provided. He even came back days later with another warning [71] that Tryptofish ignored. Now we get a "reminder" in the PD? That is just sad. AlbinoFerret 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to Tryptofish's post here.[72] Yes its no different than in the case where an editor made accusations and did not back them up with evidence even after being asked to do so twice by an arb, but we have a section on Casting aspersions. AlbinoFerret 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43

NativeForeigner You ask why Kingofaces43 should have sanctions imposed. Here is why.

Engages in edit warring, by jumping into an existing edit war.

• 9/1/2015 Jytdog reverts [73][74][75][76] IP removes some of the same content [77] Kingofaces involved [78]
• 5/4/2015 Jytdog reverts [79][80][81][82] Kingofaces43 also revered [83]
• As entered into evidence in David Tornheim's opening statement, this AN/I is quite telling.[84] Kingofaces43 lists another example where he and Jytdog teamed up to both reverted in an edit war, here is the diff from that section to make it easier to find.[85]
• Another long term example: Jytdog [86][87][88] Kingofaces43 [89][90]
• 29 April 2015 Jytdog reverts [91], [92], by Kingofaces43 [93] [94], [95].

The FOF of Minor4th - (Examples of SQS/edit warring:[96], [97], [98] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [99], [100], [101]; revert history on Glyphosate: [102]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [103]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [104], see talk discussion here)

I also ask you to rethink sanctions for Tryptofish considering the facts laid out in my comments just above this one on Kingofaces. AlbinoFerret 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To address Tryptofish on tag teaming. I also added a section on just plain edit warring in my FOF in the workshop. Jumping into an existing edit war, whether in concert or not is just as bad. Thats Battleground mentality even if acting alone when jumping into revert what others are reverting. I did not even say tag team here, so what you have done is presented a strawman, instead of addressing joining in edit warring and creating a battleground. AlbinoFerret 18:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I also dont think the existing 1RR will effect this bad behaviour, because under it , one can jump into an edit war and revert once. All you need is a few editors doing it to "win" the battle. They may not even discuss it before doing it. Something needs to be added to the PD to stop the second, third, and fourth editors jumping into an edit war even for one revert. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing I would like to point out are a few faulty defences, the "but I was right" defence. This is not really a defence in edit warring, there is no excuse for edit warring, even if you think or know your right. Every person who edit wars thinks they are right, or tries to justify it after the fact. The problem is, is that WP articles are supposed to be built by consensus, and sometimes that means that even though you may be right, its wrong to revert. The next one is, I reverted but mentioned the talk page in the comments. This is another faulty argument, WP articles are long standing, reverting doesnt have to take place unless its blatant vandalism, or a BLP, or copyright violation. Both of these defences create a battleground enviroment. The alternative is to leave the edit be, start a talk page discussion, and let consensus dictate what should be done. From what I have seen these faulty arguments are used to jump into existing edit wars. The only thing that happens when the second, third and so on editor jumps in is a bigger battle that harms consensus and then nothing is accomplished. The last faulty defense is "the other person was edit warring". Every editor should have learned early in life that two wrongs dont make a right. Every editor that jumps in even to do one revert in an edit war is wrong. Wikipedia need to stop picking who was right in an edit war, and ban/block all that are involved. AlbinoFerret 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sagrad

I seem to remember that King and Scoundrels as censors has a basis as a theological reference from seminary classes I audited long ago. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Other responses

Capeo DrChrissy who works with and teaches veterinarians does good work on animal related content on WP. I believe the arbs made the topic ban different from the others to reflect the good work he has done in respect to animals and focusing in on the problem areas. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer's comments

I sincerely hope that Arbcom will give a great deal of consideration of what it will mean to the small group of editors who are doing their best to prevent corporate control of our encyclopedia and the chilling effect that a decision to prevent Petrarchan's further help in this effort will have on them. Most of my work with this editor comes from the editing of the BP article where she worked for months to bring that article to a place that now shows BP's responsibility for what has been called the greatest ecological disaster in the history of the United States. She worked alone for weeks and continued her work until a media story broke exposing the fact that a corporate representative was responsible for the writing of a great deal of the information in the article. Then as now, Petrarchan was concerned about corporate influence (and I am as well) and I would hope that to merely even make the suggestion that there is evidence of it will not get one banned. Let's face it, when it comes right down to it we have no way to know for a fact that any editor is accepting financial gain from the editing that they do here, unless they admit to it. We must go by what appears to be the case. When one editor is the leading editor of all of the Monsanto articles and has done substantial edits of any article even remotely connected to Monsanto, for example a small TV station that broadcast negative information regarding one of Monsanto's products, is that not an issue of concern? As for the "aspirations" that she has supposedly cast against several other editors, one of these editors all but had their shingle posted on his user page that suggested that he was available to work on litigation cases - until he mysteriously, suddenly left without explanation. Another of them also has, IMO, a similar pro-industry history of edits. I'm not suggesting that an editor should have the freedom to go around suggesting that anyone that disagrees with their POV must be a paid editor should be allowed to do so without comment, but certainly we don't want to start banning people that express concerns regarding an appearance of biased editing.Gandydancer (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment regarding Geogene's section: There has been an effort to portray the editors that have been described here (and elsewhere) as anti-Monsanto POV pushers (or worse) as holding the position that GMOs are harmful to human health and that their concerns about Monsanto are based solely on that belief. That is not factual in my case and I'm pretty sure that many if not all or most of the others that have been brought here for a review of their conduct (or those that have made comments that support them) do not hold that position either. My concerns for our Monsanto articles are similar to the concerns I hold for all of our large corporate articles: Are environmental concerns included, are legal issues presented in a fair and unbiased manner, have major accidents been covered, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Viriditas comment: Calling Petrarchan "deeply hostile" is laughable, though it does reflect on an editor that would suggest it as a matter of fact. Gandydancer (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim's comments

I echo the comments of Justdafax and AlbinoFerret above, but not quite as emphatically as Justdafax. I strongly agree with this comment by Justdafax:

• JzG is not a named party in this case in the first place because of several ArbCom members objections to doing so, with one, AKG, stating that Administrator JzG was doing the "wiki's work." That act led to a climate that allowed JzG to act with astonishing impunity.

JzG's style of communication is strongly biased against users he disagrees with and is not becoming of an administrator. The Evidence presented by Minor4th demonstrates that he cannot act objectively as an "uninvolved admin." on GMO issues, and should be at a minimum banned from any administrative duties related to GMO's. A mere sanction is not enough.

That said, I am pleased that finally something is about to be done to address the problem of Jytdog's tyrannical rule over the GMO pages, that users like me were afraid to even talk about until this ArbCom proceeding came up, because we knew that administrators like JzG would punish us and not Jytdog if we complained at AN/I, as had happened to quite a few users who tried to. Justice will prevail here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer makes some very astute observations immediately above. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Redacted material resurfaced

@Callanecc:, @NativeForeigner:, @Mailer diablo: It appears that many of the revisions that had been redacted immediately resurfaced when Mailer diablo added this this diff:

00:58, 16 November 2015‎ Mailer diablo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,341 bytes) (-24)‎ . . (→‎Jytdog's section: redact OS-able info) (thank)

Is it a bug in the redacting software or was Mailer diablo working with an old version and not aware of the redactions?

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Part of the content was successfully redacted (the removal of 24 characters). Some of it was redacted but then restored on purpose by HJ Mitchell. I don't believe the current state is problematic, especially after the furthe clerk redactions. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It was confusing to me, because numerous edits that appeared to have been redacted were clearly restored. It is hard to tell from the redaction that the goal was to simply remove 24 characters. My interpretation was that people were adding new evidence to this page after Evidence was closed and that was a problem. But I also read on Jusdafax's talk page a discussion about reiterating old evidence/diffs or possibly even adding new evidence/diffs. With all the diffs on the page now appearing in various sections, I am not sure if this is new or old evidence. So I am really confused what is happening right now and why it is not clearly indicated here on this page that I have been actively trying to follow, unless I have missed some big announcement. Can you please explain what is happening and what is now permitted or not permitted and what all this activity means? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

KingofAces43 evidence

Here I have assembled the evidence I presented earlier regarding KingofAces43 per this. (I may revise before deadline):

• From evidence:

• ...reported the 3RRR violation...: [105].

• Experts

• Fringe:

Kingofaces43 : [106], [107], [108], [109] from this discussion:[110]

• Stalling: [111]

• Bayer:

David Tornheim's Evidence Section called Bayer

Removal of criticism (same WP:Gang): [112]

Gang 3RRR violation to keep this kind of criticism out of the controversy section of Bayer, Formerly98 supports Kingofaces43 to edit war out that criticism: [724], [725], [726] and [727], along with Jytdog who accused me of canvassing [728] for talking about the 3RRR violation (but sees no problem with violating 3RRR)...

• From workshop:

I have only once in my entire time at Wikipedia since 2008 taken anyone to any dispute forum. The only editor is: KingofAce43 for editing warring here.... Even though I may have misunderstood the strict definition of a 3RRR violation, the behavior is problematic and was not acknowledged. David Tornheim (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 section

I'll first point out that NativeForeigner and Guerillero did a decent job of trying to strike out a core area. I'd really ask arbs to look over the evidence sections where editors have been specifically named though as NativeForeigner has said this is meant to be the proposed decision at a minimum.[113] There is a lot of evidence or even editors not listed in the PD that are plentiful in the evidence section. There's a large number of editors that could be examined more closely in the PD, but I appreciate that the combination of only being able to present so much evidence coherently and limited time for arbs to examine it won't get everything done at once. I'm hoping bringing new cases to enforcement if needed will work for most editors not listed in remedies that have been shown to have problematic behavior if they continue those issues after this case.

That being said, I do think Wuerzele should be listed for an FoF and remedy. They specifically go out of their way to attack editors shown in these evidence sections[114][115][116] and summarized in this proposed FoF from workshop.[117] I bring this up because after the close of evidence, Wuerzele has continued to engage in this behavior during this case (otherwise I wouldn't bring it up with it being "new" evidence):

• Claiming editor is "butchering article" in edit summaries.[118]
• More personalizing content disputes in edit summaries.[119]
• Not allowing new content because an entirely different and unrelated section was under dispute.[120] followed by tendentious tagging described here.
• More accusing others of tag-teaming that happen to agree on a course of action.[121][122]
• Playing "Gotcha" in accusing others of POV.[123]
• Violating 1RR imposed here during the case at least twice here [124][125] and here. [126][127]

• Even accused ArbCom of "regulatory capture"[128] (WP:BUTT).

This short talk section with Wuerzele wanting an addition to the lede at Kevin Folta shows them accusing others of "patting each other on the shoulder" when they tried to address the concern, accusing me of spindoctoring, and other bad faith comments. I do suggest arbs read each of Wuerzele's comments in that section especially because that kind of behavior has been an ongoing problem that has not changed regardless of warnings in the past. It's the kind of persistent problem that won't get better that is suited for ArbCom, so I would ask at least an FOF and some sort of remedy (probably topic ban) be proposed for arbs to discuss. This would deal with one of the main sources of incivility in the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Petrarchan47's FoF currently does not list much evidence or the more problematic behavior at that. Euryalus and Thryduulf have shown concerns over that not justifying the topic ban, so I would direct them to this and this evidence section if they haven't read those yet. Petrarchan47 is also mentioned at a FOF at workshop[129] of engaging in battleground hyperbole at this case such as "Monsanto can do no wrong"[130], casting aspersions about not being critical enough of companies [131], and accusing others of enjoying bullying[132] showing an extremely bad faith mentality. Maybe some of the diffs listed there could be added to the FoF for more clarity, but these should all be very clear issues with Petrarchan's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Likewise for DGG, Salvio giuliano, and Doug Weller, a bit presented at evidence here and here are not included in the FoF, so just making sure you are aware of those two main sections of evidence in your decision. The Monarch example should be pretty telling of the attitude petrarchan injects into content discussion. There's no question that behavior is problematic and has been a long term problem, so I'm open to suggestions that will just simply stop the vitriol directed at editors throughout this case [133][134] and interjection of a strong anti-corporate mindset towards editors (to me seems more like a WP:AXE to grind mentality than reasonable corporate skepticism) if a topic ban isn't appropriate. I unfortunately don't have any other suggestions in this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I read the evidence page and was aware of those two sections, but I see very little there which can be used to support a FOF (and most of what could be used is in the FOF already). That's part of the problem with this case, to be frank. The evidence proposed has, in more than one case, not been particularly useful, and the workshop has been an ungodly mess. And we rely on the material the participants submit... I'm sorry I'm singling your evidence submission out now, but it's only by way of example – in fact, it's far from the only case. Anyway, you say Too many instances to document easily in this large case and then link to an RfC. Well, that tells me nothing. Useful evidence takes the form of some diffs (we don't need too many, five or six are enough, if the problem you highlight is serious) with a short explanation why the edits were problematic. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• In response to what's been going on with Tryptofish here, I included all relevant evidence sections (including Tryptofish's evidence) in my support of some FoFs proposed by Tryptofish. If drafters or arbs have missed that and only saw proposals without diffs in the main text, I suggest reading the comments by parties section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Responses to new claims

• It looks like DrChrissy is trying to re-argue points already refuted at evidence and workshop, so I'll take another run through them if there's any question by arbs.

1. The first set of diffs (labeled "SQS/edit warring")[135], [136], [137] were due to Prokaryotes claiming there was consensus for something that was in reality a consensus on an entirely different page that was never explicitly pointed out at the time. The edit summaries should tell the actual story there and the problem with hand-waving about consensus rather than pointing to it on a often debated and controversial subject.
2. Diffs for "it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy"[138], [139], [140] are evidence of edit warring behavior by DrChrissy and me trying to respond to that by getting them to use the talk page for consensus as seen in the edit summaries in addition to outlined content issues (as opposed to claims of not focusing on content).
3. Additionally, my "revert" history on glyphosate [141] does not show edit warring as portrayed. The only instance where I even had two reverts in the same day was the above incident with DrChrissy (the first revert was a multi-edit string).
4. The FAQ in question had already been created by another editor some time ago and has been uncontroversial seeing lack of discussion since.
5. The accusation that I was trying to "further Jytdog's dispute" is a blatant aspersion with no evidence. I made that single edit to the page well after whatever Jytdog's and GregJackP's dispute was, and the picture entirely unrelated. This claim is also refuted in Minor4th's FoF. [142] Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seeing as Jusdafax has now coordinated multiple editors through a "call to action"[143] to continue evidence discussion about me after workshop close I guess I'll respond to the rest. In response to Jusdafax's claims here, I removed a documentary section agreeing with a previous editor's edit that it wasn't needed, and I also removed a bibliography section because it was uncited material not contributing to the article further. That was made clear in my edit summary, and Wuerzele reverted stating, "restore docu/ biblio sections COMPLETELY deleted by Kingofaces,which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary !" I tried to dismiss that ranting language and focus on the content as Jusdafax linked to on the talk page, but both Jusdafax and SageRad jumped into that conversation going after me for trying to reasonably address Wuerzele's personalization of the content dispute. That's actually a good example of why Jusdafax should be a party in this case, but I (and I assume others) didn't address their behavior in evidence because the behavior of other editors was more problematic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Atsme's claims,[144] most of that (the Griffin article) is out of scope of this case, which is why I've specifically said that Atsme's behavior should specifically be examined at ANI or in a separate case due to different editors being party to such a case and better focus on that topic.[145] Atsme calls that "poisoning the well" [146], which they haven't been able to drop the stick on not seeming to realize I've been saying their behavior would largely get a pass in this specific case. Atsme calling out for sanctions against those who try to deal with their behavior issues is something that has exacerbated the community after Atsme's block at ANI[147][148] and at WP:FTN[149][150]. No frivolous claim of aspersions will stick with that in mind, but we're also not in a position to go more in-depth in the scope of this case, which is why I've only said Atsme's behavior should be deferred to elsewhere. The "group behavior" Atsme refers to are editors individually seeing the problems at FTN and WP:MED and trying to respond. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• As of now, I'm going to be checked out of Wikipedia for most of the week similar to Tryptofish being out at a conference earlier (it's a big week for us entomologists). I will not be able to respond to additional claims (in case it becomes relevant), but I am content with the current PD considering future individual potential problems can be taken care of at enforcement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick chance to pop in, and it looks like there's a deluge of involved parties trying to gang up specifically on me after Jusdafax canvassed them (specifically described as campaigning under WP:CANVASS) with a very purposeful attempt to direct editors against me in a "call to action". I still need to ask the drafters and arbs whether they think that attitude and set of actions warrants sanctions. In terms of the additional claims (that have already been rehashed to death in evidence and workshop already):

Minor4th[151] cites glyphosate again like DrChrissy above where I only had two reverts (two diffs are part of a multi-edit string), in response to DrChrissy trying to push in content they knew didn't have consensus. Almost all other cases listed are like this where other editors have tried to edit war in new content as opposed to getting consensus after being reverted. The fact that Minor4th is citing something like, "Glyphosate December 2014 with edit summaries that make no sense: [152], [153]" as evidence where an editor misunderstood basic definitions in the topic (that herbicides are a kind of pesticide) as is somehow trying to blame me is odd at best.

David Tornheim[154] first mentioned a 3RR case were they were chastised for their actions where it was pointed out that I was the one asking people to use the talk page to discuss the new change when people were trying to just edit war the content in repeatedly. Otherwise they cite a few instances where I cite our guideline WP:FRINGE and accused me of stalling because the complete version of a source wasn't quite out yet. Mainly just cases presented there of others trying to edit war in new content that didn't have consensus and now turning around and trying to blame me for trying to respond to that in the spirit of policies like WP:CON and WP:EW.

SageRad[155] linked to this conversation referring to me being "obstinate", yet shows SageRad being the one removing sourced content based mostly on personal views (i.e., the source didn't include other species). I tried setting up a plan for finding more sources to cover other species in that conversation, but that framework of focusing on sources and relevant content seemed to take a backseat there. The Norman Borlaug example[156] was a case where I asked SageRad to refrain from aspersions where they specifically accused me of hounding them[157] after responding to another personal point of view objection (rather than finding other sources to dispute it or even reading the source in question at first) on an article I had watchlisted. Another case of the drama-raising where SageRad is trying to pin me for responding as civilly as reasonable to their poor behavior that is looking to result in their topic ban.

AlbinoFerret[158] is also engaging in some pretty blatant editor painting. The first instance cited I was involved in[159] was from after an edit war breaking out and some talk page dialogue had started. There was drama going on at the talk page, but one of the smaller content resolutions had no opposition so I went ahead with a bold edit and fixed it. No one disagreed with that, so why AlbinoFerret cites my attempts at cutting through the drama to get content people actually agreed on as their first example is odd. The second example [160] is an example of WP:OR and WP:TRUTH in the edit summary by SageRad that I reverted once seeing that the content was unsourced. The fourth example ending in this diff is a case where other editors were trying to edit war in content that had already been discussed without any consensus on the talk page. Again, it's very concerning that AlbinoFerret is trying to paint things this way when looking at the edit summaries and talk page conversations that are more or less in line with WP:CONSENSUS and the spirit of how we handle WP:EW behavior.

Overall, a lot of the diffs cited by editors mentioned above show a huge problem in this topic where certain editors try to edit war in their new content and try to blame those responding to that in the process. Even citing things like WP:BRD and directly asking people to use the talk page in edit summaries trying to direct those editors away from edit warring obviously hasn't helped stop these accusations. If editors are going to continue to push as I've described above, is there really any appropriate way to respond to this kind of edit warring behavior that doesn't drag down other editors while also not letting people continue to edit war in content against consensus? If someone is legitimately going to look at my behavior in edit wars, one does need to consider the actual situation of each edit (highly misrepresented above), and they should see a recurring theme of me trying to stop edit warring and get people to the talk page for consensus on new content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

NativeForeigner I'm just giving you a formal ping to be sure you're aware of my responses above, though I know you're usually keeping up with the talk page discussion. For both you and Guerillero, some in multiple parties have said that 1RR may not be enough. Besides the aspersions of tag-teaming, a scenario can come up with two editors where one adds content, another reverts, and the first reverts again to keep the new content in. Now the 1RR restriction could be specified to say the first edit would count towards 1RR (potential for gaming there), but what would you two think instead about including this proposed principle from workshop in the PD for arbs to vote on? In addition to 1RR, this principle would at least set up the expectation for editors that if a new change is initially rejected, that's the time to go to the talk page and not re-revert regardless of whether it's the same editor or someone different coming in. If there's even an slight inclination that my involvement in trying to move people away from edit warring has been improper, 1RR should enough to diffuse that, but 1RR coupled with the principle should help take care of the underlying edit warring behavior from other editors that's been the main problem in the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk)

Yeah, I've seen it. My hope is DS will take sort of this sort of gaming. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Likewise for DeltaQuad, after seeing this comment, most of the claims by Minor4th are addressed in a few paragraphs up in this section either searching for their name or mention of DrChrissy for some related incidents. A number of the diff descriptions are misleading or show me trying to respond reasonably to other behavior issues outlined in this case already when you actually dig into the context of the edits. I'm not going to put words in NativeForeigner's mouth as to why they haven't proposed any FoF after reviewing the evidence, but they do seem to be most familiar with reviewing my edits and at least previously saying there wasn't evidence for a FoF.

Looking at my edit summaries should show at worst that I've been associated with edit wars, but generally by trying to tamp down the editor warring behavior of other editors trying to edit war in disputed content without talk page conversation. The 1RR sanction should take care of that hopefully, so I'm not sure what else could really be proposed on my part. It's been a bit out of process with the re-presentation of evidence regarding me scattered on this talk page though, so if there are questions on something that I may have missed, feel free to ask here or through email. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've only briefly read your comment directly above mine, so I will need time to review anything above. I do admit a fair amount of evidence presented (speaking primarily to the /Evidence) phase was bytes that I shoved right into my computer's recycle bin, but there are a few things that did catch my eye. This is why I have sent a mail to my colleagues first to check my sanity/confer with the drafters before I go crazy and start proposing we ban everyone (like globally everyone) from Wikipedia to make my day easier ;). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. My main concern was that I missed something that could look bad out of context (e.g., multi-edit strings that are actually one reversion, relevant conversation not linked to certain diffs, claims of aspersions in an entirely unrelated case even though I linked to the relevant ANI, etc.). With the situation you described with recycle bin evidence, I haven't had something really pointed to respond to concisely yet, so I'd welcome that chance if it comes to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anything first pass. On the road at the moment. I still don't see enough for anything but a warning for edit warring but I've asked for a sanity check. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

COI and aspersions princple

I'll have to catch up more later, but in response to SMcCandlish and Doug Weller's recent concerns,[161] the idea of addressing an apparent COI issue on the user's talk page or COIN if escalation is needed comes directly from WP:COI at WP:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, so there shouldn't any reason to oppose that in terms of "new" policies or guidelines. That being said, Tryptofish's proposed change[162] is perfectly fine as the main purpose of the principle is to say that aspersions such as a shill gambit are not appropriate on an article talk page and claims of a COI must be instead settled in the appropriate forums, such as COIN. This principle is to prevent the current situation where editors continue sniping (shill, never opposes company X, etc.) on article or admin boards without evidence without ever attempting to resolve the apparent issue at COIN and instead uses aspersion tactics.

Additionally for SMcCandlish, I do agree with the other side you bring up where people are quick to claim aspersions when someone mentions a general behavior problem with an editor (often talked to death at other noticeboards) and someone claims aspersion solely because diffs weren't provided in a repeat conversation that has changed venues/audience. I can see potential for gaming where editors do not acknowledge their behavior issues and constantly claim aspersion even though relevant ANIs have been linked to death in previous conversations. That kind of stuff happens unfortunately, but in a non-ANI, etc. type board where there is context similar to how you described here where you're not expected to provided diffs at that point, someone should simply ask for diffs first rather than impose action. I don't know how to better protect against that in this principle, but the larger problem in this case historically has been the tendency to cast aspersions about editors related to companies to discredit them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I haven't seen a response from you yet, but would you support the aspersions principle if the wording was changed to something like, "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI." The order was an extremely minor addition with the understanding that minor things are handled at user talk pages and further escalation leads to COIN, but shouldn't be something that rejects the proposal. Your vote comment seems to indicate a minor change is needed rather than voting against the whole principle. This change reflects WP:COI as is, so there shouldn't be any problem there and I doubt other arbs would be opposed to the change after asking them about it.

For both Doug and DGG, this principle cannot be used to endorse outing as it directly cites WP:COI. The guideline specifies that outing policy still applies and how to handle things carefully. It is a requirement per every ArbCom case I'm aware of that aspersions are not appropriate and evidence is needed for claims about editors. The concerns you two have brought up about outing do not conflict with the requirement for evidence, but rather show that the evidence must be presented in appropriate forums given how we handle if someone is being outed or not. If there is a case where someone would be outed if they hadn't done so voluntarily on-wiki, then that's a situation for other channels involving email or not presenting anything at all. Nothing in this should change that though as there shouldn't be any new policy from this principle.

The key message with this principle should be that you either present evidence in the appropriate forums or you drop the stick, especially on article talk pages or general aspersions elsewhere as an attack tactic (and sometimes revealing WP:ADVOCACY behavior by the one doing it). If anyone has a better suggestion for a principle to cut to that point, I'm all ears, but we sorely need something in this topic to stop the kind of behavior the principle is meant to address. I'm concerned rejecting the principle outright will only encourage comments from some of the named editors bristling at the idea that this behavior is inappropriate or those that selectively ignore an editor's contributions to paint a negative image of an editor through guilt by association like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there's too great a flexibility of meaning in the word "aspersions" for it to be used the way we've been using it. And I certainly don't agreew ith the word "Accusations". Editing with a COI is not a crime. What I think we might want to use is "Discussions". DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Accusations" should indicate a claim is being made about an editor in general (not a negative tone about COI per se) that has just been brought up in the relevant forum. The actual wording in the principle is intended to clear up your concerns about the ambiguity of the term aspersions as it is defined as an accusation of misbehavior (such as inappropriate behavior related to COI, not just COI alone) without evidence. Calling COI alone a crime shouldn't be garnered from the principle because the second sentence shows the pairing of accusation of COI and using that to attack editors at articles being the problem behavior. If you don't get that from reading the principle, any suggestions on tweaks to the wording? If we can get something from this case to stop the shoot from the hip shill / Monsanto supporter claims that actually never get brought up at COIN, I'll be content with this problem area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading the IP editor's recent comments, [163] this principle should help alleviate slinging about the shill argument directed at editors if editors continue down that route after this case things end up at enforcement. My hope is that it tempers personal political views a bit to discourage the kind of editor attacking we've been seeing. That's keeping in mind that there's a continuum between appropriate general corporate skepticism (I tend do have a fair dose of that in edits I actually make) and ax grinding or WP:ADVOCACY being interjected into the topic and towards editors.

That being said, I could call for more FoF's and remedies until the cows come home for things like advocacy or advocating fringe views, but that's just not feasible given how difficult it is to get a clear picture presented on some of the more acute problems currently listed in the PD. That's probably why no one else got into the fringe issue much because it deals so much with content intertwined with behavior. We're not going to fix everything at once in this individual case, but I think we're at a point we have a start with some of the listed topic bans, 1RR, DS, principles, etc. to move forward a little more smoothly with future behavior. I don't think anyone has ever gotten everything they want from a case before, so I for one am content to say let's work with what we have in the PD for now to see how it works in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuing problems

It looks like every motion has reached the threshold number of votes for a pass or fail excluding those involving Prokaryotes, so we should be close to wrapping this up. I understand some arbs may be busy or are taking their time reviewing material before voting, but we've had more edit warring, etc. breaking out at glyphosate in the last two days with editors already aware of existing sanctions. DrChrissy has directly violated the 1RR sanction trying to edit war in new content against consensus [164][165], while Wuerzele has been trying to edit war the same content in even though there isn't consensus in the ongoing talk page discussion (I've mentioned Wuerzele's previous 1RR violations in an email awhile ago). These editors were notified of the sanctions on their talk pages, while others involved in the recent edits (before my most recent one) where not aware of sanctions and did not violate 3RR, so they are not mentioned in the context of this case.

With the case being so close to finishing, it would seem better to just let this finish and have the topic bans imposed rather than bring this AE, but I am concerned these editors are continuing this behavior when they know their topic bans are coming already. Most other editors involved in this case have stayed out of editing the page for the time being excluding the above two. Will this case be wrapped up soon are separate measures needed for these editors in the interim? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

NativeForeigner and Guerillero, do you know if there's some ongoing discussion on the Arb email, or are we just waiting for the last arbs to vote? I'm a bit concerned we're getting a lame duck effect (directed at editors, not that ArbCom elections are going on) shown above where editors who have topic bans currently passed are trying to push in controversial content and ramping up incivility before the finalized decision. In terms of procedure looking at the votes and what's left, will we move to the final decision once more votes come in on Prokaryotes (their FoF currently appears to only need one more support instead of two), or do we need all arbs listed as active (12 currently) to vote or say they abstain? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm indisposed until tomorrow, at which point I'll try my damndest to get this closed out. It would be very fair to say this has gone on for far too long. NativeForeigner ^Talk 15:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Even if it's not done tomorrow, just knowing it will be tentatively wrapped up in the next few days is plenty fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Last notes

On the note of the new FoF regarding SageRad, editors have mentioned that the issue with their POV and how it is applied reaches the point of WP:ADVOCACY. Simply having a POV isn't a problem as DGG and Doug Weller have voiced in the original FoF, but the specific wording about advocacy wasn't included in the original FoF (though that's functionally what's been described all along). Advocacy to the level that it becomes disruptive, undue weight, or hyperbole filled is something under the purview of ArbCom that often results in topic bans.

So, this FoF could be tweaked slightly to have "and articulated a clear POV that has reached the point of WP:ADVOCACY in regards to the locus of the case" However, that's only to clear up the questions that have come up if arbs are still looking to discuss the alternate proposal for SageRad. If arbs are willing to move ahead with what already has sufficient votes to pass, the tweak I proposed isn't anything I'd be concerned enough about if it was going to take additional time to implement and discuss amongst arbs when everything else is more or less wrapped up.

I also think Capeo has some valid concerns over DrChrissy's topic ban only applying to GMO plants. I personally wouldn't suggest a change this late in the game as I think a WP:ROPE approach will work fine if problems come up in GMO animal articles. I don't know if it needs to be explicitly stated in the remedy that there is a lower bar for action is the same behavior pops up in closely related topics like GMO animals. It could be worth considering if arbs think it's a minor tweak that won't delay the case and would add some clarity if future issues come up.

I don't have anything else to add for this case aside from those minor thoughts. Thanks arbs for wading through this. I know decisions are never going to be ideal, but we should have something to work forward with in this topic now to hopefully make things run a little smoother. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Replying to Tryptofish's comment, I was trying to make it clear I am not endorsing an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban to GMO animals at this time. Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I do endorse is the concern that not having a broad GMO topic ban coupled with DrChrissy's problems with topic bans in the past could likely result in future issues as Capeo described (though I'm not saying it will happen). I'm just saying to be aware that a nuanced topic ban as opposed to a broad one can require walking a very thin line. Therefore, DrChrissy needs to be on their best behavior editing in GMO animal topics instead of what's been shown here or else deal with WP:ROPE if the behavior resulting in this current topic ban continues. They're being given a lot of rope in this instance to potentially acknowledge and improve their behavior issues, but this kind of ban makes it really easy for them to fall into more sanctions if that doesn't happen. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho's take

Considering that JzG is not a party to the original complaint a topic ban serves no purpose. Considering that he is a party to taking part in the case and that he is responsible for his own actions the other two actions should be considered. Each user has received ample warning that their behavior here can be addressed. It's at the top of this very page. "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." I have no position on whether JzG has done anything wrong, just that it shouldn't go unaddressed and written off in a bureaucratic manner.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the behavior on this talk page is really uncalled for. Going beyond candid conversation. There are decorum standards here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One example [166]. Seriously? You don't know that this is inappropriate?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom is not here to commend Jytdog or any other member of Wikipedia for their work. They are here to end disputes, primarily conduct disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. I encourage each and every Arbitrator to commend Jytdog and any other editor you deem worthy of your commendation, but I encourage you to do so in your position as an editor and not an Arbitrator.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's section

I have not really followed this case, but I noticed the recently added proposed finding and remedy criticizing Tryptofish for submitting workshop proposals without evidence diffs. I don't recall any editor's having previously been called out in a decision and scolded or sanctioned for making insufficiently detailed workshop proposals, and this would be a very strange and undesirable place to start. I believe this editor was trying to synthesize the evidence into findings for the Committee's consideration, and the limitations on his work were apparent on the face of the proposals and acknowledged in response to arbitrators' direct requests for the diffs. I did the same thing myself on occasion before I became an arbitrator. If the Committee wants to establish a rule that all workshop proposals (or at least all proposals for a finding or remedy against a specific editor) require diffs or evidence links, that can be discussed, but still does not warrant the finding and remedy proposed here. Finally, and as delicately as I can, I will point out that the Committee's weird block of Tryptofish in the middle of the case could quite well have limited his ability or dampened his enthusiasm to return to one of the arbitration pages to provide additional information in the limited time remaining before the workshop closed.

Unless I am missing something (always possible), I would hope that these proposals would be withdrawn, and if not withdrawn, definitely not adopted.

I also don't see that Trypofish has been notified that his name now appears in a proposed finding and remedy on the PD. Although he has participated on this talkpage, he may not necessarily be monitoring it every day, and he needs to know about this. I will @Tryptofish: myself to save time, but could an arbitrator or clerk do the same for anyone else who's been added since the original PD was posted? (If this is already underway, thank you.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's section

Hi all. I had some time to breathe today and looked in on this case. My RL work remains very consuming and I do not know when I will have bandwidth to contribute again. I debated whether I should say anything at all now, and figured I might as well do what I can to honor the process in this sliver of time I have.

1) I want to thank arbcom for working through all of this. There is a lot, and it is never easy in WP to work through complicated issues especially without the voice of a central figure. I apologize again for bailing in the midst of this, but RL is RL, as I wrote in the email I sent to you all.

2) The proposed decision is more or less what I expected.

a) With regard to me, I do acknowledge that I have acted badly sometimes and I apologize again for that. I've tried hard to follow the spirit (not just the letter) of Wikipedia - to focus on content and sources, to write NPOV, well sourced content, and to treat everyone like the humans they are. I have actly badly at times, no doubt about it. Whether the frequency or pattern of that arises to something that requires a topic ban is of course for you to judge. If I am topic banned, I will abide by it and will steer well clear of the topic. Additional to my own behavior being a justification for a topic ban (if you so judge), there are so many people who have personalized their disputes me with and have then pursued those disputes into this topic and elsewhere, that just removing me from participation may calm the waters in this topic somewhat.

• I agree with the arb's feedback opposing the draft motions about Guy/JzG. JzG can be acerbic but he is very mindful of the spirit of this place and his participation as an admin and especially in BLP and PSCI matters is a gift to Wikipedia. Truly.

• Thank you for your participation here, Tryptofish. I know that you wanted to edit peacefully here when you returned and am sorry that goal was derailed. I especially apologize to you for not having participated.

Rolling back up to the big picture. I thank Arbcom again for its service, and wish you good luck in arriving at a wise decision. I apologize again for my bad behaviors, and for not participating in the case, and will abide by any decisions at which you arrive. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Roxy's small section

Something is missing from the PD that I hope ARBCOM will consider before it is set in stone. There is no recognition of the tremendous contribution Jytdog has made to the project over the years. A motion that says something like - "Notwithstanding the locus of this case, Jytdog has been a model contributor to the project, and supporter of the pillars"

Similarly, if ARBCOM decides to sanction JzG, perhaps it could consider a similar motion in that regard. Thankyou. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification as to current state of affairs

Note to all participating. I'm allowing users to submit explanations regarding why previous evidence presented against Kingofaces43 is deserving of FoF and sanction. All other evidence should not be posted and will not (and to this point has not) been considered. It will be reverted. Please submit explanations of existing evidence against Kingofaces with explanations as to why you believe it is worthy of sanction. This will be accepted until 12:00 (noon) UTC on Tuesday. Given the lack of clarity, everything currently on the talk page won't be redacted, but any additions of new evidence will be. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, any rebuttals will also be accepted but keep in mind there is to be no threaded conversation. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope it is alright for me to post here (because it is not the section of any other party), but if not I will happily agree to move this to my own section. Yesterday, Kingofaces43 gave notice on this talk page that he will be away and without Internet access for several days (much as I had been several weeks ago). I want to make sure that this fact is noted and that it is treated with fairness, so that any new evidence about him will be subject to scrutiny and, if necessary, rebuttal, since Kingofaces43 will not be able to do so himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware. He's already provided rebuttals (no judgment on the merits) of almost all of the diffs at one point or the other, but I wanted to leave that option open. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting that we are now 6 hours past noon UTC. All further submissions will be reverted by myself or a clerk. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I just want to be clear: You mean no more submission of evidence, rather than no more editing (ie, commenting) of this talk page, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@NativeForeigner: I was wondering the same thing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it might be appropriate that Albino Ferret not be posting new things about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Aircorns Section

This is quite telling. Also agree with Roxy above. AIRcorn (talk)

Outside observations of SMcCandlish on several problems in the proposed decision

In order of their occurring to me in reading though this and the diffs of the evidence used (I have not been following this case closely before now, or involved in the dispute, I'm just trying to make sense of where it's heading and why):

1. This passage is very problematic for two reasons: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI.
   1. It effectively mandates that attempts at outing be made. That's problematic by itself per WP:OUTING, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and would interfere with our general WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE and WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:SPA principles, which are regularly used to identify patterns of problem editing like COI PoV pushing.
   2. It bureaucratically mandates an exact posting order, of user talk then COIN. This has several potential negative consequences, including opening someone to sanctions of some kind if they if first raised the issue in article talk or ANI, then user talk; and it appears to preclude all other venues, such as AN, ANI, AE, and RFARB.
2. The proposed-to-be-added FoF that Jytdog engaged in outing makes no effective sense in light of that same evidentiary requirement. ArbCom cannot reasonably punish someone for doing exactly what they demand be done (though this would not be the first time that this has happened, at least in ArbCom's name, as self-contradictory enforcement is a hallmark of much of what goes on at AE, most often in the form of an "enforcer" admin leaping to the conclusion, and making an easily disproved accusation, that an editor had made an accusation/aspersion without proof (most often one that's already been proven in a previous noticeboard dispute), thus issuing a discretionary or other sanction for a violation that the admin is actually the one engaging in). We need less of that, not more.
3. The reading of JzG as "chilling" toward SageRad, toward the bottom of this thread, is clearly a misreading, and all the proposed sanction drama directed toward JzG should be scrapped. When JzG wrote "I know who you are, and I have not named you in public", it was in deep in the midst of context of claims by SageRad that JzG is outing him/her, and in the context of a number of previous statements by both of them. Its meaning is clearly not "now I know who you are and can find you or harm you, so you'd better watch yourself"; it's clearly "you outed yourself personally, and even though I've seen the details of that indiscreet self-disclosure, I have not made public use of that information". It's totally unfair and unreasonable to use as bogus evidence of outing and other wrongdoing JzG's disclaimer of any wrongdoing and his observation that SageRad provided self-identifying information only to blame others for "outing" him/her after the fact. It's a distortion of the evidence as it appears to be discernible from what is at hand, of what JzG actually said, and what a reasonable interpretation of its meaning is. And one or another Arb said that SageRad would need to submit, in e-mail, further information for ArbCom to determine if there really were an outing issue, so this seems like asking for evidence then convicting before it has been provided (unless some was provided and us non-Arbs don't know that, and it was compelling, but there's no indication this has happened). There are various editors I have met in real life, and I should not be subject to some attempt to sanction me if I simply concede that I know who they are!
4. If ArbCom is going to persist in a FoF against JzG in this vein anyway, the wording "JzG made chilling remarks" is hyperbolic and misleading. I expected that link to lead me to him making threats to eat people's babies or something. What appears to be meant is "JzG made remarks that could have a chilling effect". It would really be more accurate to write "JzG made remarks that, if misinterpreted, might have a chilling effect", but then ArbCom would not need to make a FoF about something that iffy, would they?
5. The first piece of evidence cited against Petrarchan47 [167] does not support the accusations (notice a pattern here?) against the editor. In the two posts by that editor in that diff, they raise concerns about 1) the alleged attacky tone of some articles and how they're surviving scrutiny and repair; 2) the PoV (pro-Monsanto) allegedly evident in a set of articles, and 3) an observable !voting pattern and the gaming effect it can have. This is all laid out without casting aspersions of any kind on any particular editor or any diffuse group of editors. In fact, the first two observations are not even directly tied to third. One could be of the view that, say, paid agents of big pharma (as yet unidentified) have edited these articles, and that since then well-meaning regular Wikipedians who dismiss anti-GMO claims happen to be !voting and otherwise collaborating in ways that accidentally aid the supposed paid COI editors; this would be entirely consistent with everything Petrarchan47 said. NB: Though I don't recall ever directly editing any GMO articles, I'm firmly in the "Wikipedians who dismiss anti-GMO claims" camp, so if I were a WP:JERK on a mission, it would suit my interests to see Petrarchan47 pilloried. However, what is actually important to me is that we be able to discuss where COI editing might be happening, regardless of topic, and try to ferret out such bias openly, and make note of any incidental enabling of the COI by others, so I take the Voltaire position and defend Petrarchan47's ability to do so, even on an issue about which we disagree.
6. The second evidentiary diff about this user is not actually evidence of what is purported to be the draft FoF issue [168]. It proposes renaming an article to reflect its actual content. While WP:RM would probably not go with that title (or, more importantly, the observed scope), it's actually fairly routine to WP:SPLIT off a "controversy" article about a subject if the subject is notable, if some controversy about the subject is notable in and of itself, and the main article on the subject is being completely mired in details about the controversy instead of presenting a more overall view of the subject.
7. Similarly with the third one [169]. While the tone gnashes some teeth, it's well supported with evidence and is principally about alleged WP:OWNy behavior, and doesn't imply assumed/imagined motivations for it. I also have to observe here that, whether ArbCom likes to acknowledge it or not, the WP community in actual practice has considerably more tolerance for tooth-gnashy remarks in user talk that in article talk or in noticeboards, and what was said here would not even be out of line on a noticeboard between parties to a dispute there. If anything, it's quite mild to the extent that it's actually accusatory rather than just frustration-venting. The fourth one [170] errs in labeling supporters of the "pro-GMO" or "not-anti-GMO" or whatever position as being "Monsanto ... believers", which could be interpreted as implying obsessive or uncritical devotion, etc., but I think it's also reasonable to interpret it as tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, and it's pretty typical of discussions in any heated topic area. The fifth one [171] is more problematic and personalizing, but it doesn't establish a pattern worth a sanction or even a warning, and it's clearly predicated on all the previously laid-out evidence in this case, not some out-of-left-field rant. Again, I say all this even though I sympathize more with Jytdog's position on the issue than Petrachan47's.
8. The third piece of evidence against Prokaryotes [172] is questionably valid. It's a noticeboard filing, well diffed, in response to Jytdog's own similar claims against Prokaryotes. The two editors' back-and-forth basically cancel each other out. And this was the ANI request that lead to this RfArb; I have to question the idea of using as evidence against this editor their own attempt at dispute resolution even if it was not as measured and calm as it ideally could have been.
9. The second/sixth diff against SageRad [173] does not support the claims against SageRad. It's entirely a statement about external political views with regard to various organizations, and how one editor attacking one group of them is akin to another editor making similar unkind statements about those favored by the first editor. Entirely reasonable thing to point out. Same goes for the fifth one [174], which is again about societal groups/forces outside WP and what influence they might collectively exert here. As for the last two diffs, articulating a PoV is not a sin here. Trying to force one into articles through policy violations is, but the diffs do not evidence this.
10. The diff of Jytdog self-moderating his own comment [175] is not evidence of incivility, but of the opposite (and the redacted portion described how he felt metaphorically spat on at the time of the original writing, and was not an attack on someone else). This diff [176] against Jytdog is also a self-redaction; though the original comment had a civility issue, the fact that Jytdog self-moderates in this manner is strong evidence of an effort to back away from what we all observe has become a battlefield. And again, WP is quite tolerant of interpersonal venting within reason in user talk; we want people to take their gripes to user talk and work through it where we don't all have to wade through it on article talk pages, so it's a very bad idea for ArbCom to punish this, absent really egregious behavior in user talk and the user to whom the ranting pertains filing a grievance about it.
11. Minor copyediting:
    1. "Camaraderie" is misspelled.
    2. "engaging in poor conduct and engaging in battleground conduct, including edit warring" can more concisely be expressed as "engaging in poor conduct, including battlegrounding and edit warring".
    3. A tertiary point with regard to that long quoted passage above is that "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence... If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence" is unnecessarily redundant. Needs a comma between "similar associations" and "and using".

The rest of it makes sense to me and seems well-reasoned.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• @SageRad: I allowed in the above for the possibility that the arbs had evidence I did not, and made it clear I was going by the available evidence.
  @ArbCom: SageRad's new litany of complaints (with no diffs) against JzG highlights a central problem with these and similar proceedings, in which it is sought especially to punish someone (several someones in this case) for making allegations or casting aspersions without presenting proof in situ every single time any accusation is made (even if the evidence has already been presented before). As long as Arbs, or AE admins, or a drop-in admin who wanders by a noticeboard, happen to be sympathetic to whoever is doing the accusing, they simply let it slide without comment or action if the accusations have no evidence. It only generates sanctions when the one making an allegation has irritated someone in a mood to act punitively and with the power to do so. This one-sided enforcement has to stop. Either there should be an actual policy specifically mandating that every single time any kind of allegation is raised about an editor that it must be diffed in the same post, no matter where and no matter how many times or in how many venues its been demonstrated previously; or a modicum of common sense has to prevail, in which the "accused accuser" may dig back up the evidence upon request and will not be subject to any sanctions unless they cannot and it is thus demonstrated that their accusation is baseless, after due process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Kingofaces43: "claims of a COI must be instead settled in the appropriate forums, such as COIN" – true enough, but ArbCom dictating that they must and only may be done so in the exact order 1) User talk then 2) COIN, and nothing else, is not appropriate. Even if that's the order that is recommended outside of ArbCom, we all know that such things are taken as recommendations. I'm unaware of anyone successfully citing WP:IAR against directly rulings of ArbCom, so that body should not bureaucratize and codify such a recommendation.

  As for the other matter, the solution to disproportionate, one-sided, and opportunistically punitive sanctions against editors repeating allegations they've already proven in the past and simply didn't redundantly dump a boatload of repeat diffs about in that particular post, is for ArbCom to simply clarify that it does not want AE and AC/DS to be mis-enforced in such a manner. It's not a potential problem, but an actual one, and the fallout from it (good editors being penalized unfairly, too often inspiring them to quit the project, and even more often chilling their participation to a great extent and making them fearful to enter any discussion that seems to involve controversy) is arguably worse than the effects of doing less about aspersion-casting in general (mostly ranty editor group A flaming at ranty editor group B who return the favor, without either side ever giving up, much less being driven off the project by it). But it's a false dichotomy: It shouldn't take an Arb more than a few minutes to draft, and other Arbs a few minutes to review and approve, a sanctions enforcement clarification for admins, while also continuing to persue DS and other means of reining in camp A vs. camp B flamewarring and other disruption. No gleaming baby need be thrown out with the nasty bathwater. The need for such a review and clarification has been noted by more than just me (see WT:ARBCOM for an admin proposing a second formal DS review in response to these sorts of concerns; the last review was in 2013 and was self-evidently insufficient, even if it was a good start). To get back to this case: I've posted these concerns here because the bulk of the evidence, FoF, and probably the impending sanctions directly involved the "aspersion casting" issue, and this focus seems questionable to me. The civility/battlegrounding/NPA concerns seem far more important to me, and I'd bet to most of WP. Aspersion casting (without being able to back up the claims) is simply one of many forms of incivility (and sometimes attack), neither the most common nor necessarily the worst. By way of silly analogy, I'm reminded of a murder trial in which the focus is mostly on the fact that a hunting knife in particular was used, instead of focusing on the fact that someone was wrongfully killed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Geogene's section

I think that so many opponents of Jytdog have accumulated over the years that Arbcom's hands may be tied here. But I hope that at least some of Committee have the percipience to know what their decision will do to Wikipedia's content in this area. Studies have shown that scientists who understand GMO's and pharma have a markedly different perception of their risk than the general public does [177]. Wikipedia editors are self-selecting, nevertheless they tend to represent the views of the public at large more than those of the scientific community, so anyone knowledgeable about the subject area that edits here is going to be exposed to a lot of conflict. It follows that anybody who edits from a neutral perspective (meaning: aligned with the view of most scientists) is either going to be driven off or will be really unpopular and make a lot of enemies. And the likelihood of being caught in incivility increases in proportion to both the number of disputes a editor engages in and the number of opponents he has. Arbs: you aren't going to do anything positive for Wikipedia by voting Jytdog off the island. Trying to create balanced content is a fool's errand, and there are only so many editors foolish enough to keep at it without you making a systemic problem worse. Maybe you could save some face here if you hide behind bureaucracy and claim that these problems aren't a part of your mandate. But you've still let the project down. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a party line: that of the bulk of reliable sources. Those reliable sources are written by scientists, the same group that has a very different POV from that of the public--the category that best describes most Wikipedia editors. It could be argued that a majority of scientists believe one thing and publish another, but there is no evidence of that, and it seems unlikely. You could also argue that Wikipedia editors ignore their personal views and opinions and follow the neutrality policies all of the time--but if that were the case systemic bias wouldn't be an issue anywhere in the project, and the WMF wouldn't be worried about things like editor diversity. It does matter because it's widely understood that if you exclude a category of editors from a subject area, experience shows that the content in that subject area will change to give less representation to their viewpoints. This is particularly detrimental to the project when that category of editor is best placed to represent expert opinion in a contentious subject area. Holding a minority of editors to exactly the same standards as you hold their numerous ideological opponents without accounting for the frequency in which they are placed into conflict will be de facto exclusion of their viewpoints from the project. If another editor steps up to fill Jytdog's role, they'll be outnumbered about 4:1 and will either be worn down by constant dispute or within two years we'll be right back here again, with the same outcome. Arbcom should understand that this PD represents a policy of suppressing conflict while degrading content. Note: scientists don't have a hivemind, and I'm not claiming here that there are no experts on the other side of this dispute, it's my understanding that there some are here, no offense is intended. Geogene (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's section

So here's the kind of thing that I think annoys many observers of ArbCom's process. This case is clearly quite near to being finished, yet a close is not possible because we are waiting for votes from a number of arbitrators. @AGK:, @Seraphimblade: and @Roger Davies: are all listed as active on this case, but have not, as yet, voted -- and their votes have the potential to make a significant difference in a number of proposed remedies. If these arbs are indeed active, I ask them to please vote. If they are not, then the list of active arbs on the case should be re-done and the number of votes needed for passage recalculated. I believe that when this happens, holding up the closure of a case, it frustrates supporters of all sides and onlookers as well.

Perhaps the next ArbCom might like to consider imposing time limits on votes, just as editors have time limits on the evidence and workshop phases. In this case, it's been two weeks since the proposed decision was posted -- that seems to me like sufficient time for all arbs to have submitted their votes. BMK (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@ArbCom: Is there some reason that, now that almost all Arbs have voted, no Arb has called for the closing of this case? I kinda feel like the pace of ArbCom's work has slowed down to a crawl in the past few months. I have a similar question concerning the Hijiri/Catflap case: is there a reason so few Arbs have voted, and that some of those that have voted have done so only on a limited number of sections? Is there any sentiment within the committee to try to get some of these things closed out before the new Arbs are seated on the 1st? (I do realize that the old Arbs retain their ability to vote on cases opened during their tenure even after January 1, but, still, it might be nice to tidy the place up a bit.)

I am, of course, not calling for uninformed voting, and I realize that catching up with the evidence and arguments presented can take some time if an Arb hasn't been closely following a case while it's being presented, but to see little sign of forward motion on these cases - when another case is about to be opened - is disheartening. BMK (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Yep -- Euryalus (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Viriditas

There is nothing in the aforementioned diffs from Petrarchan47 indicating any semblance of "deep hostility". Am I to assume this was an attempt to throw mud at her, hoping that something will stick and tarnish her character? I have read almost every contribution she has ever made to Wikipedia, and while I have significant differences of opinion with her on numerous topics, I have never once seen her "deeply hostile" about anyone or any subject. Wikipedia editors have a bad reputation when it comes to interpreting the emotions of other editors. Instead of perpetuating this erroneous assessment, it would make more sense to strike the finding in its entirety. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: "We need arbitrators who can understand human behavior". You nailed it. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I would guess that >90% of the people here would say they had a good understanding of human behavior. And most active WPedians probably think they have a good understanding of human behavior on Wikipedia, which is the actual issue. In judging whether another person has a good understanding, I think essentially everyone means, the other person understands it the same way they do themselves. It is however perfectly reason for an individual to try to choose arbitrators who do have a similar understanding to their own on this and other matters. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a community focus on AGF precisely because the community has a bad reputation for understanding human behavior as it is observed on the Internet. Further, we have a large demographic of technically-minded editors with poor social skills and a demonstrated inability to understand and recognize basic social cues, humor, sarcasm, and simple behavioral responses to discussions. In your response above, you appear to have ignored this well known state of affairs. As myself and others have noted, there is no indication of any kind of "deep hostility" on the part of Petrarchan47, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it still doesn't make it true. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from JzG

@DGG: I see this quite often, the assertion that because someone comes to a different conclusion in a situation where reasonable people may differ, so the other person's reasoning abilities are fundamentally flawed. In fact the person who does this most often, in the venues I visit, is one Dana Ullman. Who has a past with ArbCom, by a strange coincidence. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstaining from further participation in this case

Due to unforeseeable personal circumstances, I have not had sufficient time to keep up with all the comments and discussion on this case that has occurred since the proposed decision was posted. As I do not have time to catch up with all arbitration matters without delaying things unnecessarily I am going to strike my votes regarding specific findings and remedies and move to abstain. I will be effectively inactive on this case going forward and will not respond to pings or talk page messages regarding it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Capeo

I just noticed that DrChrissy's topic ban differs from the rest wherein "organism" is replaced by "plant". I'm assuming this was intentional? Just trying avoid the inevitable clarification request 10 minutes after this case closes. DrChrissy is current active in Genetically Modified Fish as an example. Does agriculture broadly construed include aquaculture for instance and thus chemicals used in aquaculture? I could see reasonable arguments for either. The simplest definition of agriculture is the cultivation of plants and animals for food. If you are including what might be perceived as potential caveats to the ban it would probably be better to clarify now rather than close the case and rehash it in a couple days. I personally think trying to exclude some GMO's and not others is simply going to lead to more drama given their obvious topical overlap and DrChrissy's focus on animal welfare in agriculture in general. Capeo (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, that may well be the case, I'm just suggesting to head any issues off at the pass. DrChrissy already ran into some issues on their first topic ban with some claims of intentionally skirting the edges of it. They've edited Glyphosate pretty heavily well after it was clear they are going to be topic banned from it. That's not typical behavior of someone about to get a TB. Looking at their last 1000 edits I'd also say their focus is animal welfare not animals in general and consists of mostly adding negative material about food production processes. That's not a bad thing unto itself if properly balanced but it will inevitably lead to some conflict again. When it does all parties would served if everyone understood the bounds. Too often an ArbCom remedy goes up for clarifcation within a week of the case closing and it leads to a basic rehash of the whole ordeal for everyone. Capeo (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Another point that would help avoid further drama is to broaden all the TBs from "agricultural chemicals" to something along the lines of "agricultural chemicals and the companies that create and produce them" or something similar. If the idea of TBs is to serve an editor's and WP's best interest by removing them from areas of potential conflict then it makes sense to predict where their editing may butt up against the TB and clarify as much as possible beforehand. Otherwise you end up with the type of equivocating at AE where an editor claims, "well, sure, parts of the article would violate my TB but the specific part I edited doesn't". You can see that in of the recent Kochs Brothers related AEs. It's silly. It often puts the admins at AE in ridiculous situations of unnecessarily trying to parse technicalities when common sense says the editor is best served not editing the article. I could easily see that happening in relation to the companies that make these chemicals. Specifically in regards to legal proceedings. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if it's already been addressed then, very well. I'll try to refrain from saying I told you so when something related to this case pops up at AE in the next couple weeks ;) Capeo (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from My very best wishes

Phylogenetic and symbiogenetic tree of living organisms, showing the origins of eukaryotes

"genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals" in editing restrictions is very much clear. Obviously, they can edit anything about animals, fungi, viruses or procaryotes. There is no any need for clarification here. Protist are possibly a borderline.My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)