The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I am uninvolved. I have not edited any of the relevant articles or contributed to any of the relevant discussions. I am acting on a quasi-consensus reached in the ANI page cited above that this matter requires arbitration.

The basic behavioral issue is that many of the parties listed above have edit-warred, accused each other of overly aggressive behavior, and called for topic bans on other parties. Underlying this problem at the deepest level is a disagreement about policy, which comes down to a disagreement about the proper application of the principles outlined at WP:FRINGE. In the scientific community the idea that GMOs are intrinsically harmful is a fringe theory. In the broader community, however, it is at the least a significant minority view, and perhaps even the majority view. Arbcom probably cannot resolve the fundamental policy issue, but it should be able to address the behavioral issues that the dispute has generated.

It has been suggested that applying standard discretionary sanctions would solve the problem. That is possible, but at this juncture I don't want to impose any limits on the remedies available to the committee.

The list of parties to this request is a minimum. Other editors can be added if necessary.

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

• The articles are acutely disrupted, from several angles. My judgement wasn't the greatest bringing all the issues at ANI at once, which overwhelmed the community and led to this Arbcom request. The separate issues are handle-able at the community level, in my view. Just not all at once. A "decline" is a valid option here.
• If a "GMO" case goes forward, the scope of a case could be agricultural biotechnology.
• Alternatively, this could be a "Jytdog" case. I have a "fan club" stemming from my work on FRINGE health topics, GMOs, and COI matters, or other things. Some of these hold grudges because of bad things I did that they have not forgiven me for. Some are frustrated POV pushers. Some are both. An arbitration focused on me could resolve this.
• I request that Arbcom clearly define the scope.

• I realize that my behavior would be a focal point of any accepted case.
  • Some claim I have a financial COI. I don't, per this. I am willing to discuss/disclose offline, my RL info with any Arbs as yet another extraordinary step to deal with WP:APPARENTCOI. Please consider accepting that offer.
  • Others see a longterm pattern of pro-industry POV pushing. I have worked hard to make and keep these articles NPOV and well sourced, pushing back advocacy from pro-industry and anti-GMO advocates ( the latter of whom are far more prevalent).
  • There are claims of OWN. I do steward the ag biotech articles. I do try to keep them SYNCed (which is important in this complex & controversial topic & which advocates often will not reckon with), and I work hard to keep advocacy out and keep them well-sourced. They are far from perfect and are continually improved per Lfstevens below. There continues to be compromising/consensus-building work on Talk, which is often difficult. We generally have been able to work things out there.
  • I do make editing mistakes; I have made some poor judgements in editing, talking (incivility) and taking drama board actions. I have apologized and retracted where I was able to see that I was wrong. Arbcom will decide if their prevalence means that I should be sanctioned in some way(s). At ANI I have been warned by the community via ANI once (which I accepted and deserved) - not related to ag biotech (during Spring 2015, which was a bad time for me here, now past) and I accepted an iban with CorporateM, which I chose to accept rather than create drama over - again not related to ag biotech. I've never been blocked.

About others:

• • Prokaryotes is disruptive as described here
  • DrChrissy is battlegrounding as described here
  • Petrarchan hounds me as described here
  • Wuerzele spends more effort attacking me for being a shill than working toward consensus like this.
  • Peripheral: AlbinoFerrett and GregJackP (with whom Minor4th is MEAT) are turning wikipedia into a battleground over grudges on issues unrelated to GMOs. There is a third editor, PraeceptorIP, whose work will need to be addressed if SCOTUS Monsanto cases are included (who also made one edit to the GM food article here) which I moved to Pharming (genetics); GregJackP got involved in that, and some Monsanto articles only trying to "protect" PraeceptorIP from my efforts to work with him to address his COI/POV editing. It is a delicate discussion, which i marred by making some mistakes, but which was recoverable... but to which GregJackP has brought a sledge hammer and made a mess of, similarly to Elvey.
  • David Tornheim treats WP primarily as a site for advocacy; SageRad also but to a lesser extent.

• Petrarchan: See this and this followed by this, and especially this). Jytdog ( talk) 15:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• I requested thatJusdafax be added as a party, per his statement below and his statement with regard to me, that It's time to lance the boil. Jytdog ( talk) 13:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (redact Jytdog ( talk) 20:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Only started editing this area in past two weeks, though have had it on my watchlist for a while.

There appears to be intersecting problems here:

Agree with other editors that there is POV pushing a fringe position regarding the health issues surrounding GMOs, specifically that they are dangerous for human health. The dispute surrounding the "scientific consensus" resembles the climate change or intelligent design debate where there is a science based position being disputed by those with a more ideological based position. While AndyTheGrump's point is well taken, the dispute appears to have largely revolved around health issues, and not the other issues surrounding GMOs.

The other problem area appears to be that a number of editors appear to have specifically targeted Jytdog for sanctions. Jytdog has attracted inordinate amount of attention from editors who have previously been in editorial conflict with Jytdog. That Jytdog has been dragged to ANI so often but still has a clean block log and lack of official sanction speaks to the tenacity of Jytdog's "fan club" as well as the lack of consensus that Jytdog has behaved in a way that warrants severe sanctions.

I think classifying this issue under Pseudoscience as proposed with discretionary sanctions will help improve the area with the first problem, but I suspect that a case may be necessary to get investigate the issues resolving the hounding of Jytdog. The scope of the case needs to be broad enough to investigate both issues, if undertaken. Yobol ( talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I briefly edited the related pages in the last couple of days. There have been problems when a group of users begun to remove primary sources from peer reviewed journals ( here, or here or here), or news via reliable sources (or here even opposing after majority of RFC supports addition), as well as efforts to delete new pages.

• Additionally there are problems in most of these articles due to synthesis (as outlined here), or because authority statements are removed.
• Several of the users opposing additions mentioned fringe as a reason, sometimes citing a consensus. However, there is no consensus via the authorities, and fringe view can not be applied in context of a general assessment. The article Séralini affair scope can be considered fringe, but the context should allow the inclusion of the related sources, not stick to opposing views.
• To resolve the issue we need to allow primary sources for GMO articles, and all authority statements, and need to make clear if the topic involves Food and Crops or if these are separated.
• Editor Jytdog with reliable support by certain others played the major role in the run up to this Arbcom request, and there are no indication that the edit pattern of that group or behavior will change. In fact the group continues to remove everything which can be considered anti-GMO, reasons are not per WP.
• Something else to have in mind when judging GMO edits is maybe outlined in this New York Times article. prokaryotes ( talk) 03:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

My involvement in the GMO field is via either: 1) legal articles with GMO tangentially related; or 2) a GMO article with a legal case tangentially related. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - example of the first, Pharming (genetics) - example of the second. In both, my sole involvement is on the legal portion of the content.

At the core is a behavior issue on the part of Jytdog. Jytdog reacts immediately if his admitted POV is challenged or other viewpoints are presented. Under the guise of "fighting" COI, "eliminating" Fringe, and "defending" MedRS, he repeatedly attacks those who do not have the same POV as he does. This is battleground behavior, and is accompanied by edit-warring, personal attacks, forum-shopping and incivility.

Those who disagree with him are labeled as "fringe", "COI", and "POV." It is behavior that shows the extreme ownership that he feels for these articles, and is not good for wikipedia.

I was asked (via wiki-email) for help by a subject matter expert (SME) in intellectual property law, who was being harassed by Jytdog. The SME is creating content, and has been repeatedly attacked by Jytdog over his edits. I will note that every time that Jytdog has raised an issue on a legal matter, he was in the minority, and many times the only voice in opposition. When a majority of legal editors, many of whom are attorneys, are telling him that he's wrong, he doesn't hear it, and refuses to drop the stick.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case to resolve the conduct issues by Jytdog, if for no other reason.

@ Tryptofish:; @ JzG:. Both of these editors paint this as a "fringe v. not-fringe" issue, but, as noted by AndyTheGrump, that is an over-simplification of the issue. Pointing at it and posturing so as to limit it to just two sides promotes battleground behavior and should be discouraged. I can see a number of different perspectives here. There are pro-GMO and anti-GMO editors as Tryptofish and JzG indicated. Then there are editors focusing on legal/intellectual property issues, that don't really have a GMO position. Then there are editors who come in completely neutral and end up fleeing the topic because of the conduct issues involved. It's too easy to gloss this over as a two-party issue, it's much more complex than that.

@ jps: stated that "the issue is that these sources tend to be either unpublished or published in dubious journals. . . .". He's correct. Any citations for scientific material needs to be cited to reliable sources, and while I'm not sure if there is a ScienceRS like MedRs, there should be. Arbcom should clarify this sourcing.

@ RoseL2P:, I concur with her evaluation of Jytdog's conduct.

I'll note that Jytdog has continued his harassment of PraeceptorIP even after this request started, see here.

And is still being rude to COI editors trying to do the right thing, here.

@ Tryptofish:, I assume that you mean the hounding by Jytdog, not "of" him, because he has clearly hounded Atsme, PraeceptorIP, Viriditas, anyone that he believes may have a distant connection with an article (while ignoring his own), etc. I would hate to think that you have taken sides on this, such as praising one side's proposal while ignoring another editor proposing the same thing earlier ( here).

And Jytdog, here. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Jytdog and the ownership issues at the GMO suite since 2012 need to be the subject of deep investigation, as does the support from the community, including some administrators, that upholds the POV and ignores glaring behavioural issues with Jytdog.

Instead of the false claim that anyone is pushing "pseudoscience" at GM articles, the truth is that Jytdog has constructed and protected a Safety Consensus statement on GMO foods, pasted to at least 6 GMO articles, which does not have support even with 18 references he put together. Proof: RfC. This false construct published by Wikipedia is the subject of this paper (see #3), which names our GMO article specifically and shows it misrepresents science. Editors protecting this claim and other GMO POV-pushing are hostile to science that doesn't support it, hostile to editors seeking balance, and call any questioning of this "fringe". Science that is being disallowed shows that Wikipedia's wide-ranging safety claims are untenable at best.

• http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf
• http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/ * (Jytdog is currently trying to delete the page for this non profit, which calls his work into question)

The suggestion at ANI was that GMOs could fall under pseudoscience by referencing Seralini. I spoke to that here, and suggest a deep look into the Seralini case, and WP editors' responses to it. It may be an orchestrated smear campaign.

@Roches Powerful WP:MEDRS from Krimsky - review of all safety studies since 2008

@Jtrevor99 Correction: Guardian WHO ( politics); France "latches on"

@David Tornheim - Corrections: a) The claim was attributed to the AAAS by WP, but came from the BoD ( more); b) "Arc de Ciel" aka User:Sunrise (mentioned in your first diff)

Diffs:

• Comparison of GM foods article before/after Jytdog's overhaul *
• Spindoctoring Antidepressant : Swaps out reference to "withrawal" * * and reverts W.H.O. source linking creation of new terminology with Eli Lilly: *
• Collusion, bullying *
• Referring to MEDRS as "fringe", stating discussions have taken place when they haven't *
• Jytdog shown he misrepresents the WHO ( Sarah SV makes this clear), responds with nonsense * (as does KingofAces *), accuses new editor of misreading source *, admits to using SYNTH/OR * in his Scientific Consensus statement. He has since been forced to amend the statement.

• Equates GE food with natural/forced hybridization, erasing mention of "natural" food *

• Refutes Seralini with OR/editorializing, misleading edit summary *, with OR and "weedcontrolfreaks.com" *

• Removed MEDRS-needed tag from "broad scientific consensus" claim cited to blog *, uses poor source to claim "broad scientific consensus" *

• Judges source based on POV */ *

• Said nothing when in the midst of this, associate * Sunrise did this

• Removed criticism about drug, misleading edit summaries *, *, excused it *, re-added as rebuttal *

Notes:

@ArbCom members, the framing of this case is a non-neutral, irrelevant theory; no anti-GMO faction exists on WP. 'Fringe advocates versus stewards of the project' is an inaccurate, baseless storyline. ( Tsavage on "fringe" and the GMO pages: *.)

This case should extend to pharmaceutical articles.

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I’m an agricultural science editor, and I’ve been involved in this topic for at least two years now. Others such JzG, Beyond my Ken, etc. have outlined the situation pretty well, so my additional cents.

First, there are often content disputes centering around WP:FRINGE. We have numerous statements in the literature that scientific consensus exists on the safety of GMOs. There are small but vocal fringe groups in the scientific community that claim otherwise, do showy press releases (e.g., Seralini affair), and otherwise do things that fringe groups do. The pseudoscience ArbCom case addresses this kind of issue broadly, and the climate change case should detail the very same issues we are dealing with here. Most content disputes in this topic are centered around statements on humans safety (though sometimes other species). The fact that there are peer-reviewed fringe publications out there (similar to climate change) complicates matters and does require some competency on what scientific consensus really means.

The closely tied behavior issues are editors who try to push generally anti-GMO views. Quite a few in that group have a formed a loose gang that now works in numbers against the few remaining other editors in the topic (mostly science editors) both in content and at noticeboards such as ANI. Some came in from involvement in other fringe topics or going after WP:MEDRS editors and joined the fray. Attempts to engage in WP:BRD with these editors often leads to edit warring where requests to go to the talk page or focus on content are ignored. Trying to engage with WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviors in a reasonable manner often results in ANI/AN3 posts with some strong pot calling the kettle black behavior. That behavior coupled with general POV-pushing is extremely taxing for the community, not to mention muddying reputations of editors who try to wade through all the behavior issues to try to work on content.

On WP:ASPERSIONS, one thing I would like the committee to take a pointed look at is the use of the shill gambit in this topic. Myself and others have often been accused of being paid editors, industry supporters, etc. solely because we opposed insertion of content considered to be undue weight for anti-GMO views. This in my view, is the ultimate summation of editors coming in with a strong point of view on the topic, but also a hyper-critical view on anything involving corporations. This results in editors pushing strongly for undue weight, while also clouding their views of other editors not agreeing with them to make a generally neutral editor appear “pro-industry”, “pro-GMO”, etc. It’s a strong mixing of personal editor POV which results in a battleground behavior mostly from one side in this topic, while claims of misdoings for the non-anti-GMO editors tend to be rooted in attempting to deal with these behavior issues above. This could expand the scope of this case to pesticides in general. Recent issues with Adbudctive's behavior [92] [93] (though getting better) will be a good example at the evidence phase. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience, I originally requested that ArbCom make it explicit that the Discretionary Sanctions enacted in the Pseudoscience case apply to content (and accompanying conduct) concerning the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is essentially equivalent to the subset of GMO-related content that is also governed by WP:MEDRS. For typical content within this scope, please see the page on the Séralini affair and the page section on Genetically modified food controversies#Health.

The disputes in this content area go back at least to May 2013 (see Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1#"Broad scientific consensus" and WP:POVFORK). It has recently erupted at a series of incompletely-resolved complaints at WP:EWN: 1, 2, and 3, and a drama-filled discussion at WP:ANI#Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits. My request grew out of a section of that ANI discussion: WP:ANI#Limited discretionary sanctions?.

It would not be unreasonable for the Committee to decide, instead, that a full case request is needed. The GMO controversy also includes scientific content about ecology and the environment that is not pseudoscience, as well as content about economic, business, political, and governmental issues that are outside of the scope. However, the most contentious disputes do center on fringe claims that GMOs are harmful to human health. I suggest that ArbCom should, for now, take a minimal or incremental approach, and see whether or not the community can make discretionary sanctions work. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Some of the editors making statements have spoken in broad terms about two groups of editors: those who POV-push that GMOs are evil, and those that push back. Other editors' statements tend to focus on the conduct of a single editor (Jytdog), and the Committee may find it useful to understand that these same editors are the ones on the opposite side of the POV dispute from that single editor. If this is a full case, there also needs to be an examination of hounding that has been directed at Jytdog. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@GregJackP: I agree with you that there are issues going beyond the GMO health topic, but my comment was arguing in favor of ArbCom starting with a more incremental motion instead of a full case. If there is a full case, then all these things must be examined. And I'd like to think that I am one of those editors who are not strictly in either "camp".

I'm still not sold that we need a full case, but if there is one, I've added myself and seven other editors as named parties.

I suggest that the case name be Agricultural biotechnology (no need for the word "articles"). That way, non-organisms such as Glyphosate are within scope, and of course editor conduct is what is being examined. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

As ArbCom is evaluating the case scope, disruption is getting worse and worse on multiple pages. I suggest that, at the time that you accept the case, you also pass a motion or preliminary injunction that applies DS or the like during the case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Re: the comment about having fewer named parties, just made by JzG/Guy, that would only be correct if one eliminates any consideration of the hounding of Jytdog. A narrowing of the case would be consistent with my original suggestion of DS, but the Committee seems instead to be going towards an examination of all parties. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

In one of the most ridiculously stupid comments I have ever made (and, remember, that I have lots of experience in stupid statements), I'm thinking that maybe ArbCom might want to consider doing something about this. Personally, I think a case might be preferable, as there are other issues than pseudoscience involved, as has been indicated, but I could live with something being done either by amendment or a full case, as long as something gets done. John Carter ( talk) 16:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'd love to see discretionary sanctions against those convinced of the wikipedia cabal being sold out to whoever we are all supposed to be sold out to today, such as jps proposes below. On a slightly related point, and I would welcome any input here, I think the time may have come to question whether we should perhaps change WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV, or at least ask for community discussion of them, to deal with those points where religion and pseudoscience, and, perhaps, fringe or non-majority science, interact. It could also deal with the interactions between mainstream science, "pseudoscience," religion of all sorts, and those areas of the social sciences which sometimes discuss the positions and support of these varied camps. Particular areas of concern, and I guess in this instance I am thinking only theoretically, but others might be able to name specific examples, is the possible question where some scientists declare themselves to hold the majority or truly scientific opinion, and other scientists say that the first group overstates their own position, with perhaps some significant, maybe even majority, of non-scientific or perhaps academic-but-not-science-academia support for the second position, that the "science" of the mainstream or majority scientific position isn't as mainstream or majority as it claims. John Carter ( talk) 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Noting Tryptofish's comment above, I agree the best title would be "genetically modified organisms articles" or similar would be the best title, because I think "GMO" is, as per GMO (disambiguation), an abbreviation for several other entities, including the Glenn Miller Orchestra and the Greater Milwaukee Open, so the full words are probably preferable. John Carter ( talk) 20:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Given discussions ongoing at ANI and elsewhere, I might suggest that perhaps the committee place some sort of temporary sanction on some of the relevant articles until the close of the case. John Carter ( talk) 19:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

A full case imho would be the better way to go. Going strait to DS will miss a lot of the issues in this area. Pseudoscience may not be appropriate as there is hard science involved. There are also issues of ownership and possible tagteaming/meatpuppets involved that deserve a good look. The community has failed to deal with this problem, slapping on DS without a look will not break the back of this problem. It will likely just affect a portion of it. AlbinoFerret 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with AndyTheGrump's statement here [269] and that the infighting has likely scared away editors from the articles. I participated in an RFC on the GMO Food article, but found the caustic nature of the talk page to be more than I wanted to endure, so I left. I believe there are probably others who feel that its just not worth dealing with the caustic nature, and leave, because of this the articles suffer. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

L235 It appears that several responses have gone way over the 500 word limit. Some over 1000. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Commenting on RoseL2P's posting of the links to noticeboard sections. In these sections [270] [271] [272] [273] we find a possible reason for jytdog not facing sanctions, he apologises. The problem is, is that these behaviours are repeated later. AlbinoFerret 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

L235 I notice that one of the editors involved in the case wants the name changed. I dont think that the name or the new ones fits the entire scope of the issue as it involves other pages like Monsanto and Glyphosate. I think a better name would be "GMO and related articles". In any event I think its up to the Arbs and clerks to make these changes. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

At the risk of subjecting myself to yet another arbcom case. I would like to give the committee some context for this discussion. The area of "GMOs", that is genetically engineered food, has been an issue at Wikipedia because of the political controversies associated with this area in Europe, the United States, and, to a lesser extent, India. There are many aspects to this story, but these issues have been showing up at the Fringe theories noticeboard discussions for more than two years:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Fringe_claims_at_March_Against_Monsanto.
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_40#GM_foods

The general argument of many anti-GMO proponents on Wikipedia is either to include sources that indicate that GMOs are bad for health or the environment, but the issue is that these sources tend to be either unpublished or published in dubious journals. The next argument that gets made is that the mainstream articles which are published that indicate genetically modified foodstuffs are not dangerous to health nor are they particularly worse for the environment than non-genetically modified foodstuffs (which are still subject to gene manipulation through many other means -- but no matter) are being written by corporate shills. This is being much trumpeted outside of Wikipedia as well. For example, [http://www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html here] we have an article on a somewhat prominent "natural health" site that loudly proclaims, "Wikipedia claims to be run by "volunteers" but is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on many topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals."

Discretionary sanctions for areas that are likely to be targeted by individuals convinced that Wikipedia is part of the big conspiracy would be useful, and there are a number of accounts who promote rather dubious sourcing claims that probably should be shown the door. Examples of such accounts can be given in the evidence section of an arbcomm case, for example.

jps ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I've had no real involvement with GMO articles, as far as I can recall, but I'd just like to add my voice to those pointing out that this isn't just a 'pseudoscience' issue - there are multiple reasons for opposition to GMOs, many of which have nothing to do with the natural sciences as such, and it is a gross oversimplification to present this as some sort of battle against a fringe driven by irrationality. The debate also involves a complex interaction of economics, politics and sociocultural issues, and proper encyclopaedic coverage needs to take this into account - something that the current battleground behaviour has made a distant prospect. If ArbCom takes on this case, I would suggest that they consider the first priority to be ensuring that measures are taken to ensure that the topic be given the broad encyclopaedic coverage it merits, rather than allowing it to be dominated by faction-fighting AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

RE: Incivility and disruptive behaviour of Jytdog toward me.

After an AN/I resulting in Jytdog being warned for incivility, [396] he persisted in harassing, [397], edit warring, [398] bogus accusations ( User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 8#Edit war warning) and further incivility toward me, e.g. posting in my user-space after I asked him not to. [399] [400] [401] Jytdog used his TP to attack me by posting diffs with comments [402] linking my name to my topic ban or to subjects which Jytdog deliberately portrays me in a negative light, e.g. "3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler" (my emphasis). These comments were totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Jytdog has banned me from his TP, so I was completely unable to defend myself against these uncivil comments. An admin conveyed my thoughts on this incivility [403] but despite ample time to show good faith and redact the comments, Jytdog has chosen not to.

During preparation of this case -

1) Jytdog followed me to Testing cosmetics on animals. I posted a comment on another user's TP [404] whereupon Jytdog posted a message that misrepresented my edit and then immediately deleted this. First, he posted to a TP he is banned from (a repeat behaviour). Second, this "post-an-inflammotory-edit-then-immediately-revert" to bait editors has been noted by other users, including a warning by an admin. [405].

2) Jytdog prematurely halted discussions which offered a real opportunity of reducing the workload on Arbcom. User talk:Petrarchan47#Dr Chrissy, Jytdog

RE: Incivility and disruptive behaviour of Jytdog toward others.

This pattern of behaviour is immediately demonstrable by looking at his TP Contents box (also see his TP Archives)– and noting the numerous times the words “Bullying”, “Edit warring”, “Abuse”, “Disruptions” appear in the title of threads other editors have raised complaining about his behaviour. Jytdog often pushes his POV by repeatedly deliberately misinterpreting PAGs, e.g. [406] [407] [408], deleting content and leaving completely misleading and incorrect edit summaries, e.g. “please wait until there are actual reviews on this”. [409] This is often done in tandem with another editor and because of tandem reverts by the two, the content writer is quickly pushed to breaching 3RR whereupon the “gotcha” is launched. There have been several discussions with Jytdog and others that follow him about the (mis)use of primary and secondary sources in science articles, with suggestions that he tags rather than deletes [410], but he insists on deleting first and asking questions later.

Spurious accusations of EW, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive292#User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog.

I have never edited many of the Monsanto/GM pages being considered here, however, I can provide evidence of Jytdog’s substantial disruption of some pages within this group, but moreover, outwith (e.g. Foie gras and Magnetoception) indicating his widespread disruption to the WP project. It is to me, unfathomable why Jytdog has not received strong sanctions yet. I think AlbinoFerret might have hit the nail-on-the-head; Jytdog apologises…repeatedly (the latest is here [411]). However, I think the time has come that Jytdog stops apologising after the event, and instead learns to treat all editors with the same civility he would expect from them.

Agree with Petrachan47 regarding framing; some of us are neither pro- nor anti-GMO. We are neutral.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I will echo concerns that were raised several months ago by User:SlimVirgin regarding disruptive behavior and the "Monsanto suite of articles" which would likely end up at ArbCom because of "repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests." I agree that it isn't necessarily the result of a COI, rather it could be the result of simply agreeing with a company or advocating one's own beliefs. [451]. Whatever the reason, it doesn't appear anything has changed, and often results in noncompliance with WP:NPOV which creates behavioral issues. It has reached the point of bleeding over into a number of different areas such as BLPs, agriculture and entomology.

To demonstrate this truly is a conduct issue that adding DS will not resolve, I included the following examples:

• [452] Jytog's profanity and bullying
• [453] He becomes outrageous to those who disagree
• [454] He admin shops

There are many more incidents. Atsme ^{📞 📧} 14:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Further disclosure: I filed an ArbCom case against Jytdog's behavior for his abuse of COIN in the recent past, [455], [456]. The case was denied because I failed to seek other means of DR first. [457]. I followed the committee's advice and participated in a 3-0 discussion with Tryptofish, [458]. As a result, Jytdog extended a half-way apology, [459]. I further demonstrated my long standing declarations on the TP of subject fish articles. He apologized further, [460]. I felt a degree of renewed faith, [461]. Sadly, his disruptive behavior returned. I filed an AN/I against three disruptive editors which were ignored while the focus switched to a boomerang initiated against me. The initial attempt failed and we were all slapped with a trout by Georgewilliamherbert [462]. To this day, not one diff was provided to support any of the claims against me. Admin shopping followed the close, [463], [464], [465], [466], [467]. Intentional or coincidental, Bishonen was provoked into action [468], [469], [470]. Jytdog joins in, [471], and closes immediately after Bishonen's block [472]. Jytdog commended this same admin in the past for blocking an editor he desperately wanted blocked after other admins refused to oblige him, [473] (also see diffs above). Jytdog becomes obsessive when he targets an editor as he has done with me. During my block, Bishonen finally advised him to stop posting on my TP, [474], [475], [476]. Atsme ^{📞 📧} 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The definition of verifiability is well-defined on the user page of Someguy1221, and it make sense that it would apply here as well: In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles. Atsme ^{📞 📧} 21:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

This seems headed for acceptance (possibly even before the WP:DEADLINE). As a procedural point, if this comment is accurate I think it the list of parties is likely overly broad. As a first step it would seem prudent to prune this to the list of editors who have a significant long-term history in the area. Anti-GMO partisans are now asking for me to be included due to three edits to Kevin Folta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), primarily removing poorly sourced material, and closing an RfC with a result that doesn't give them everything they want (only most of it). This is bunker mentality, and if this is like most other articles where we see bunker mentality it's probable that a hard core of people might have dragged in some on the periphery who have simply been trying to control the problem. At a minimum I think a count of edits in the contended area should be drawn up.

I AGF in respect of AlbinoFerret and do not think Atsme or DrChrissy are really involved either - they were probably drawn to the dispute only because they have a history of butting heads with Jytdog. RoseL2P shows credible evidence of problematic editing by DrChrissy, but in an unrelated area. Guy ( Help!) 00:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I have copyedited most/all of the articles in question and also added/updated substantive material. I have participated in the RfC and other Talk page discussions. I have neither reverted anybody nor attacked anybody that I can think of. I was reverted by Jytdog, but I also had "critical" edits on safety accepted by that editor. I recently proposed an addition to one article and following feedback by both "sides" added it to a more specific piece without incident.

Therefore I think that progress can in general be made, but I see no prospect that the flashpoint (about whether or not a scientific safety consensus exists) or more broadly whether GMOs are harmful (including GMO-related pesticide impacts and issues beyond human health) can be resolved by the group. Somebody needs to fund a proper poll to put the consensus question to bed.

Many primary sources remain in these articles, so there is much work to do. Continuing to invest rivers of words in these specific issues is hard for me to justify... Lfstevens ( talk) 23:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

It seems very clear that Jytdog has a disproportionately larger number of ANI reports filed against him compared to all other editors [489]. This user seems to be regular participant over at WP:AN/3RR and often succeeds in getting some new user blocked [490] [491] [492] [493] [494] [495] [496], but each time he's reported he always remains unsanctioned [497] [498] [499] [500] [501] [502]. It takes more than one person to edit-war, so it looks to me like he's permanently WP:GAMING the system. I can see a consistent pattern of tag-team reverts by Jytdog and at least one other editor, User:Alexbrn. Here are some examples from three sample articles:

1. BlackLight Power

• IP 84.106.11.117 adds content [503] (19:01, 09/12/14)
• Alexbrn removes content [504] (19:03, 09/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 adds content [505] (19:26, 09/12/14)
• Jytdog removes content [506] (22:17, 09/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 [507] (07:56, 17/12/14)
• Alexbrn removes content [508] (08:14, 17/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 removes content [509] (13:23, 17/12/14)
• Alexbrn restores content [510] (14:00, 17/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 removes content [511] (22:58, 17 /12/14)
• Jytdog restores content [512] (23:15, 17/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 adds content [513] (08:44, 24/12/14)
• Jytdog removes content [514] (15:58, 24/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 adds content [515] (15:01, 25/12/14)
• Jytdog removes content [516] (15:03, 25/12/14)
• IP 84.106.11.117 adds content [517] (15:16, 25/12/14)
• Alexbrn removes content [518] (15:20, 25/12/14)

2. Foie gras

• DrChrissy adds content [519] (15:43, 12/03/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [520] (15:46, 12/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [521] (16:05, 13/0315)
• Jytdog removes content [522] (16:21, 13/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [523] (00:13, 14/03/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [524] (04:20, 14/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [525] (10:11, 14/03/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [526] (10:12, 14/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [527] (10:28, 14/03/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [528] (10:45, 14/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [529] (10:50, 14/03/15)
• Jytdog removes content [530] (19:23, 14/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [531] (11:57, 15/03/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [532] (12:27, 15/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [533] (13:14, 15/03/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [534] (13:15, 15/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [535] (21:29, 15/03/15)
• Jytdog removes content [536] (21:31, 15/03/15)
• DrChrissy adds content [537](23:25, 19/03/15)
• Jytdog removes content [538] (23:45, 19/03/15)

3. Michael Greger

• Sactasia adds content [539] (18:12, 03/09/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [540] (18:16, 03/09/15)
• Sactasia adds content [541] (19:04, 03/09/15)
• Jytdog removes content [542] (19:04, 03/09/15)
• Sactasia adds content [543] (19:12, 03/09/15)
• Jytdog removes content [544] (19:17, 03/09/15)
• Samcarecho adds content [545] (11:21, 12/09/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [546] (11:25, 12/09/15)
• Samcarecho adds content [547] (11:44, 12/09/2015)
• Alexbrn removes content [548] (11:45, 12/09/15)
• Samcarecho adds content [549] (12:14, 12/09/15)
• Jytdog removes content [550] (13:58, 12/09/15)
• Samcarecho adds content [551] (15:37, 12/09/15)
• Alexbrn removes content [552] (16:02, 12/09/15)

It's fairly obvious that their strategy is to "share" their reverts amongst themselves, so both appear not to have overstepped the 3RR limit on any single day. The Editor Interaction Analyser shows many of their edits logged within hours or minutes apart (some separated by less than 60 seconds), which, together with the evidence presented above, strongly suggests a disruptive pattern of tag-team editing that extends beyond GMO articles. RoseL2P ( talk) 12:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• @Guy/JzG - Have you noticed that this RFC [553], which you recently closed to much controversy [554] [555] [556] [557], was started by the same editor that you recently warned and blocked [558] [559]? This does not necessarily mean that you are involved, but it does give off the impression that you may be. I suggest you consider stepping back for a few moments.
• @DrChrissy and Jytdog - Since both of you have carried over your disputes from Foie gras to Glyphosate, I endorse Tryptofish's proposal for an injunction to apply temporary DS during the case. RoseL2P ( talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I would like to point out that the only thing that Rose2LP's list shows is that the fringers aren't in any way shy about opening noticeboard complaints against Jytdog, trying to shut him down by any means possible -- however, they've been very unsuccessful at getting their complaints to stick and result in sanctions. Looking at WP:Editing restrictions I see only a voluntary I-ban with CorporateM, which has nothing to do with this issue, and his block log is completely clear. Rose2LP appears to feel that the fact he's not been sanctioned means that he's gaming the system. A more reasonable and logical conclusion is that he hasn't been sanctioned because he's not done anything sanctionable. BMK ( talk) 03:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Unless, of course, he's protected by the infamous pro-GMO admin cabal. BMK ( talk) 03:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@Cla68 - An encyclopedia such as ours isn't a repository of "ambiguity", it is a repository of information which is supported by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Unfortunately for the anti-GMO crowd, the reliable sources in this instance do not support their position. BMK ( talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I think you have enough information right here in this case request to make a workable decision: ban all the participants editing from a polarized position, i.e. the anti-GMO and opposing "pro-science" editors (who appear more-than-happy to openly identify themselves), and leave the editors who recognize the topic as more nuanced than that to work things out in a civil manner. Problem solved. Remember what Theodor Adorno said, "Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality." Cla68 ( talk) 06:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I just read through all the ANI and other threads that RoseL2P posted in her section which made something glaringly obvious. As with other cases involving controversial topics in WP, WP's administration was frequently requested to help resolve the problems involved here and spectacularly failed. The incompetence, buffoonery, and general idiocy evident in those threads as WP's administrators proceeded to stumble all over each other in completely failing to address the problems presented to them would be laughable if it didn't have as much precedent as it does. This case serves to show that one of WP's major problems is that its admin corps can't, apparently, see any forests for the trees because they have their heads jammed so far up their arses. Why can't WP's admins effectively deal with problems like this? Well, many of them allow their political biases to influence their decisions, many of them treat established editors differently than newbie editors, they don't take complaints seriously unless they're presented in a certain way, which only veteran editors know how to do, they want to avoid making decisions that would require any major follow-up on their part, and, finally, they simply don't have adequate skills in critical thinking and problem solving. Sad, sad, sad. What's sadder is that if ArbCom accepts this case, only the involved editors will face sanctions. The incompetents who currently make-up WP's regular ANI patrollers and have access to those "block" buttons will escape censure. Cla68 ( talk) 07:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I edited at the March against Monsanto article back in 2013 and that gave me a taste of the toxicity of this topic area, causing me to generally steer clear of GMO-related articles since.

Very broadly: what I think I'm seeing here is a number of editors who appear zealous in pushing an anti-GMO & conspiracist POV. Jytdog is one of several editors working hard against this to hold the neutral line and, as an effective editor, has earned himself a number of loosely-aligned "enemies". This group has now grown in number sufficiently that they seem to think they can get action taken against Jytdog: and this has resulted in much drama, not least at ANI - there's a kind of "March against Jytdog" if you will.

Some important things are at stake here. Is Wikipedia a respectable publication that adheres to the best of human knowledge, or does it bow to popular misconception? How can we support editors who uphold Wikipedia's aims, and how far should we indulge those who would undermine them? I think an arbcom case would help to clarify where the lines are drawn, see how editors stand in relation to them, and issue guidance and/or enact sanctions to improve things in the future. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Though my experience with Jytdog and these articles is limited, I point to interactions here and here as verification of some points Jytdog has raised. I attempted to rectify what I believed to be one-sided and defamatory statements ( WP:YESPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:BALASPS), written by authors I believe had anti-GMO, anti-biotech agendas. I felt the Syngenta article presented Tyrone Hayes' side of a long-running dispute, but omitted coverage of Syngenta's defense, and any facts calling Hayes' viewpoint into question. When I rewrote to reduce bias, it was repeatedly reverted, devolving into a double 3RR and edit war. Jytdog restored order and worked with all parties to create the current text, which sticks to undisputed facts only and does present both sides. In short, he worked to balance without advocating for any one view. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I find FMK's interpretation of Rose's comments convincing. Repeated write-ups, and exonerations, of Jytdog proves only that he has many opponents, in part due to the controversial topics he edits; and that, while he can have an abrasive personality (particularly when others show similar incivility), his actions are not deserving of more than censure. He has occasionally stepped over the line, but which of his opponents has not? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 17:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Jusdafax Your comment regarding glyphosate safety illustrates the problem well. (JzG also points this out.) You state claims of glyphosate safety are unencyclopedic and POV, despite a supermajority of relevant scientific literature supporting that position. You also compare glyphosate - which has little valid evidence of nonsafety - with DDT and tobacco - which have ample evidence. You justify this position with your belief that nonsafety will be proven in future, an untenable position that by definition is POV. Accordingly, you and others repeatedly revert statements and citations regarding glyphosate's safety, causing WP to contradict/misstate established scientific evidence, which Jytdog then corrects. You then attack Jytdog for those corrections. Yet you claim that Jytdog, not yourself, is POV? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 14:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Petrarchan47 See [ [560]]. Your link focuses on 2,4-D, not glyphosate; on glyphosate, IARC is a single exception to scientific consensus as my link explains; appropriately, my link also notes how strongly anti-GMO advocates (including some countries like France which ignore scientific evidence while policy-making) have latched onto IARC's findings, ignoring strong scientific consensus and problems with IARC's methodology. Monsanto is being scientifically responsible by requesting retraction of a junk, biased study (per independent scientists, see my link). Jtrevor99 ( talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Related to the above: Immediately after protection on Glyphosate expired, a user resumed the edit war by adding a reference to Seralini's highly controversial safety study. No mention of, or link to, the controversy was made; instead, Seralini's scientifically contested findings were stated as fact. There are hundreds of examples of this behavior I could cite. I can understand Jytdog's frustration and occasional "lashing out" as he constantly fights what he (and I) believe to be an attempt by numerous authors to bias WP articles in favor of the anti-GMO viewpoint. All involved authors, not just Jytdog, need to be a focus for this arbitration. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 15:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Reading the Sept 5 ANI was the first I have looked at this entire dispute, and my distinct impression is that it was little more than a case of gang warfare. As JzG points out, this is the same old battle. A small group trying to protect the project vs. a larger group trying to eliminate roadblocks preventing their POVs from taking over. In this case, to the point where a couple of editors made dramatically bad faith suggestions of "short" (i.e.: 30-60 day) "cool down blocks" for an editor with a clean block log "just to hammer the point home". I find on initial read that I support JzG and BMK's positions the most, but Andy's view deserves merit also since the overall debate does go beyond the basic science vs. fringe issue of GMOs in isolation. I am a bit worried about the suggestion this be handled by motion. This seems to be complex enough to warrant a full case rather than just swinging a proverbial flail around and (topic) banning whatever targets it randomly hits. Reso lute 16:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

My concerns, and my opinions, of course:

• • To explain my position which may have been misunderstood: What is at stake is that a supposedly neutral encyclopedia has the potential for placing itself on a world stage in terms of its position in this case on GMOs. WP has a perceived house POV on some topics, unfortunately noted in the press on several occasions. No POV, and by that I do not mean either pro or any con anything, is supported by our 5 Pillars, and as we've seen in the past, with less contentious topics, we have the potential to impact beyond our "walls". I am not suggesting that the arbs take a position on GMOs. (I wanted to make sure I am not contributing to marble loss in our arbs.)

Research on GMO can only be considered pseudoscience if the science\ research is poorly conducted or non existent, but is not automaticalluy pseudoscience if considered fringe.

GMO articles include social and economic aspects which are not related to science.

GMO research and the nature of GMO will tell with time unlike much other research. For example, what will be the long term impact of those organisms that cannot reproduce. Because of this it is imperative that WP not take a position in any way which could both impact GMO and have a larger impact.

Im my experience, Jytdog's comments are laced with assumptions which constitute personal attacks . However, I hear he is a good editor in other aspects. As long as editors are encouraged to be the gatekeepers of certain kinds of articles, their behaviours are underpinned with implied support. We need good editors but those editors have to be aware they are damaging people and environments in their undertsandable quest to "protect" articles.

WP has become adept at releasing (nice word) experts in favour of competence including a nobel laureate. WP competence is not a replacement for expertise in a topic area. Further we need experts and new editors, and we need those who are competent to support, and nurture experts even if they disagree with them. I'd add that an editor who is truly expert in an area can become pretty frustrated quickly if treated with out respect. Some editors know this and bait those experts until they break, then call for sanctions sometimes citing incompetence. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is not the encyclopedia anyone can edit if they're competent. All editors are incompetent in some areas and at some time. I find it frustrating to see editors with tens of thousands of edits calling for newer editors to be sanctioned for incompetence.

And again and again, the line that has been drawn between POV is skewed towards a view that sees neutral as a supportive position rather than a neutral position.

• • Does anyone think that Monsanto is not in some way controlling or at least contributing to its own articles?

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I mostly edit biology-related articles and have some of these on my watchlist, but am not involved in the current dispute.

Echoing others above, this is a classic civil POV-pushing case. Several editors have been making the GMO topic area difficult by being unable to effectively search the literature or interpret what they find, by lacking key background knowledge about evaluating relevant sources, and by hounding and harassing other editors - most notably Jytdog - who do know how to do those things and who are working to ensure that the articles present scientific consensus. Probably as a result of this dynamic, Jytdog has made some errors lately, especially getting bogged down in side issues on the legal articles. (IMO Jytdog's opinions of PraeceptorIP's work, and Jytdog's presence in COI disputes in general, are well out of scope here.)

Wikipedia dispute-resolution processes have a history of putting "content disputes" in a black box. I'm commenting here mainly to emphasize that these patterns of misunderstanding or misreading sources for POV purposes, even if they are the result of good-faith efforts motivated by sincere belief, are behavior problems in and of themselves. They are worse than the kind of problematic behavior that attracts attention at ANI - cursing and shouting and "incivility" and so on - because they have the potential to damage content rather than just causing internal drama. The GMO/Monsanto articles are at the center of the current dispute, but there are recurrent disputes with overlapping participants elsewhere in the "alternative"/fringe/pseudoscience space. Without addressing the underlying behaviors, we'll get that weird effect of agitated tedium that comes from a two-month arbcom case, and then the problem will just migrate to a new topic anyway. I think discretionary sanctions are a total bog* and even I think they are needed here, ideally accompanied by some very broad topic bans. Many of the problem editors do work productively in other areas, and the GMO articles would benefit from tools for effective management of POV-pushing behavior. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC) *By which I mean, it is easy to get bogged down in all the associated paperwork; they create distractions by encouraging wikilawyering over scope; and I think that subjecting specific content areas to special rules that are opaque to new or casual editors should be approached very conservatively. reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Regarding this diff given by Petrarchan47 [582], I can't find the claim in the (very primary) source. All it seems to say is that the terminology seemed to change after a conference held in 1996, the conspiracy theory stuff (implying that Eli Lilly et al did it) doesn't seem to be in there...which makes the stuff Jytdog removed look like POV and OR...and accusing him of "spindoctoring" on those grounds looks like an assumption of bad faith. If it helps, here is the WHO document in English, linked to the most relevant page, which still doesn't support the content. [583] Geogene ( talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I hope that the Committee will include a look into "shill gambits" and whether they're a contributing factor in the subject area(s). Geogene ( talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The internet has lots of places where you can read unsourced, subjective discussions about how GMO foods are going to be the death of us all. This is the one place that is sufficiently high-profile that it can educate everyday readers on the scientific consensus about GMO foods. Since WP is intended for a general audience and the scientific literature is not, these articles can provide rational arguments that counter the many blogs and sites where people present evidence that supports their personal POV.

I read some of the cases involving Jytdog and I think that editor is acting primarily in good faith, but tends to cause offense by removing the work of other editors who have made a substantial effort to prepare content. This is a WP:OWN ownership issue, but not on Jytdog's part. Every article is a collaborative effort. Once posted, no content has an owner, and any editor may change the article if the are acting in good faith to improve it.

It has been proposed that the ability to effectively search and interpret the scientific literature is a prerequisite for making quality contributions to this article. I agree. There is a lot of work in the scientific literature; some is good, some is bad, but overall a consensus does emerge. Good scientists continually challenge their own ideas, and an honest paper that reflects the consensus will clearly state where further work is needed. Bad science is marked not as much by an adherence to a political view as by overconfidence in the author's work; thus, bad science doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny. Also, good scientists allow their own views to change. So editors who believe they have found a source that makes a powerful anti-GMO statement should set up a talk page discussion. It can then be read by several others, and, if the paper does really make that statement, the original editor or somebody else can edit the article.

What I've just said, in essence, is that important issues need review by multiple people with relevant experience. Concluding, this is an important enough issue that it should be reviewed by WP at all levels; there should be recommendations on which specific editors should participate and how editing should be done, to ensure that the article gives reliable and objective information. Roches ( talk) 22:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Unless the arbs have lost their collective marbles they're not going to rule on the current status of scientific debate over GMOs. So there's no point in making arguments in that direction.

This leaves us with conduct -- the traditional remit of Arbcom. In this regard it is relevant that many (not all) of those on the "anti" GMO side (for lack of a better term) are energetic and tenacious proponents of various novel and imaginative concepts, and have displayed much the same behavior when dealing with those issues. That doesn't make them wrong with respect to GMOs, and in fact I agree with many of their points on the topic, but that's neither here nor there. What it means is that the case will have to extend beyond GMOs in order to build a complete picture of the conduct of the parties. If the case is confined strictly to the GMO arena the battle will simply move on to other fronts and Arbcom is likely to see many of the same parties back here in another context.

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I am glad the Arbcom is open to looking at applying DS to GMO articles. However, I have serious doubts that much of the poor conduct noted will get resolved without accepting a full case here that looks at individual editor behavior. For instance, Jytdog routinely edits articles already under DS's and his behavior is just the same there as it was in these diffs. When he engages others in what should be talk page discussions, he resorts to personal attacks. There is rarely substance to his arguments, and I'm afraid that's because he is severely deficient in understanding policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. See this diff here for evidence of how Jytdog just doesn't understand the very basics of Wikipedia editing. Since he believes it's reasonable for editors opposing him to "recuse themselves" and since he thinks it's reasonable to delete high quality sources simply because he disagrees with their conclusions, since that is his "starting point", how must he behave when editors have serious disputes with him? Recently I had to file an RfC on MEDRS because editors like Jytdog believe in stereotyping all sources simply because of the country they come from, instead of examining them on a case-by-case basis as we all should. It's sad that today we even have to dispute things like this. In my estimation, if behavior isn't examined now, Arbcom will definitely be looking at behavioral problems here in a few months after putting the topic under DS's, just as Arbcom is having to do with E-Cigarette. LesVegas ( talk) 04:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I have been troubled by the behavior of many of the parties involved here. This issue is not science versus pseudoscience or pseudoskepticiam; it is mostly about bad behavior. The lengthy ANI thread provided dozens of diffs showing the less-than-ideal behavior on all sides, but what concerned me the most was the tactics used by Jytdog to attack just about every single person who said anything against his behavior—and his behavior was often very bullying in tone and attitude. While I also think it is important to hold to clear standards on sourcing, NPOV, SCIRS and so on, the tone I'm seeing has gotten very personal and gone well past the topics at hand. While I respect the work that the science-based editors do to keep articles free of fringe theories, some of the content they are shutting down is better described as "new", "disputed" or "controversial" than "fringe." It is appropriate to describe the controversies up to a reasonable point.

I'd compare this to the Climate Change issue more than the Pseudoscience issues in that there are competing claims and a lot of politics with a great deal of money at stake. On the other hand, comparing Climate Change to the GMO issue, there is far less settled science and a lot more controversy - no IPCC equivalent for GMO research at this point. The other problem is that a lot of "science" is industry-funded, making the results of dubious value, but a lot of the opposition research is not very scientific in its design and the results are largely anecdotal. We have a significant "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" situation here.

One thing that ArbCom should look at in this process is the proper application of WP:RS MEDRS and SCIRS to articles with news and political aspects; news and political issues are, by their nature, very different in sourcing from scientific evidence but news sources on the controversies may be valid material to include. For example, a statement like "Issue foo has been controversial, as reported in [The New York Times] when blah, blah, blah occurred"(reliable news source) would be entirely appropriate in a GMO article, and to exclude such content on the grounds of MEDRS or SCIRS is, at best, concerning. Obviously any actual scientific or health claims need to be backed by rigorous sourcing, but what I am seeing in this and related articles is a literal interpretation of the sourcing policies to exclude the broader political and historical context. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

If y'all take this case, y'all need to examine how editors are using sources and take appropriate steps if editors are found violating sourcing policies. 'nuff said. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

If the scope of the case is limited to GM related articles, I should not be a party to the case - as I have not edited any of those articles or their talk pages. I am entirely neutral on the topic - I have nothing against Monsanto (they were a major client of my former firm, but I was never involved at all); I am not pro- or anti-GMO. I am part of no cabal, I do not promote FRINGE or PSEUDOSCIENCE and as far as content goes, I support the overall scientific community. Presumably, I was added to the case because I have opposed Jytdog in the AN/I, which Jytdog and Tryptofish would likely characterize as me "hounding" Jytdog.

This is not an of science vs. fringe/pseudo-science. This is a behavior issue, centered around Jytdog and his extreme OWNERSHIP of the "Monsanto suite" of articles. A close look at his edit patterns in Monsanto/GM articles will reveal nothing short of ADVOCACY and POV pushing. His activist editing cannot be missed or ignored. While it is true that most scientists consider GM foods safe so far, Jytdog pushes his non-neutral POV wayyyyyyy beyond this. Jytdog's months-long pursuit to include a SYNTH/OR statement of "broad scientific consensus" is nearly pathological. he keeps losing but he never gives up - he just forum shops and opens more RfC's and refuses to accept consensus against him. What's ironic is that he often erroneously accuses others of SYNTH/OR when he is the most tendentious abuser of those policies when it comes to his agenda. Minor 4th 16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

FYI - happening now on Glyphosate, a microcosm of the dispute: [607]

Minor 4th 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's a rather stark example of Jytdog's misuse of policies and guidelines to bully others over content disputes: [608]. He actually says it's COPYVIO to move material from a sandbox to article space. This happened today after Jytdog edit warred to keep out info he didn't like on Glyphosate and then got the page protected. Minor 4th 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I'm acquainted with people on both sides of GMO and have no opinion on the underlying issues. I did actively edit March Against Monsanto a couple of years ago, as I felt that it was too skewed toward the Monsanto POV, but I haven't revisited the subject matter since then, My personal views tend to fall a bit on the skeptical side, re the anti-GMO claims. It seems to me that Arbcom needs to stay away from content issues, and in that regard I notice the prominent role played in this by Jytdog, whom I encountered many months ago in BP when I was new to Wikipedia and wet behind the ears. We were, more or less, on the same side, except that it was hard to tell. The reason it was hard to tell was that his personal conduct was so off-putting: condescending and antagonistic.

At about the same time, just by coincidence, he and I were indeed on the same side in Hydroxycut and our contacts there were quite civil. However, at BP he became such a "pill" in general, starting up useless and unnecessary talk page and user page discussions, behaving in an insulting manner, that eventually I asked him to remain off my talk page, a request that still stands even though he occasionally disregards it. When Jytdog found that he was not "getting his way" on the BP talk page, he left in a great huff and said he would never darken its door again. His tendency to clutter talk pages with time-wasting chatter continues to this day. I haven't followed the GMO page or pages to any extent over the past couple of years, but I would suggest that Arbcom focus on the underlying user conduct issues regardless of what the arbs' sentiments may be on the underlying content issues. Jytdog may be right on the science, I have no opinion. But he needs to work cooperatively with other editors and in my experience he has not shown any willingness to do so.

In response to Cla68's comments above, I think it's a big mistake to sweep off all the editors who have an interest in these GMO articles, so that "neutral" editors (i.e., those without much interest in the subject matter) can weigh in and make it perfect. Unless the behavior is egregious, that is. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)updated to trim, consolidate and remove boo-boos, Coretheapple ( talk) 21:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Seeing as The Committee is 7-0 on accepting this case as of this posting, I urge the members to take as wide a view as reasonably possible of the overall GMO/Monsanto/glyphosate topic, consisting of dozens of articles in total, as well as long-term editor behavior going back years.

On August 5, 2013‎ I made my first edit in the area, to the Glyphosate article. In my edit summary, I noted that the sentence in the lede I strongly objected to, namely "glyphosate more closely approximates to a perfect herbicide than any other" (as an unattributed quote) was WP:UNDUE, and I stated in my edit summary that "it comes off as a public relations statement and is deeply unencyclopedic."

My deletion was reverted, I reverted it again, I was again reverted and a third editor agreed with me and struck the sentence again, at which time the article was page protected for three days.

That led to this exchange on my Talk page, as well as this discussion on the Glyphosate Talk page. As can be seen, I felt slimed by Jytdog on my Talk page, and did not see fit to discuss further. Final result: my deletion stood. But the incident left a bad taste in my mouth, and I walked away, choosing not to substantially edit on glyphosate for the next two years.

I ask concerned parties to contemplate the events I point out. Jytdog, the editor who had controversially merged the Glyphosate article with the "Roundup" (Monsanto's brand name for their glyphosate herbicide) article, had been editing the article(s) for about a year and was fine with the statement as it stood in the lede until enough light was cast on it so that it was revealed as unencyclopedic and not replaced. Again, think about that.

This one example I am familiar with is a tiny part of the whole, and is the type of thing that needs to be examined across the "suite" of articles in question. This POV editing is both subtle, and at times not so subtle, in terms of behavior and content. Many of the edits Jytdog adds or deletes are obvious improvements, but I believe that he mixes in a strong POV supporting Monsanto's GMO's and herbicide products, and as Petrarchan47 correctly and brilliantly asserts in the statement above, is all centered on the unproven and unencyclopedic claim that Monsanto's products are "safe" which can't be known one way or another at present and may not be for several generations. Think DDT, and tobacco.

I submit that Jytdog is the lead actor in a Wiki-drama, including abusive, bad-faith editing just in the past several weeks, that has gone on far too long. I feel I should have done more to stop this, but now this matter is before Wikipedia's Supreme Court. Thanks for taking on the case; may justice be done. Jus da fax 13:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

NOTE: A relevant discussion regarding Jytdog's unilateral addition of me as a Party, only minutes after posting this, is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Jus da fax 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Over the years I've watched WP turn further and further towards what I consider to be a male-dominated information resource. I'ts been frustrating and I don't know what to do about it. I'm finding it harder and harder to edit in areas that are important to me, areas that as a woman I feel I have a lot to offer. High on my list is the environment and the effects of chemicals that I believe to be affecting my children, grandchildren, and the children of years to come. It is already quite difficult to enter negative information into many of our chemical articles and stay within the WP quide lines for RS, but there is a constant push from Jytdog, Kingofaces43, and a few others to apply WP:MEDRS to our chemical articles as well, even when there is no direct human effect.

On my user page I have a Chris Hedges quote in which he suggests that "corporations" have come to control every area of our lives, and I suggest that there is every reason to believe that Wikipedia needs to take care to see that our encyclopedia is not taken over as well. Selective use of facts, selective use of WP policies and guidelines, and the way that wording is framed in our articles can be used to bias our environmental articles. I believe it to be dangerous when just one editor, Jytdog who considers himself to be the "steward" of Monsanto's many articles, including even far-reaching articles such as the Precautionary Principle article, is found to be the top editor almost without fail. Looking at the talk page for this article where I feel that Jytdog used very poor judgement and the Monsanto legal cases article where he argues against including several West Coast class action cases, I believe that there is good reason to believe that his "stewardship" needs to be considered.

I also believe that we need to look at the way that most of our alternative medicine articles are now labeled pseudoscience and have drifted so far from what most of our readers consider to be safe and effective ways to deal with many health issues. We also need to look at the March Against Monsanto article which turned into over 11 pages of talk because it was felt that Wikipedia needed to correct the marcher's belief that GMOs may cause physical harm (which I tend to doubt). I'm finding more and more of this sort of paternalistic attitude these days. (I hope that I have not drifted too far from the scope of what this hearing is meant to address.) Gandydancer ( talk) 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I have had a remarkably similar experience with Jytdog on articles on various commercial diets; his edits on the Scarsdale Diet, in which he google- dredges cites, and then disavows his own chosen cite, (a rather good one, and the only really decent one in the trawl) is inadvertently hilarious. Should this go here, fleshed out a bit, or form a separate Arb request? Anmccaff ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

PS: please feel free to correct format issues here.

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

All of the GMO articles have been owned by Jytdog and pro-GMO editors (e.g. KingofAces), since about 2013 biasing the material pro-GMO since then, and attempts to balance it are immediately reverted by Jytdog and supporters. Jytdog assumed control of the “suite” of GMO articles here. In 2014, he said: “A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up...” ( here). I explained with diffs in this response. There, I point out that Jytdog bites new users who he perceives as “anti-GMO” accusing them of being WP:SPA ( example). I was no exception: he threatened that things would get “ugly” here, if I didn't retract mention of this article about pro-GMO researcher Pamela Ronald.

Jytdog says here that his lede's and organization are “essential -- to retain these explicit guideposts.” Many of the ledes were rewritten to read more like PR press releases, using weasel words, ommission and other tactics to mute criticism of GMO's and bolster pro-GMO arguments (e.g. paragraph 2 of Genetically modified food controversies, from edits like this). A look at Jytdog's total edits show his dominance over the articles: 2375 edits to the top 6 articles he is involved in (4 GMO articles, Glyphosate and Monsanto) and hundreds more to other biotech/GMO articles. here.

Any attempt to change an article to not be pro-GMO or is respectful of those who criticize GMO's is immediately reverted [diffs-TBA]. Anyone questioning GMO technology is pejoratively an “opponent” [diffs-TBA] or anti-GMO [diffs-TBA]. Any WP:RS that shows problems with GMOs is immediately deemed to be WP:Fringe or advocacy [diffs-TBA]. Why? Because it does not reflect these editors' agenda, not because it is unreliable.

The recent RfC here that challenged the manufactured WP:OR “scientific consensus” statement, shows the kind of double-standards the pro-GMO editors use: They happily quote positive aspects of GMO's from the WHO, AMA and FAO statements, but ignore negative statements that contradict their position from the exact same sources ( here).

Jytdog and his supporters use double-standards in declaring articles “advocacy”--pushing for the statements by the AAAS and AMA that were part of a pro-GMO campaign to successfully stop labelling propositions in a number of states here, yet scientists expressing concerns about GMO's are silenced, even if their work meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS, that this group insists is required of the GMO articles, despite the fact that the regulation of GMO's is a political issue, not medical advice—the purpose of WP:MEDRS. Despite the fact regulations of GMO's vary widelfy among countries, anywhere from complete bans to the very lax regulation of the U.S., the lede's of the GMO articles omit this (e.g. Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetically_modified_organisms). Wikipedia deems GMO's safe based on the flawed “scientific consensus” (which is WP:OR) and hence has determined that the regulations of all these other countries is not warranted and should be glossed over. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

1. The scope of this hearing appears to be settling on GMO articles. I want to point out that besides article titles with the terms "genetically modified", the topic includes pages about the pertinent chemicals, their regulation and manufacturers, at a minimum, so when I use the term GMO I have all that in mind. The latter are the pages I have been editing, and where I first encountered jytdog. I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris' point that for a “complete picture” the case would have to extend beyond. This dispute extends into at least two more major areas: the WikiprojectMedicine, with a pharmaceutical “suite of articles” (Glaxo Smith Kline, Sandoz etc), + their legal problems, toxic substances like PCB’s, some of which I edit and his work on WP:MedRS, and "scientific consensus" which has become instrumentalized as a “weapon” beyond its purpose. The other large area is the WP:COI field (guidelines) and the WP:COIN. jytdog has opened WP:COI cases on editors he doesn’t agree with (e.g. SageRad), suspicious for instrumentalization. I am not suggesting to extend the scope, but want the Committee to realize the magnitude of this dispute.
2. History of the dispute: I thank David Tornheim for researching what began before I joined WP, and the 2 diffs re historical beginning in his statement. Thanks to RoseL2P for listing diffs, which show how many people were brave enough to go to ANI with jytdog (a tip of the iceberg of those he interacted with negatively). My personal experience of the dispute began after Jytdog removed info I added in my fourth ever edit on WP on Syngenta and has continued ever since.
3. Who advocates which point of view: jytdog and Kingofaces edit closely aligned, which first looks like magical coincidence, supported and defended by alexbrn, JzG, Beyond My Ken, Resolute (per their statements above), but also Formerly98, Edgar181 and others arguing the POV that “GMO”-science, -food, related chemicals are safe to put it simply. jytdog will take issue with, revert, and if this does not suffice, attack and threaten editors in edit summaries, on talkpages, those editors who add info that could be perceived as negative or critical, esp. toxicology, environmental health/ecology, history of regulation, international views (particularly EU), and regulatory gaps, like myself, Prokaryotes, GregJackP, Petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, DrChrissy, Littleolive oil, Montanabw, LesVegas, Jusdafax, Gandydancer, SageRad and David Tornheim (all stated above) and occasionally SlimVirgin, Factsearch, DePiep, HughD, Tsavage and Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH). He has driven away from that area: EllenCT, Viriditas and Jrtayloriv and likely more. These are serious content editors, some for a long time, whom I respect as fair, AGF editors and have never had a problem with.
4. Uncivil and/or deceptive behavior beyond the above: WP:BITE, specifically targeting/exploiting an editor's personal attributes/ nationality or whatever he considers a weakness, gaming the system and providing false WP:EDIT SUMMARY to cover up or make discovery for the casual reader more difficult- often used by Kingofaces. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 09:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I endorse Wuerzele's claim that User:jytdog and User:Kingofaces43 are extremely difficult to work with. They are both vindictive and hold vendettas. I respect the work that Jytdog does and am willing to give him a pass to some extent, but I'm convinced that Kingofaces is a paid shill, because, for example, when I asked him for "literature reviews supporting the contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD" he produced [735] which is not a systematic literature review, and which states, "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." Bayer is known to be a prolific astroturfer on that topic. At [736] Kingofaces indicates that he uses Bayer's neonicotinoids professionally. Kingofaces declined to specify his job title (after claiming that he had special professional expertise) or characterize his experience, even without any personally identifying information.

However, I have not edited GMO articles in the past year and am unfamiliar with any of the current disputes mentioned in this case. EllenCT ( talk) 18:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I am not an Involved party. I arrived here because Wuerzele pinged me. I had a quarrel with Jytdog March 2015, ending at ANI. Re-reading that dispute, and reading the posts here, I see a behaving pattern by Jytdog that would merit this case be accepted.

The pattern is this. Early in a discussion, Jytdog resorts to WP:-caps claims like NPOV, FRINGE, COI, POV, OWN. From there, it is black/white and there is no way back any more to ask questions & discuss towards a consensus. Also, these approaches by Jytdog often introduce irrelevant personal notes bordering PA. I note that Jytdog does not look for dispute resolution at all. No proposal, no looking for a meeting point. Even on this page, I read no awareness of their behaviour being possibly problematic (it even occurs to me that Jytdog is consistently evading these points).

As for the possible-COI refuting [737] by Jytdog, I am not convinced. This route does not allow for scrutiny, or sound checking. We also don't know how thorough the investigation by that person was. Since the stakes in RL GMO are high (and so the involved means), I'd expect a better check except for 'my word on it to one other'.

As this request is to improve our Wikipedia, I add that because of this battling way of doing disputes like by Jytdog (including the one I mentioned), I have lost a considerable about of fun in editing, and so have reduced my editing into a semi-retirendness level. This is a direct consequence of current dispute resolution at WP. - DePiep ( talk) 10:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I find the analysis by/at #Statement_by_RoseL2P quite disturbing, showing a gaming of the system. - DePiep ( talk) 11:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

Behaviors by a certain category of editors are very very bad, seriously out of line far too often, and something needs to be done. Dialog is absolutely impossible in many cases, with many other editors. There is a huge lack of integrity and editors are gaming and forcing their agendas into pages. I've been editing in this topic area for about five months now, and i see a battleground mentality. I see ideological polarization and agenda-based editing happening. The whole topic area is a toxic editing environment. There is a sore lack of integrity in dialogue. There is severe Wikilawyering going on. Some editors act like the own whole articles, and even act like they own Wikipedia itself. They act like the saviors and protectors of Wikipedia, as if there are unwashed hordes of simpletons who wish to mess it all up. They are consistently condescending, and act like anyone who disagrees with them on content must surely not understand "how things work around here". They have become like an army of flying monkeys, to impose a pseudoscientific ideology upon Wikipedia, which attempts to co-opt science itself, and pretends to have a window on "the truth" more than mere mortals like you or me, or anyone who uses their heart and mind and science and wishes to amend an article to be more balanced. They think they own the entire topical area that has to do with agrochemicals and the human food supply. They are seriously a problem in terms of objectivity and balance and the working of Wikipedia. There are checks and balances in Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, but these have been co-opted and subverted by this army of flying monkeys. It's really not cool. I'm glad this simmering conflict is coming to a head. I hope with all my heart that we can stand up with integrity, and see what is what, call a spade a spade, a hoe a hoe, and an agenda an agenda, and get this place cleaned up and real. We need integrity around here. This is important.

Note that Robert McClenon's newfound desire to punish people who speak up is a result of my request for an uninvolved editor to close the RfC that was closed by a biased editor, JzG (though JzG disputes such bias, it's clear to me and many others), and constitutes a strong-arming intimidation against me for asking for an unbiased RfC close. More deeply twisted stuff. Back in June he wanted my user page deleted because i said what i saw. He's hated me for a while.

JzG/Guy seems to be pretty combative and to make many personal attacks against me in dialogues such as this dialog (e.g. [738] [739] [740]) and apparently has profiled me here and further revealed here which seems to be a clear violation of WP:OUTING (and i do not confirm the allegations). I'd like to ask arbitrators to consider him involved at this point. The way he has been hounding and denigrating me is pretty troubling and intimidating for an admin to do.

Jytdog's been pretty bad during most of my time here in creating a toxic environment. Lately, Pete/Skyring has become a serious contender for most obnoxious editor for willful blindness and leveling unfounded accusations, as in [741] where he's pushing a POV synthesis and yet accuses me of pushing a line. He's toxic and mean.

And even further hounding and harassment and slander by JzG and Pete. They're double teaming me now. It's ridiculous. Help. These are mean and unethical actions and they're ruining my ability to be a productive editor. SageRad ( talk) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

This case request came to my attention due to the actions of User:Kingofaces43 at the article on Sulfoxaflor, a pesticide. As can be seen at the article and its talk page, User:Kingofaces43 states that the New York Times and the New Scientist are not good sources for an article on a "scientific" subject, and that User:Kingofaces43 somehow knows better than they do about the truth, and what represents "consensus". He also uses a primary source by a Dow Chemical employee and claims that it is independent and secondary. I find a troubling pattern of using Wikipedia to advance a position, and wikilawyering, by User:Kingofaces43. I myself find it galling to argue on the "side" of people who are against GMOs, since I believe that such anti-scientific moral panic is unjustified. However, through all my years of editing Wikipedia, I have come to recognize when something is "fishy". When a user makes arguments that always seem to lead back to the removal of dissenting content, and the silencing of dissenting voices, Wikipedia suffers. Most disturbingly, Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality will suffer if it comes out that industry has been manipulating Wikipedia for its own ends. Abductive ( reasoning) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

The following is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.

I see that the ArbCom is about to accept this case, and only have a few comments. First, the following case currently at WP:AN illustrates how divisive the issue of genetic modification is, with pro-mainstream-science editors (characterized by their opponents as pro-GMO editors) and anti-GMO editors, and incivility and tendentious editing on both "sides", when there shouldn't be sides: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_closure_review_for_RfC_at_Monsanto_Legal_Cases

A review of the background will show, first, that the requesting party for the closure overturn, an anti-GMO editor, has a history of being disruptive and divisive, but, second, that the community is deeply divided, and that rational discourse is not possible, and will not be possible, in my opinion, until a few divisive editors are removed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I ask the ArbCom: first, to accept this case; second, to identify divisive or uncivil editors on both sides (pro-mainstream-science and anti-genetic-modification) and take appropriate action (topic-bans or site-bans); third, provide new discretionary sanctions applying to the entire area of agricultural biotechnology (not merely as pseudo-science) to allow future divisive and uncivil editors to be sanctioned; fourth, identify this case as Agricultural Biotechnology; fifth, allow me, although previously uninvolved, the status of a party in the case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The above is a preliminary statement exempt from evidence length limits. Please do not modify it, except to delete some or all of your own statement. Further evidence should be added in a new level 3 subsection.