This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Penwhale ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I'm trying to get started on this PD. As all involved know this is quite a large case with large scope, and so hopefully getting out ahead of it will be fruitful. At this point, I'm aiming to be on schedule, and think it's quite likely/feasible. NativeForeigner Talk 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for the Committee to post the PD can be understandably nerve-wracking for the parties involved. It's common, therefore, that the parties end up bickering with each other here and on the other case talk pages while they're waiting for the PD to be posted. I've been guilty of that myself in the past. Unless new evidence comes out in the interim, I doubt anything that is said here will likely have much impact on the PD, unless someone really loses the plot and earns themselves a sanction just from misguided comments here alone. So, please avoid the temptation of arguing with each other on this page. It might help you to take this and the other case pages off your watchlists until 26 October. Just a suggestion, FWIW. Cla68 ( talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Older comments, from before the posting of the PD. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
I am back at Wikipedia, and, between now and the posting of the PD, the drafting Arbs should feel free to ask me here if you have any questions about diffs, and I'll be happy to try to help. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It would not be my idea, per Streisand effect, to link from here to either my talk page or to that of the editor directly below, especially because I cannot see how it would help with formulating the PD. But: [3], [4], [5]. I'm doing all that I can think to do, to disengage (a completely separate issue from that which I am raising with the Committee on my talk), but maintaining a section about me on her talk page kind of works against that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) In the time between the closing of the Workshop and now, most of the dispute underlying this case has been located at Talk:Kevin Folta and Talk:Vani Hari. I do not mean to imply any accusations in saying that. Rather, it is purely a matter of information, in case any Arbitrators would like to observe what is happening. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC) I would like to request that the drafting Arbs provide an update of when the PD will be posted. (The navbox on the PD page says Nov. 7, which obviously is no longer current.) Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Collapsing older comments, to reduce the wall of text. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Now that the PD has been posted, I want to say thank you to the drafting arbs (who, all things considered, may be surprised that I am thanking them), for your hard work on a difficult and thankless task. I have read the entire PD, and looked for anything needing correction, and not found anything (although I will go over it more carefully again tomorrow, in case I missed something). I think that NF ended up doing an excellent job of working out the case. I also want to say to anyone reading here (who, all things considered, may be surprised at what I am going to say), that I agree with the proposals concerning Jytdog. That is because of his decision not to participate in a meaningful way in this case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Collapsing, in the hope that these errors have been put to rest. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
First, I want to say thank you to Coretheapple and Newyorkbrad for your kind words on this talk page, and also to thank Newyorkbrad for notifying me, since no one else did (but of course I am closely watching here). You, ArbCom, feel it necessary to "remind" me that I should have provided diffs in the Workshop? As you should know perfectly well, the request to me to add diffs was made while I was blocked by the same Arb who posted the proposal to "remind" me. And I had made it very clear that I was, for professional reasons, about to travel to a conference almost immediately after the block was lifted, until after the Workshop was closed. Am I the first editor ever to present Workshop proposals without diffs? Was it difficult to go from my Workshop proposals to my Evidence? I arranged the Workshop proposals by editor, and I arranged my Evidence by editor, in pretty much the same order. All anyone had to do was to go from one to the other, and it all lined up. There was nothing like an "inadequately clear" reference. The WP:NPA policy is not written in terms of needing a specific format for providing reasons for criticism of other editors. And let's look at what ArbCom's own procedures actually say. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop: [11]
I followed those instructions. I referred to my section of the Evidence page. Providing diffs is not required. It is "helpful". If I wasn't "helpful" enough, sorry, but you have no business changing the rules after the fact as a sort of "gotcha". If you want to make it mandatory, then put it in writing, where participating editors can see it – beforehand. There is an appearance here of ArbCom giving in to demands that there must be some sort of "equalization" in how the PD treats parties, as well as the appearance that ArbCom is trying to cover your own posteriors after already having treated me badly and been less than impressive in handling this case. In an ironic way, it will be helpful to see how individual Arbs vote on these proposals. Because you can rest assured that I and others will be watching.
Given that AGK has asked on the PD page which member of the Committee asked for the proposals concerning Guy, I will ask the same question as to which member or members asked for the proposals concerning me. Please identify them, and will they please explain themselves? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@
Tryptofish:, I would not have gone down the route NativeForeigner chose for the FOF. Had I drafted it, I would have gone with a more traditional and straightforward formula, along the lines of Tryptofish has cast aspersions.[diff][diff][diff] There is also probably enough to add something about failing to assume good faith. By way of example of the issues, neither your Petrarchan47 FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct) nor your SageRad FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources) are supported by evidence (either as diffs in the /Workshop or with diffs in your /Evidence). You have made serious allegations but - contrary to the
Personal Attacks policy - you failed/refused to provide evidence for them. This is unacceptable.
|
Done. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
SageRad, I'm putting my reply to you here, because it is separate from what I am saying to ArbCom, and they can either read this or ignore it as they prefer. After all, I'm not making the decisions here. But thank you for caring what I think, and I will try to answer your questions to me carefully. We can also follow up on this at my talk page or yours. Is it possible to edit without a POV? Yes. Of course, all editors have a point of view, but what matters is whether one edits disproportionately according to that POV. I've argued, for example, in favor of edits that might be regarded as "anti-GMO" on some biography pages, on the basis of BLP. An NPOV editor is willing to edit against their POV when that's right for the content. I see you as tilting very one-sidedly, but I also think it's something you can turn around. What about editors pushing in the other direction? Every POV dispute has two sides. So if one group of editors are editing for NPOV, the other editors will see them as editing in a POV way. Here, it's as much about WP:RS as about NPOV, and there is a complete asymmetry between parties. The anti-GMO editors take a POV that contradicts reliable sources, whereas the editors whom you might see as pro-GMO are really just editing for NPOV according to what the sources say. Do I see pushing as coming from one side more than from another? Yes, but that doesn't mean that the other side is blameless, and the PD makes it clear that this is not the case. Do I see it as POV-pushing versus science? I see it as POV-pushing versus the preponderance of reliable sources, and those sources happen to be scientific. Do I see improper conduct from editors on the science side? Yes, and I have come to see it more as the case has played out. The issue you raise about consensus is a complicated one, because there has been such intransigence on the anti-GMO side that, when editors give up on convincing other editors, it may look like not accepting consensus (especially if one just counts the number of editors on each side), but there is a difference in who is and who isn't using sources according to policy and guidelines. Unless the decision changes sharply, I think that the current PD gets it approximately right (failing to appreciate the problems with Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes, but otherwise right). If anyone wants to probe my thinking about what I emphasized in my evidence or my workshop proposals more deeply, let's do it at my user talk. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
|
I see the discussions about wrapping up the case, and I am as eager as the rest of us to see this case done with. But there are some loose ends that the Arbs really need to fix before closing the case. Please do not ignore these things. As I see them:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Close outdated comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Arbs @ Guerillero: @ NativeForeigner: @ Roger Davies: please see my comments here [13] and also see Tryptofish's talk page wherin he re-started the discussion. Thank you. Minor 4th 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Analysis of PDJust absorbing the PD right now and checking diffs. I hope NativeForeigner did not feel pressured to post the PD before it was complete - I'm also curious about whether this version incorporates Guierillo's input or if he will be posting separate PD's? I will have more specific commentary and analysis after dinner :) Minor 4th 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Minor 4th 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Petrarchan47: Arbs don't have to IAR in order to make findings and remedies against JzG. They have always had the latitude to make decisions about editors who are not formally named as "involved parties" and have indeed done so on a number of occasions in the past. Minor 4th Pinging Arbs@ DGG:, @ Doug Weller:, @ Euryalus:, @ Guerillero:, @ LFaraone:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Roger Davies:, @ Salvio giuliano:, @ Seraphimblade:, @ Thryduulf:, AGK ( talk · contribs), @ DeltaQuad: Could you guys please weigh in on this discussion? Please see comments and questions directly above. It would be helpful if you would at least acknowledge that you've considered the discussions on this page about the PD -- and better yet, provide some sort of feedback to those of us who have spent a great deal of time researching and providing evidence and proposed findings and remedies. Please. Minor 4th 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Edit warring:
@ NativeForeigner: I will likely provide more a bit later. Minor 4th 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG:, @ Doug Weller:, @ Euryalus:, @ Guerillero:, @ LFaraone:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Roger Davies:, @ Salvio giuliano:, @ Seraphimblade:, @ Thryduulf:, @ AGK:, @ DeltaQuad:
Please address these issues ASAP.
Thank you, Minor 4th 18:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::Tap, tap, tap .... 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Or just ignore it completely. Either way ....
Minor
4th 00:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The PD has been posted. I view it as a minimum of what needs to happen, I may add one or two more FoF/remedies in the next day or two, but I think this represents the core of the issue. Comments welcome. As a reminder, no threaded conversation. NativeForeigner Talk 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
JzG should be added as party, given the findings and remedies. NE Ent 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just read the PD and I thank the admin for a careful and considered summary. However, I fail to see why Jytdog has been given "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted;" His extreme disruption and highly objectionable incivility has ranged wide, very very wide. I feel he should have a site ban, but at the very, very least, please reconsider why this topic ban is limited only to genetically modified plants. Surely, this should be "genetically modified organisms". I thank you for reconsidering this.DrChrissy (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
My current topic ban Several editors have commented positively about my current topic ban regarding alt.med, med and MEDRS being raised here. I am not overly concerned that this has been raised by the ArbCom. It is clear some people have seen one or two of my edits as potential violation of this, however, the ArbCom does not agree this has been a violation, or at least has decided not to pursue this further. I am able to appeal this current topic ban in just 8 days! (nope - I have not been counting ;-) ). I think we should let this matter settle here for the moment and if you care to join me on ANI on November 20th, I will welcome your company.DrChrissy (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I am somewhat perplexed about the apparently inconsistent weightings of the proposed remedies in this case. I'm sorry to have to raise this ArbCom - you certainly work extremely hard at this and it is a thankless task. First, I do not understand how it can be proposed that an editor such as Jytdog who has exhibited many types of actionable behaviour, in many areas of the project, and for a considerable length of time, will apparently receive the same remedy as myself (a proposed topic ban). Second, I do not understand how remedies are not being proposed for editors that are named parties and for whom demonstrable evidence has been provided at the Workshop for their actionable behaviours. I have summarised below the (potentially) actionable behaviours of several editors who seem to have slipped under the radar during the transition from the Workshop to the PD. This is despite their behaviours having been more widespread or long-term than my own, yet my own proposed remedy is a very lengthy and potentially very disruptive topic ban. An editor has already made the point that this is an extremely important, high-visibility case and the arbitrators need to send the right messages to the community. I do not feel these current inconsistencies in the weighting of remedies will send the right messages.
Potentially Actionable Behaviour | Proposed Remedy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDITOR | |||||||
Incivility | Edit warring | Tag team editing | Misuse of DR | Forum shopping | Battleground behaviour | ||
Jytdog | Topic ban | ||||||
DrChrissy (me) | - | - | - | - | - | Topic ban | |
Kingofaces43 | - | - | - | None proposed | |||
Alexbrn | - | - | - | - | None proposed | ||
Yobol | - | - | - | None proposed |
In the table, indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.
User:NativeForeigner &
User:Guerillero, just noting the proposed remedy for
User:Jytdog still reads "... genetically modified plants...". Was this your intention, or was it perhaps "genetically modified organisms"? This has been sorted - thank you.
Whilst sitting here watching with growing incredulity that it appears I am to be made a scapegoat for all the battles in GMO (which is ironic as I am perhaps the most recent contributing editor), I have realised the reason why. The PD FoFs have been structured and drafted to portray me individually in a totally negative perspective, especially compared to other editors. There are 2 entire sections entitled DrChrissy: Edit warring and DrChrissy: Existing restrictions. Other editors (e.g. Jytdog) have also been identified as edit warring by the PD, but for some reason, he did not get an entire section entitled Jytdog: Edit warring, it is simply listed underneath his name. These 2 separate sections for me but not others, along with their headings, are unacceptably biasing voter's opinion of me before they have even considered the evidence! All of the other editors in the FoFs are simply named without a prejudicial heading about their behaviour. Why do only I get a section identifying my current restrictions. This obviously portrays me as "He's been naughty before so he must be guilty here". Surely if editor's previous behaviour is relevant, there should be a similarly titled section for Jytdog e.g. Jytdog: Previous warning for incivility - this previous warning is fundamental to the evidence presented at all stages of this case, yet it is not even mentioned in the PD. Arbcom voters who do not read the evidence/workshop pages will be totally unaware of his history, but they are being made conspicuously aware of mine! This biasing of the PD against me is totally unacceptable.DrChrissy (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish:, you recently posted your agreement that Kingofaces43 has been guilty of edit warring and then followed up with, "Arbs may want to consider whether the 1RR restriction added to the DS would suffice to address this". My table above shows that the current proposed remedy for edit warring is a topic ban. It would be inconsistent for Kingofaces43 to receive anything less.DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Kingofaces43: Minor4th's FOFs inn the workshop had the following "(Examples of SQS/edit warring: [37], [38], [39] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [40], [41], [42]; revert history on Glyphosate: [43]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [44]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [45], see talk discussion here)" Please note the accusations of edit warring do not rely on any argument that there is a cabal. Please also note that it appears I am about to receive a substantial topic ban...for (arguably) edit warring. I think we need some parity here.
Procedural soundness of my remedy @ NativeForeigner: @ Guerillero: It is my belief that the proposed FOF are written in such a way that that they are highly and irreversibly prejudicial against me. I have been singled out by having multiple sections for my "offences", and these "offences" are stated in the headings next to my name. This structure of the FOF was not adopted for any other party. I believe this will have considerably influenced the arbitrators' consideration of the evidence (including 3 diffs provided as evidence for 1 instance of edit warring) and ultimately their decision regarding my remedy. Because several arbitrators have already voted on this, I believe it is now impossible to "turn the clocks back" for me to get a fair and paritable hearing in this case. It is my conclusion that any remedy for me is procedurally unsound. I believe ArbCom should therefore declare any remedy against me in this case as null and void.
@ Coretheapple:. Please treat this as a friendly message. You are not named as a party about to receive a remedy. Some of us are, and we are greatly concerned by this for a range of reasons. Calling for a close to this case when there are several important and fundamental pending questions is not helpful for those of us about to have severe sanctions imposed. If this case process is causing you concerns, perhaps simply do not log into the page. Honestly, this is meant in a friendly way.
Jytdog's sudden contribution to this case must be seen for the insignificance that it is. The named parties have been asked to present evidence of any accusations or defences (i.e providing diffs) within a specified time-window. We have all worked hard to do this. Jytdog suddenly arrives and presents hardly a single diff of evidence either in his favour or against other parties. Even if he had, this is so late after the closing date as to be laughable and must be dismissed by ArbCom. His comments should be struck through, or perhaps even suppresed as appears to be happening on the Talk page for other editors' comments.
I note that User:Roxy the dog has now contributed to this page. Is this allowed? Can any editor simply edit this page to try and sway the opinion of ArbCom? If his suggestion is to be taken seriously (which IMHO it should not), then it must be applied across the board for all parties. To start with, I have created/started almost 60 articles (and made significant contributions to many more). I have contributed to several talk pages dealing with issues such as MEDRS, RS and others. I have written an essay on primary and secondary sources. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as [ [46]]. Doesn't this also make me a "...model contributor to the project, and supporter of the pillars." and therefore deserving of such a description here?
Behaviour during ArbCom It is of massive relevance that Jytdog has been blocked today. [47] Will a separate proposed FOF section entitled "Jytdog: Existing restrictions" be created for him as it was for me?
My "Edit warring" I would like to point out something which although obvious to me, might not be obvious to some of the arbitrators supporting a topic ban for me on the basis of my edit warring. In the PD, 4 diffs were provided as evidence in the section entitled "DrChrissy: Edit Warring".
Inconsistent vote tallies In the PD section "3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban." There appear to be 6 votes on favour and 2 of opposition, however, in the table "Proposed Remedies" toward the end of the PD there are 8 in favour and 3 opposes. Which is correct?
The overall picture Although not stated in the locus, it is clear that problems in this topic area are entrenched, long-term and have existed for several years. So, let's look at the remedies that are currently being supported to solve the problem.
1) 1RR for all editors - that will help.
2) 2-way interaction ban for myself and Jytdog - Yes, that will stop the pair of us behaving like petulant children on one article in the topic area, glyphosate.
3) I am topic banned. I have never edited [[Monsanto] (that might be the first time I have written that word!), March against Monsanto or any of those multiple industry-based or BLP articles that seem to have been a focus of the long-term problems this case was intended to address. I am being banned for edit warring on just one page in this massive topic area - this was wrong of me - but will my ban change the overall picture? My first edit in this topic-related area was, I believe, in July 2015. How can I have been a participant in the previous years of conflict that have dogged this topic area.
4) SageRad is topic banned. SageRad, like myself, is very new to this topic area. (His account was only opened on June 10th, 2015.) How could he possibly be responsible for the long-term problems this case is intended to be addressing.
5) Jytdog is topic banned. I think almost everyone is in agreement this will be a good remedy.
So, we have 2 highly productive content editors new to this topic area being held accountable for the sins of many other editors over several years. Will these remedies work? No they will not. The main players from all "sides" will still be there. The disruption will start again within days of this case being closed if it stands. I urge ArbCom to see that what they are voting on is not an overall remedy. I believe the only sensible course of action is to restart this case with a neutral point of view, as has already been suggested. DrChrissy (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Appeal to ArbCom @ DGG: First, may I thank you sincerely for engaging with parties here on the Talk page. The fact that so many, many questions and comments in this case appear to have been ignored or unread by ArbCom has, I fear, not reflected well on this appeal process.
Potentially Actionable Behaviour | Proposed Remedy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDITOR | |||||||
Incivility | Edit warring | Tag team editing | Misuse of DR | Forum shopping | Battleground behaviour | ||
Jytdog | Topic ban | ||||||
DrChrissy (me) | - | - | - | - | - | Topic ban | |
Kingofaces43 | - | - | - | None proposed | |||
Alexbrn | - | - | - | - | None proposed | ||
Yobol | - | - | - | None proposed |
In the table, indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.
There is a total opaqueness regarding why some editors are not listed for voting on a proposed remedy. If this was to be a fair and equitable process, all parties would be listed. Even if this meant that "no remedy proposed" was listed against a name and arbitrators voted on that, it would mean the process is transparent.
Time wasted? @ DeltaQuad: In your vote on the FoFs about Jytdog and myself, you stated that the second diff provided as evidence seems to be a wall of text wasting time. Please could you clarify whose time I was allegedly wasting. This was a discussion which involved only Jytdog and myself on a user's Talk Page space which she volunteered specifically for the 2-way interaction. No other editor or admin was asked to become involved. I fail to see who has had their time wasted.DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC).
"Editors have voiced concerns" is not a proper finding. A proper finding must assert that the concerns are valid. Looie496 ( talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a fair decision to me in the proposed remedies. I would ask the committee, however, if there are any underlying problems or factors with this case that should be addressed if you think they might arise again and continue to cause problems in this and other topic areas, namely: Do established editors get more leeway to violate WP:CIVIL than newbie editors? Is it ok to continually accuse other editors of being "SPAs"? Are editors who claim to support "science" allowed to break WP's rules more than others? Cla68 ( talk) 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Tuck this section away as stale |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When Petra attempted to discuss some of the NPOV issues on their own TP, on the TP of a BLP and during a 3-O discussion on Tryptofish's TP, the result is the proposed TB in this case with no apparent consideration for the fact that Jytdog was both the lead COIN investigator and steward of the GMO articles at the time. He had also banned several editors from his TP. I also fail to see how casting aspersions is supported in the FoF against Petra based on the diffs provided. I am also thoroughly confused over the proposal to simply admonish Jytdog for his obnoxious treatment of other editors, his extreme profanity and overall disruptive behavior (reverts, SQS, etc.) Yet, a full blown TB is being proposed against Petra for a few legitimate, civil TP discussions attempting to resolve an ongoing issue of noncompliance with NPOV, one of WP's 3 core content policies. Those concerns have still not been addressed in this case, and many of us were hoping they would be. Please forgive my ignorance, but from where I sit, the diffs simply do not support the allegation that Petra cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith. The message you're sending to other editors is that it's okay to shout profanities at another editor and create disruption - you'll just be admonished for it - but don't dare try to discuss a potential COI that may be involved or you'll get a TB.
It appears to me that imposing the far-reaching sanctions that have been proposed on an academic (DrChrissy) who is knowledgeable about animals, their diets and behavior may not be in the best interests of WP in the long term. I hope that ArbCom can find a malleable solution that isn't restrictive in "the broadest sense" as what has been proposed. Perhaps some consideration can be given to excluding sanctions that involve animals directly, much the same way medical doctors are given leeway and an advantage over medical articles. It appears far too much leniency is being given to biotechnology at the expense of experts in the areas that are affected by such technology. Biotech ag, chemicals, etc. are so intertwined in our everyday lives that determining whether or not a GMO, fringe, or whatever TB applies to an article about a horse's diet (example: eating hay from a field that was treated with Round-up) would be nearly impossible, and will create more problems than it could possibly resolve. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Atsme 📞 📧 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Curious - Guerillero and NativeForeigner, is this TP for editors to discuss things among themselves or do ArbCom members automatically read and utilize the information posted here? Is it necessary to ping Arb members to bring them here as with some of the other TPs in the Case? There have been several valid comments made here, such as what Jusdafax has demonstrated, along with a few other comments that preceded and have followed his, yet we're not seeing any changes or comments from ArbCom that addresses any of these very serious concerns. In some instances, it appears that some of us have wasted our time providing important supporting diffs that are unmistakable when all we had to do was include any old diffs and insist they support our argument whether that's true or not. It's embarrassing if not a total travesty. I've cringed at some of the off-WP reports regarding this matter, specifically how this case is being handled and how it will be remembered for years to come. I'm usually quite tolerant and patient, but some of the comments on the PD (or lack thereof) have become quite disconcerting. Atsme 📞 📧 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) One last comment - the section Behaviour on this page located at the top of this page is what I've always perceived to be our conduct policy across WP but based on current events and what I've seen happening here, it appears that it not only doesn't apply across the board on WP, it doesn't even apply here. Atsme 📞 📧 13:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) I noticed new evidence was added to this case, and didn't realize that was allowed. If so, then the PD may need to be reworked in its entirety, perhaps just start over with new diffs and a whole new approach. Why isn't the evidence we already provided being used now since they clearly support our allegations, opinions and proposals as demonstrated during WS discussions? Arbs don't have to dig deep for them as what just happened to Petrarchan47. I am even more confused over NF adding diffs that demonstrate opinions Petra expressed during consensus gathering at the WS. They are not diffs pointing to problematic behavioral issues by Petra but to opinions regarding the problematic patterned behavior of Jytdog, so why weren't any of the diffs used from Evidence that support Petra's opinions? Why have the aspersions that were cast against us without one supporting diff not mentioned in the PD? For example, Kingofaces cast aspersions against me in WS and I called him on it. Roger is aware of what took place, and stated that diffs had to be provided, but they never were, so what exactly is going on here? |
When a member of ArbCom adds new evidence to FoF (after evidence is closed) to justify unsupported allegations (that were nothing short of casting aspersions) and basically ignores the in-your-face evidence, bad behavior, and unsupported allegations by our accusers, it creates a chilling effect. Another editor mentioned "double standard", and while I doubted it before, I don't feel the same after what just happened. I'm sure NF's additions were well-intentioned, but it just doesn't measure up to what one would expect from WP's highest court.
The following diffs demonstrate same behaviors at G. Edward Griffin BLP and the group support. While I was not aware of the GMO controversy or Griffin's possible connection at the time, I later discovered he authored a book and gave lectures that cast a negative light on Monsanto and GMOs. What took place at Griffin with Jytdog, JPS, Kingofaces, etc. in their PAs and bullying was because I was trying to get the BLP compliant with NPOV (the RfC supported my position). The behavior I endured there demonstrates the same behavioral pattern being discussed now in this ArbCom case. PS: the attempt to get the Griffin BLP deleted was the 4th RfD for G. Edward Griffin (instigated by JPS), all of which have failed. The most recent attempt was initiated by JPS with support from Jytdog, Kingofaces and other familiar names in the GMO support group:
Kingofaces' edit interactions further demonstrate patterns:
Comment in response to Kingofaces further aspersions - he just won't stop, which is why ArbCom needs to act. It's a serious behavioral issue. I stopped editing Griffin back in February or March, but Kingofaces' aspersions continue to follow me. Callan's hatting of them wasn't enough. Perhaps an iBan should be imposed to prevent him from causing further harm to my credibility. He simply could not make it any more obvious than what he already has throughout this case. Please, Arbs, please make him stop. Look at my edit history and where my focus has been as an editor on WP. It does not align with the allegations made against me by Kingofaces and it certainly didn't justify the WP:POV_railroading I already endured. You are witnessing him in action and you already know how repeated derogatory comments can destroy a person's reputation. His tactics have not changed - aspersions with no supporting diffs. Also keep in mind that the anonymity I once enjoyed has since been removed because of the COIN fiasco. I'm editing now as the RL me, not some IP or fictitious user name that protects one's RL identity; therefore, the aspersions are harmful to me personally. Please, just look at the pattern of harassment by the same small group of editors who appear to have made a game out of harassing me to see who can take me down - the patterned behavior and the diffs I've provided in evidence support my claims. Follow the trail - from the WP:AVDUCK essay to the WP:COIN fiasco which led to unwarranted attacks on the GAs/FA I edited and co-authored right up to the AN/I case I filed because of the harassment and misbehavior which led to an unwarranted boomerang that was based in aspersions with no diffs to support the claims. Please, please give this situation your careful consideration. Atsme 📞 📧 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner, Guerillero - if a FoF doesn't pass, is it still possible that a Proposed Remedy based on that FoF will pass? Atsme 📞 📧 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbs, please respond @ DGG:, @ Doug Weller:, @ Euryalus:, @ Guerillero:, @ LFaraone:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Roger Davies:, @ Salvio giuliano:, @ Seraphimblade:, @ Thryduulf:, AGK ( talk · contribs), @ DeltaQuad: We added the evidence requested by Native Foreigner regarding Kingofaces43 and we need the arbs to please review it. See Minor4th's section as well as this and others where the evidence has been presented. You asked us to go the extra mile, we did, now please closely review that evidence, and before you close this case, we expect a proposed resolution. Please respond. Atsme 📞 📧 15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Not complaining, just an observation regarding how some thought I was joking about early holiday shopping when this case was first filed. Atsme 📞 📧 13:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus, I just read your post [56] and agree with the no consensus regarding the one editor, but I was wondering if perhaps you were unaware of what Amanda has been working on? While some of us wanted this case to be over shortly after it began, there is still a bit of unfinished business. Are you of the opinion that ArbCom should just drop everything while there are other pending issues that remain unresolved, one of which Amanda said would be tended to today? Atsme 📞 📧 13:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Redirected sidebar question to DrChrissy's section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
:::I thought threaded discussions were not permitted on here - is this different for the arbitrators? I would very much like to disagree with DGG, but where is the appropriate place for me to do this?DrChrissy (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
|
WP:AVDUCK actually addresses the issues being discussed now regarding POV pushing, advocacy, COI, etc. Any perspective from a true NPOV will see two sides to that coin, both requiring equal consideration irrespective of one's preference to heads or tails. Atsme 📞 📧 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Some editors: Prokaryotes, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Minor4th, Tryptofish, Atsme, wuerzele, AlbinoFerret, Gandydancer, David Tornheim, Tsavage, Dialectric Some arbs: In actu, LFaraone, Thryduulf, NativeForeigner, Euryalus, Salvio giuliano, AGK, DeltaQuad, DGG, Doug Weller
So far, i have asked many times for a solid and real explanation of why this case has gone the way it has gone. Why it feels like a McCarthyism. Why it feels like an ideological split in which editors of one leaning are heavily railroaded, while those of another leaning (save for one, the token worst one) are untouched.
I started editing regularly 9 or 10 months ago. When i entered the topic of glyphosate, which was my interest, i found an atmosphere that was heavily charged with attacks and hostility. I was also new to Wikipedia, having edited mundane articles in the past, but never in such a contentious atmosphere. I was baptized by fire, you might say. I learned the guidelines by having every acronym hurled at me in clearly POV pushing attempts, so i then got the sense that Wikilawyering was the norm, and i got defensive. Who wouldn't? With negativity coming at me from the likes of Jytdog and Pete/Skyring and others whose apparent purpose wasn't to be collegiate, but to try to game the system to push content. So i learned that was the way it works -- it appeared to be a battleground -- because it was and still is -- but that was not me causing a battleground to appear. It was me, a newcomer, finding this to be what Wikipedia appeared to be. As time went on, i learned the guidelines solidly, and how to actually work for the true mission of Wikipedia: to reflect reality in a verifiable way though the use of good sources represented accurately. My modus operandi changed, and then my "pushing" was only pushing for integrity -- for genuine dialogue, honesty, and respect for all valid points of view, to make NPOV articles. There was a whole month of contention just to include one sentence in the Monsanto legal cases article on the recent group of lawsuits by major U.S. cities about PCBs contamination. That was a clear case of POV pushing in the opposite direction, and i persevered along with several others, through an RfC that was then closed in a non-neutral way by JzG/Guy, who then refused to recuse, and while Pete/Skyring put up images to mock me when i wrote on the talk page, etc.... hostility and gaming of the system, and i and several others continued to argue on the principles and guidelines that it deserved to be included, instead of assenting to the railroading tactics being used to block its inclusion. This was a rather clear case of POV pushing in the direction that would be to the benefit of the industry.
So, 6 months ago i shot a reply to Jytdog like "Stop hounding me, dude... ever heard of copyediting?" ... while i could have been more "polite" it was an accurate defense in that context. Is that the basis on which i'm probably being topic banned? Or that i revised the Norman Borlaug article to be more accurate, despite Kingofaces43's pushing to the contrary (contrary to the sources, by the way), and his bringing it to AN and misrepresenting it there, etc...
And we have some arbs actually calling me "pugnacious" and suggesting that i should be site banned and that i have "plainly inflamed the topic area" here ... Is this alright to be coming from arbs? Have i actually "inflamed the topic area" or was the topic area under heavy POV pushing and i pushed against that pushing, thereby becoming a lightning rod for attack? Shooting the messenger. I did not make this an inflamed topic area, and if having deep discussions on whether there is POV bias in the area is "inflaming" it then we need it to be inflamed, sort of like an infected area of the human body gets inflamed -- to bring immune defense to the problem.
I edit according to guidelines, and sourcing, to bring articles closer to NPOV. I learned a few months into my editing, about 3 or 4 months ago, that i did not want to push an agenda. I have a POV, a valuable one, but i don't want to push it into articles. I give attention to things like whether glyphosate harms the ecology, but that's ok. I don't push that into articles. As you can see in the recent discussion at the glyphosate article, i spent some effort to figure out, from sources, what sources were most reliable, and how to use them well.
I am writing this to call for a discussion -- a threaded discussion at my talk page, or some other more neutral location where we can use threading -- to actually try to understand why i'm being topic banned. As it stands, i feel like it's an agenda-based railroading of some editors, and it is definitely going to result in the topic area being biased. It feels like those who question the industry-friendly POV are being identified as a "problem" in a biased way, and railroaded out. If i cannot understand what i've done wrong, and why i'm being identified as an "enemy of Wikipedia" in this topic area, and in general (by the statements of some of the arbs) then i will never know how i can improve. I know i have improved and i know i do good work by the guidelines of Wikipedia. If i'm being banned on the basis of a few naughty words from 6 months ago, then what's this world coming to? What's this encylopedia coming to? This really does matter. It's a matter of human dignity, and justice, and human knowledge. It's not a game on a computer screen. When some people hold power over others, they ought to use it with integrity. The Sword of Damocles is real.
I'm calling for a threaded discussion to occur on a neutral page, and for arbitrators to write something like a decision, along the lines of what courts do upon making judgments, to explain and justify why it's reasonable to ban me from the topic area, and not others who have other sorts of POVs of the sort that make them want very badly to exclude cases against Monsanto regarding PCBs from the article on cases involving Monsanto, for instance. Or who want to exclude the fact that glyphosate seems to reduce the viability of earthworms from the article on glyphosate, for instance.
So... i can't let this decision go down without voicing a deep lack of confidence in its soundness, and a call for explanation and discussion about it. It's too important to let it drop. It's not just "oh well, it's only Wikipedia" -- it's about human dignity and what sort of power dynamic we allow to determine what represents human knowledge. As it stands, this decision looks to me like a biased dynamic rules the day. I know arbs are busy, and it takes time to go deep, but it must be done. I've got work to do, as well, and i've sunk a lot of time into this as well. I never asked for anyone to stand in judgment of me, but if it's going to be that way, then it had better be with unbiased integrity or i'll call it what it is.
SageRad SageRad ( talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, that's really heavy and inaccurate language against me. I resent that inaccurate accusation: behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban.
Just ridiculous accusation and recommending a site-ban because i've been standing up to bullying and talking about it. Another in the long saga of this ridiculous trial.
SageRad (
talk) 15:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The above is literally one of the arbitrators making an untrue blanket statement and accusation against me. Let's call this whole damn sham of a trial off. SageRad ( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, your ill advised and incorrect comments in this case have already
been used against me by other editors in discussions. You haven't answered me yet about this language that you used. You said that my behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban.
Do you really hold this to be true? Do you really think that i use constant accusations of bullying against anyone who might disagree? What remedy do you propose when another editor uses your words as was done in the above diff to attempt to discredit my contributions in dialogue? What remedy is right here? No remedy, i'm asking the very arbitrator who cast the aspersion in the first place. I hope you see the damage your incorrect comments have done to my ability to edit even in other topic areas outside of the scope of this case.
SageRad (
talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This being an unthreaded page, dialogue looks like this (hard to follow but important):
DGG, i find the idea of preventative topic bans puzzling. I'm not sure i understand the concept. It's not punitive or based on wrongdoing, but you think i'm going to do something bad in the future? I'm trying to understand this and failing. Do you think i'm going to be a problem in the topic area in the future? I don't think the community is asking for the arbitrators to judge the content of the topic area, but only the behaviors of editors. Do they follow sourcing? Are they civil? Are they able to work out solutions with editors with differing points of view? This sort of thing ought to be enough to determine who is a persistent and unteachable problem in an area. I believe i am teachable, but all i am asking is to be able to understand what i did, or am supposedly going to do, that makes me a problem in the topic area. I'm very receptive to understanding this, but i don't understand it yet. That's why i've been asking for explanations from arbitrators as to why they think i'm a problem more than most others. SageRad ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, you suggest changing "and articulated a clear POV" to "and edited with a clear POV" in the FoF. I'd agree with that, but i still don't think this is grounds for a topic ban. I would say "pushing a POV" would be grounds for a topic ban, if the person refused to knock it off. I think i've knocked it off. I'm editing for the best representation of reality in the articles, not to fulfill some POV propaganda need. I'm seriously here with a desire to make sure the articles follow reliable sources, follow
WP:DUE, and represent subjects well and with dignity. If a chemical appears safe, so be it. If a chemical appears risky, so be it. If a river was polluted, so be it. If a Tory's cave is not notable, so be it. A food activist doesn't deserve to get smeared any more than a plant scientist who worked with Monsanto. We need balance and we need respect. I do edit with a point of view, as does every single person who is an editor here. Some do so consciously and respect others. Some try to push their point of view. Some try to deny that they have a point of view at all. Some try to say that their point of view is the only one. It all comes down to sources and civility and good dialogue, in the end. I'v edited with a clear point of view, but so has nearly everyone else who has edited in the topic area. It's alright for there to be a tension between editors with different points of view, like advocates in a courtroom. If we follow the policies and guidelines, i think it works out very well.
SageRad (
talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed,
Kingofaces43 is correct that there is some rampant POV pushing at
glyphosate right now. The problem is that the topic bans that are decided will
[63] not solve all the issues. It seems there is some serious POV pushing being done by editors who are not up for sanctions. Thankfully, other editors, including some who are up for bans, have done some looking out for the integrity of the article. Ironic, isn't it?
SageRad (
talk) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"Getting in fights to push a POV" ... a fight takes fighters on both sides. I didn't bring fights. I've learned how to defuse and bypass fights more and more. The shallowness of this decision is remarkable. Where is the use of judgment, getting into the details, using discernment? It's so easy to judge by a couple diffs and tone of voice, buy I'd really like to see a deep reasoning involved in the judgments made about me and others here. I'd like to read a decision like the Supreme Court publishes. However, that's not what we get. We need arbitrators who can understand human behavior and see goading where it's apparent, abs ingenuine dialogue where it's apparent. We need arbitrators who can go more than surface level in looking at conflicts. SageRad ( talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, i really do care what you think, and really trying to understand it. Thank you for your reply to my questions. I have a few more.
Is it possible to edit without a POV? Yes. Of course, all editors have a point of view, but what matters is whether one edits disproportionately according to that POV. I've argued, for example, in favor of edits that might be regarded as "anti-GMO" on some biography pages, on the basis of BLP. An NPOV editor is willing to edit against their POV when that's right for the content. I see you as tilting very one-sidedly, but I also think it's something you can turn around.
I agree mostly, and i have also on a good number of occasions edited against what would be seen as "my side" and stood up for sourcing instead of pushing, even when the pushing might have been good for "anti-GMO propaganda". Ironically, i'm not even really anti-GMO. I have no strong opinion on the technology. I see dangers in some traits and some chemicals, and i don't trust the industry fully. So, please know that i've pushed against things that would have been called "anti-GMO" many times here in the last 6 months or so. I'd prefer integrity to the sources over propaganda in articles. That said, everyone edits according to their passions and what they think is needed in articles. So when i see an article that appears heavily biased toward what is seen as "industry POV" or by some "science" (though i will contest that label as biased in itself), i felt compelled to edit article to lessen that POV, toward NPOV. Vani Hari was a case in point. I came to that article and saw an attack piece against her, written as if by the authors of "Fear Babe" themselves. That was unacceptable bias, especially in BLP but for any article it's a bad bias. I think i've turned around, a few months ago, from wanting to push a side, toward wanting NPOV integrity in articles. I really mean that. Reality is the only arbiter. Solid sources reflect reality.
What about editors pushing in the other direction? Every POV dispute has two sides. So if one group of editors are editing for NPOV, the other editors will see them as editing in a POV way. Here, it's as much about WP:RS as about NPOV, and there is a complete asymmetry between parties. The anti-GMO editors take a POV that contradicts reliable sources, whereas the editors whom you might see as pro-GMO are really just editing for NPOV according to what the sources say.
Yes, i fully grasp the relativity of points of view. That's why i want to base any sanctions on behavior, and not on POV, as should be the case. Having a POV and editing with a tendency toward a "side" should not be sanctionable, but rather if someone's pushing contrary to good sourcing and contrary to WP:DUE then that behavior should be sanctionable. But of course the relativity of POV makes it hard for anyone to really be objective about that judgment.
Do I see it as POV-pushing versus science? I see it as POV-pushing versus the preponderance of reliable sources, and those sources happen to be scientific.
That may be true in many cases, but can you see that it may be flipped in other cases? Such as the recent question of glyphosate's effects on earthworms. Some seemed to be pushing, against available scientific sources, to represent glyphosate as having little or no effect on earthworms, or to omit the information if it had to say that there is some effect on earthworms. In this instance, which "side" was aligned with science? Science does not take sides. People do take sides when they interpret science, omitting some and magnifying other studies.
In the glyphosate article over the last few days, there was an editor pushing hard for a POV-based take on effects on earthworms. I took part to make sure the sources were followed correctly and a POV not pushed against the actual science. In this case, it did show that glyphosate has some effect on earthworms. The editor wanted to make it seem as if glyphosate has no effect on earthworms but that's not what the best unbiased look at secondary articles would say.
Do I see improper conduct from editors on the science side? Yes, and I have come to see it more as the case has played out. The issue you raise about consensus is a complicated one, because there has been such intransigence on the anti-GMO side that, when editors give up on convincing other editors, it may look like not accepting consensus (especially if one just counts the number of editors on each side), but there is a difference in who is and who isn't using sources according to policy and guidelines. Unless the decision changes sharply, I think that the current PD gets it approximately right (failing to appreciate the problems with Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes, but otherwise right). If anyone wants to probe my thinking about what I emphasized in my evidence or my workshop proposals more deeply, let's do it at my user talk.
Thank you for the acknowledgement above, although i think this decision didn't get it right by a long shot, but that there are complex issues involved.
I see sides get polarized. When it seems like a group of editors is hellbent on including or excluding content, and they don't respond to rational arguments, and they don't show good faith in dialogue (using strawmen and condescension and such things), then one is tempted to throw up one's hands. And then if Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms also seem to side with obstructionism, as it sometimes does, then one just feels like the "proper channels" don't work, and good faith dialogue doesn't work, and it can feel like articles are owned by oen "side" without any recourse.
Thanks for this dialogue. It helps me to know what others are thinking. I know you're probably a busy person. I am really trying hard to understand, and to see things from other points of view. I hope you are, too. Thanks, Tryptofish. SageRad ( talk) 00:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@ AGK:, how did i force anyone's hand? What is meant by this?
Did an arb on this case just say that they put a lot of the evidence from the case directly into their recycle bin? [64] It appears so. How can anyone feel confident in the outcome of this case? SageRad ( talk) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tide has again turned so that i'm topic banned.... for having a point of view? Everyone has a point of view. Pushing a point of view is wrong. Having a point of view is called "being human".
And still, nobody who votes to topic ban me has dared to answer my questions.
Kingofaces43 has a point of view. Pete/Skyring has a point of view. Roxy the Dog has a point of view. Ronz has a point of view. Having a point of view is not wrong. Pushing a point of view against WP:UNDUE and against WP:RS is what's wrong. Show me doing that in any sort of flagrant way any more than any of these editors, and i'll accept a topic ban. Otherwise, it continues to look like opposition to an editor based on an ideological bias because my point of view is not that of the industry's preference.
SageRad ( talk) 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't like pages where the discussion cannot be threaded, but still feel i must register my deep concern, that this case does matter, and a topic ban does matter. It matter in a few ways:
1. Biased banning of people from the topic area will cause a bias in the topic area moving forward. 2. It affects the editors (like me) who feel their integrity demeaned and unappreciated. 3. It affects the sense of integrity in Wikipedia as a project on the whole. 4. It affects the sense of whether justice can be obtained by appealing to the highest court in the land (ArbCom).
All these, mixed together. I don't think i'm a "sore loser". I think i'm rather indignant because i know where i was coming from in my editing in this topic area, and i am proud of the editing i did once i learned the guidelines in spirit and practice. I've removed bias from articles, and i've helped to resolve conflicts, or at least delineate them accurately and see what was the real lay of the land, by making positions explicit. So, i have to vote no confidence. SageRad ( talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No answers yet from any Arbitrators on my questions below.
IS IT AGAINST GUIDELINES TO HAVE A POV? THIS CASE AND THE JUDGMENT TO BAN ME CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS. However, guidelines say the opposite.
What we have here is a new McCarthyism, and shooting the messenger. It's an ugly system and state of affairs and a lot of people ought to be very ashamed. SageRad ( talk) 13:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey arbitrators who voted to topic ban me,
I'm really, really interested to hear your honest opinions as to why it was the right thing to do. Please take a minute to provide that for me. I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, how am I going to learn? Thanks.
I'll boil down a couple of main points that i would love to have you respond to:
1. One reason i'm being banned is that i "articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case". However, according to the guidelines, having a point of view is not wrong and is not disallowed and is even embraced in many senses, because it leads to a richer, more diverse encyclopedia. What is wrong is to push a point of view, which means to Wikilawyer and bully and that sort of thing to get your desired content in, or to not listen to others. So, having a point of view is one thing. I grew up near polluted rivers, from the old hat industry in my hometown. I saw nature destroyed by chemicals, mercury and PCBs and things... so i have a point of view like everyone does. I respect sourcing and dialogue and content guidelines.
2. Another reason i'm being banned is "added unsourced content". However, according to the guidelines, not all content must be sourced. Simple things that are commonly accepted, like in the article Dog it says "Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals." That is not sourced. The one instance for which i'm being cited for "adding unsourced content" it was rather innocuous content -- simply that pesticides are not sprayed solely from helicopters but also from floater sprayers, and also that glyphosate is "the most widely used systemic herbicide". That's pretty common knowledge to people who know about glyphosate, and upon challenge i would be happy to source it. Wikipedia works on a challenge system, i thought. Nearly everything i ever added, i have sources, but that one little factoid about glyphosate being "the most widely used systemic herbicide" i thought wouldn't be challenged, as it's not even POV related, it's just simple. Or maybe is it simple copyediting like this which is being called "unsourced"? Anyway, as i understand it, this is not a chargeable offense to the guidelines. If someone is adding controversial unsourced content all the time, then sure, big problem -- but my record on content is very little unsourced, and nothing that i thought was controversial.
3. Last thing i'm being banned for is to have "cast aspersions" but the diffs are reaction to really jerkish behaviors... and from long ago ... and everyone has their moments, especially when spoken to badly by others, and really, at this point Jytdog is not even banned but i am, and in terms of casting aspersions i thought he had no equal in this topic area. I was treated really badly by a lot of people in the topic area, time after time, and i am the one being banned for "casting aspersions"???? Really it's unbelievable to me. So what is the reason?
Please, please offer comments, to the arbs who think i should be topic banned.
It would help me really to understand.
-SageRad SageRad ( talk) 19:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted this reluctantly, and in the text i provided my ambiguous feelings. I wrote this in all honesty, with integrity in respect to the incidents involved. In each case, Kingofaces43 was in the wrong or just being obstinate and not actually being WP:HERE, whether just auto-piloting on opposing anything i ever did, or what, i don't know. I'd just removed this, but upon KoA's denial of any fault in the interactions, i return it here for others to look at and to point out his current blatant misrepresentation of these incidents in his defense on this page itself. He had some good points, but is not "drama-raising" to insist on integrity of representation of sources, and to focus on the article for the sake of the readers. In both cases, KoA made that process unnecessarily difficult, a pattern i've seen often. Polarized editors need to actually read each others' comments and respond in good faith to them.
Two incidents:
In his response here, KoA cited this diff to say that i "accuse[d] him of hounding" but in the diff, i said "It has the appearance of following or hounding me, as you and i have had contentious interactions in the recent few months, as well. That's another reason for being a but more cautious in your editing on this, after my bringing this point up." The "appearance" is different from accusing, and allows a chance to respond. He could have responded without getting up in arms and saying "stop casting aspersions".
He said my question on Norman Borlaug article referring to a non-existant widespread famine of the Indian Subcontinent in the 1960s was a "personal point of view objection (rather than finding other sources to dispute it or even reading the source in question at first)". Actually, i did some research and found no evidence of any such "widespread famine" but there was "food shortage" which is a very different thing, and so i did more looking into it, and flagged a pretty glaring inaccuracy in the article. For that, he accuses me of a "personal point of view objection" and says i didn't find sources? I was right in that whole conflict. The source did not back up the claim, and the source was also a biased piece of reporting, so it was two levels wrong how the article was before. I was working for the article to be right -- this is not pushing a point of view. So once again, he's misrepresenting easily verifiable things, which wastes everyone's time, and i think is an aspect of contentious and obstructive editing.
And he said that in in this conversation he characterized me as "removing sourced content based mostly on personal views (i.e., the source didn't include other species)" whereas i clearly say in the conversation, "Reasons i did this: this statement seemed out of place in terms of weight (level of detail too small for summary paragraph)" and that "the statement was sourced to hearsay reports from a dated agricultural extension page that is no longer on the Internet, and was using the "Wayback Machine" to source it". I noted that there are many other plants with resistance to clover as well, but this being a sub-lede, it was not appropriate level of detail. This is all so clear in the conversation, and KoA is misrepresenting both of these incidents right here and now, which shows again the way in which interactions with him can lead to edits taking up way too much time and effort, because of inaccurate representations on his part.
It's this sort of thing -- unnecessary contention, not responding to dialogue in a whole and honest way -- that are subtle and yet really get in the way of good editing. It's hard to really see, but it feels like obstruction of solid editing. I'm in it for the articles to be right and the article contained a falsehood that i was trying to correct -- the false story of a more widespread famine than actually existed (at
Norman Borlaug) -- and therefore i was actually trying to remove a POV bending of facts that was already in the article. I got that level of contention and obstruction from Kingofaces43. It worked out in the end, but why should it take hours of back and forth to get the article right. It felt like Kingofaces43 just assumed that i was pushing a POV in both of these instances, whereas i was seriously trying to improve the articles.
SageRad (
talk) 17:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that in the end, both articles were improved and that i was not pushing a POV but only fact checking and copyediting. KofA describes it as if I were pushing POV and he was saving the articles. SageRad ( talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And there's always just plain old what looks like POV editing like
here. That is some very useful knowledge being deleted.
SageRad (
talk) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Minor note on mistake in evidence presented against me by Kingofaces43: I didn't notice until now, but in evidence presented against me by Kingofaces43 they cite a diff in which they say i used the aspersion "King of Scoundrels" but i did not. I said, "Censorship is the refuge of Kings and Scoundrels, and the two are the same," and i still stand by this statement. It was not name-calling. It was a statement of principle in which i meant that those who wish to dominate knowledge by censorship are scoundrels. This evidence was used by @ Salvio giuliano: to characterize me as "pugnacious" meant to imply WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and so i think it's relevant to correct the record on this little error. Perhaps it tips a balance. In that case, it was a misrepresentation of myself to say that i had name-called and used the term "King of Scoundrels" when i did not. Thanks for taking this into consideration. SageRad ( talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, i see a reference in your section to Kings and Scoundrels... I came up with it myself, perhaps from some long-filed memory of some other reference but not consciously, and i meant it as i said it. I did not call Kingofaces43 a "King of Scoundrels" as his evidence states. But i'm happy to hear of an archetypal sort of memory based on this phrase. SageRad ( talk) 14:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish: First off, i want to say that i appreciate your comments, and i see you've spent some time digging into the case, to an admirable and time-consuming level. Thanks for that. On the topic of the alleged outing of my real-world identity and use of that to poison the well against me, I sent evidence of JzG's alleged outing of me to the email address given by an arbitrator when requested long ago, and another piece of evidence since, and have heard nothing except confirmation of receipt on that. And JzG's actions toward me were often abusive and accusatory and head-butting, and many many other things were problematic there. Just so you know, i have sent evidence of JzG doing "opposition research" (here is a more focused diff) to the arbitrators and didn't get any action response or judgment yet. He did that and did make remarks on many occasions that seemed very solidly intended to shut me up, i.e. have a chilling effect, to stereotype me, and to "poison the well" quite strongly, in many, many instances. So there is serious violation of policy against outing, for doing opposition research and then using allusions to outside-Wikispace identity to do ad hominem argumentation in disputes about article content. Discussing content should be discussing content. Discussing principles should be discussing principles. Thank you for your comments. Just wanted to clarify this. Yes, i did originally post this comment without a diff but i added one when this was questioned. SageRad ( talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I find Geogene's comment astounding, because it presupposes what the topic area should say. Geogene saying that "Arbcom's hands may be tied here" means that he wishes ArbCom could somehow retain Jytdog for holding of a Wikipedia "party line" in regard to biotechnology (a single line, not the complexity of the real world). He laments the loss of Jytdog, as if he were "holding the line" against the unwashed rabble who cannot read the Good Science seal of approval that guarantees that all biotechnologies are safe.
If Wikipedia decides who stays and who goes based on ideological agenda or affiliation in this way, it's shaping the outcome without reference to sources and actual cooperative tension among editors. The real knowledge is in the sources, in the nitty-gritty details, in the secondary papers, in some primary papers, in positions of various organizations, in the expert assessments of many, many people. There is not a single conclusion reached by "science" that says "Biotech is safe! You can go home, everyone, it's safe." There are some studies that show relative safety of transgenic plant X or herbicide Y, or the combination of the two. There are some studies that show that pesticide Z causes higher rates of cancer in rats. These are all relevant. Wikipedia does not exist to be a platform either for industry, or for activists. It exists to be a reliable summary of sourced knowledge.
Behavior of editors is what matters. Does an editor follow sources? Represents sources honestly? Does not push a POV unduly? Does an editor work cooperatively with other editors? Have good dialogue? All of these things matter. With good dialogue, and following reliable sources, the content works itself out. That is the way of Wikipedia. Editors follow sources to write articles, and talk about it cooperatively. ArbCom should not be in the business of seeking a specific point of view or outcome in articles, should it? SageRad ( talk) 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to go through all the diffs cited in this decision, but I started with Petrarchan, as (full disclosure) I have seen her around quite a bit on other articles outside of the GMO area. I have to say that absolutely none of them support the statement made in the proposed decision. These are not necessarily the most serene comments known to mankind, but in context are quite consonant with a heated discussion, typical of heated discussions everywhere, and certainly not sufficient for a topic ban in any rational sense. Arbitrators, don't rubber-stamp this please. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read through the diffs, I have to agree with Jusdafax (except re JzG, as I am not all that sure his conduct was quite so bad). It seems to me that Arbcom sort of went on autopilot, and issued a fill-in-the-blanks boilerplate "let's topic ban everyone and try to be evenhanded" decision, irrespective of the merits. The total absence of merit of a Petrarchan topic ban illuminates my point. There is "no there there" in her diffs. There just ain't. Let's not make a mockery of the situation, arbcom. Seriously. Make believe there is supposed to be due process, evidence and all that. Just pretend. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one last thing about "casting general aspersions": in my experience, administrators, those delightful example-setters we all look up to as models of behavior, are masters at "casting aspersions," "general" or otherwise. (One recent example, from an admin-checkuser with 500 years on-Wiki and an in-your-face and admitted COI, cheerfully supplied upon request.) Let's be honest. Yeah, I know "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS," which is Wikipedia parlance for "Let's be arbitrary and inconsistent." Coretheapple ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that an arbitrator, reacting to comments concerning the paucity of evidence against Petrarchan, has added two more diffs, both not from the articles but from these proceedings. Parties and non-parties are asked for evidence and commentary against other editors, and that was provided. But seriously folks, you're going to use this diff to topic ban Petrarchan? Seriously? This diff is similar in wording and tone to much of the other evidence. If it's so terrible, strike it out. Don't take it and shove it up the rumps of parties who are simply trying to do what they're supposed to do.
Re JzG: I'm not enamored of his behavior. He was clearly involved. But if he was behaved so terribly, why wasn't he brought in as a party? You screwed up, arbccom. Just ain't fair to take any action against him. I'm against admin abuse more than most but you got to at least pretend to be fair sometimes. Addendun: I agree with Cla68's comment at 23:50, 12 November 2015, which I just noticed. "Bizarre" is correct. Yes, I know, this is not a bureaucracy, not a tribunal. But you call yourself an "arbitration" committee, which implies a quasi-judicial function. This tends to raise expectations, so perhaps a name change is in order if you're going to name people as parties despite the absence of evidence against them, and then propose sanctions against editors who are not parties. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Petrarchan: yes you make a valid point. However, I think that the monumental incompetence shown by arbcom in these proceedings really needs to be highlighted. Also I would not trust Arbcom frankly to utilized WP:IAR correctly. Dragging in Jusdafax, forcing him to participate at Jytdog's behest, despite a paucity of involvement, indicates to me that arbcom needs to obey the rule on a uniform basis. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So now, well into the process, there are penalties proposed for two additional editors, Tryptofish and Wuerzele, the former for the terrible felony of not providing diffs in the workshop phase of this arbitration? Unreal. Bring this mess to a close, please. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the above (and apologies for the untoward length of this section) I'm deeply distressed by Wuerzele being yanked in to these proceedings for diffs that fail utterly to support any sanctions. And, obviously by the outing for which Jytdog was recently blocked. Clearly a site ban is in order. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The call for sanctions for JzG, including ArbCom removal of the the administrator title and buttons, is appropriate. I see an argument is being made that because he is not a named party in this case, that he is somehow immune to correctional action here. That argument is specious and should be rejected.
Site ban option needed for Jytdog. In vivid contrast to JzG/Guy, I was added as a party to this case despite virtually no involvement in editing any of the articles in mainspace. This was originally done by named party Jytdog as retaliation for my statement, which pointed out a number of glaring facts regarding Jytdog; his action to add me was an obvious tit-for-tat move that continued his overall pattern of abuse of process. Like JzG, Jytdog abruptly ceased editing while this case was in progress after things started looking bad for him, including several pointed warnings on Jytdog's Talk page regarding his grave dancing to named Party GregJackP, who stood up to Jytdog effectively. The sharp administrator warnings were then removed from Jytdog's Talk page by Jytdog. GregJackP's opening statement remains relevant and important as Jytdog is the primary actor in this case.
I ask proposed sanctions, including a topic ban, for KingofAces. Not to do so, yet point to other editors as deserving of such, is a serious error, as I see it. KoA has been highly disruptive and he merits corrective action. NOTE: added Nov. 15, 2015: In this diff, Kingofaces supports another editors deletion of two entire sections of links to documentaries and books about or relating to Monsanto. When Wuerzele replaced the deleted sections and objected, Kingofaces characterizes his comments as "ranting" on the Monsanto article Talk page in an attempt to belittle and intimidate Wuerzele. I eventually had to issue Kingofaces a formal warning on the Talk page after he continued to talk down to Wuerzele and SageRad, who both stood up to Kingofaces' ownership tactics. So is it any wonder SageRad is subsequently targeted, repeat, targeted for harassment? Any wonder that Wuerzele is now added to the sanctions list on the Proposed Decisions page at the insistence of Kingofaces? These two editors, Wuerzele and Sage Rad, stood up to bullies trying to whitewash the Monsanto article. We see what has happened to Wuerzele and Sage Rad. This is, as clearly shown in the diffs, not acceptable behavior by Kingofaces and needs to be acknowledged by ArbCom as sanction-worthy. Nor is censorship acceptable. Our very concept of a free encyclopedia is at stake, in my opinion.
Proposed topic bans for SageRad, Petrarchan47, DrChrissy and Prokaryotes are deeply wrong. These people are legit editors who without exception have been bullied and harassed on their own Talk pages, article Talk, and elsewhere. I repeat: the proposed sanctions against these editors are flat-out wrong. Proposals to site ban SageRad are, per Tryptofish above, excessive, and, I feel, incredible. He has learned and matured from his early errors, and he is an important contributor to Wikipedia. The proposal to topic ban Petrarchan47 is shockingly thin. "Casting aspersions?" 3 diffs, including one from a conversation on my Talk page? You have got to be kidding.
No mention of Pete/Skyring despite obvious substantial and prolonged disruption at Monsanto legal cases. I am astonished by this.
Conclusion: I am in general profoundly disappointed with this Proposed Decision (PD). I call on Arbitrators to make corrections promptly. I believe this case is crucial to the future of Wikipedia, and I feel it will be referred to by future Wiki-historians. The choices made here will reverberate for years to come, and the responsibilities to act fairly are now up to the Arbitrators. I urge that the final decisions be made in a spirit of justice, and wisdom. Jus da fax 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@jtrevor just below who is not a Party to this case: My statement above includes a goodly number of diffs and links. You present none to support your broad contentions, and your statement in my view carries little persuasional heft. Those interacting with Jytdog for years have presented a strong case in favor of serious sanctions, and your just saying it isnt so leaves me cold. Come on, man. Jus da fax 02:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In direct response to Jusdafax's call for a site ban of Jytdog: The facts simply do not support such a call. A permanent site ban is a very extreme measure, to be used only in the worst of circumstances when no other recourse is available, to deal with users who have not, or cannot, contribute positively to WP. This does not describe Jytdog; the evidence abundantly proved, despite his attitude and sharp words, that he is quite capable of making positive edits and enforcing WP policies. This is true even in the areas that ArbCom is considering topic-banning him in. If a site ban is considered for Jytdog for behavior, it must by necessity be considered as well for his opponents such as DrChrissy which exhibited strikingly similar behavior. Failure to do so would indicate unacceptable bias on the part of ArbCom. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I will make one more comment, but otherwise will reserve judgment on the PD until it is more complete, as it clearly is a work in progress. If Jytdog and/or JzG are topic-banned from this area, then other editors will have to step up to fill the vacuum left behind. These two authors, in my opinion, have done the most to provide a counterpoint to the constant push towards a non-scientific (or dogmatic!) viewpoint in the articles in question. In other words, they have done the most to preserve WP's intended stance on controversial, scientifically pertinent articles. Their attitudes, particularly Jytdog's, are a direct result of the constant drain caused by this neverending fight. I hope the next author(s) do not respond similarly to the onslaught. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jusdafax I don't need to provide additional diffs beyond those already provided during the evidentiary gathering. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I am at a loss. I would really appreciate if someone could spell out for me what I have done wrong, otherwise I don't know how to respond or defend myself. Every diff that's been presented against me in this case shows an edit or comment that I stand behind today; I wouldn't change a thing. I take my time before pressing enter, and I don't drink whilst editing. So I know there are no gotcha's out there lurking, and that it isn't possible for anyone to come up with diffs to prove that I am problematic. They don't exist. The 3 chosen to show that I am casting aspersions do not show anything of the sort. Claims against me in this case have ranged from POV pushing, fringe pushing, battleground behaviour, edit warring, WP:NOTHERE, and more. Yet it all boiled down to a (IMO, bogus) claim of aspersion casting. That means that there were numerous aspersions cast against me (perhaps even including the PDs) that never had evidence. Aspersions cast during ArbCom should result in sanctions. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been attempting to tell you all for over three years about a bias that is staining the reputation of Wikipedia, and am being ignored and demonized. When readers found out that BP was allowed to pen much their article, [68] there was an outcry from the public, with many calling for a boycott by ceasing donations. The readers abhor the idea of corporate spin on what appears to be the most unbiased source available on the web for most subjects.
Jytdog and supporters misused sources such as the WHO, and created through SYNTH a false claim that has had independent scientists crying foul for a few years now. I first noticed the bias (is "COI-like editing" safe to say?) from a group of editors when working on the March Against Monsanto article, and went to DGG for help. He agreed that their attempts to insert scientific claims about GMO safety were not appropriate for that article, but Jytdog and the group continued to guard that material as recently as this August, [69] which is after the RfC found that his sources did not support this claim of "scientific consensus" on GM food safety. To this day, a web search will turn up only one other source for this claim, the AAAS. Jytdog had to admit, by changing in this diff after close of the RfC, that his claim posted to numerous articles for roughly 3 years was unsupported. (The new version of the claim, "general scientific agreement", is based only on a poll of AAAS scientists, and coupled with more SYNTH that again doesn't support the claim.)
This misuse of sources has to be one of the most egregious ever in your history. ArbCom rules on the misuse of sources, but there is no PD yet.
There is a PD for speaking out about the aforementioned, but no PD for calling me a supporter of fringe science, one of the worst things that can be said about an editor here. I dedicated myself to learning the MEDRS guideline, and have been diligent about using sourcing correctly; no evidence has emerged to prove otherwise. But I am being demonized regardless, as are others in this case, for "pushing fringe".
No support was offered for claims of 'POV pushing', or 'anti-GMO editing', even though this entire case was framed around this story-line. And that's all it was. I'd call it "spin-doctoring an ArbCom". There is no PD for all of the false accusations, just as there is no PD protecting me and others (who aren't editing with a pro-corporate, or any, bias) from continuing to be called derogatory terms.
Once the PD is passed giving greater support to editors who are using your site to push false claims than to independent editors trying to alert you all to it, Wikipedia will have officially crossed a line, representing a move that I, and arguably your readers, disagree with vehemently. If you do favor one 'group' over the other, it should be in favor of those protecting the veracity of your content, not those harming it and your reputation. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
*@Atsme, As a result of inappropriate accusations and the haphazard manner in which this entire case was drafted,
Petrarchan47 has retired. I reject this interpretation of my motivation, but thank you. My "final note" above says it all. One arb's opinion of me had no impact on my decision.
174.71.67.48 (
talk) 01:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
was called here by the clerk saying this is a proposed decision. I could not believe this is it, waited for two days, until now, to post. Being naive to Arbcom proceedings, Arbcom politics, Arbcom everything I feel baptised by fire: where is reason, where is the decision coming from, why the glaring double standard? none, if any wrist slaps for pro-GMO editors in general and harsh sanctions against bona fide editors who insert critical next to the mainstream information. the division is along exactly those lines that I had established in my first post on the evidence page. seems like a 180 degree turn where those who stepped forward to confront Jytdog were treated more harshly than him.
yes, it was a difficult case, large scope, house move and whatever, so we endured the more than one month delay, but this decision (if no more FOF's are forthcoming) is so unbelievably one-sided, penalizing serious, critical editors, while letting arrogant, editwarring rhetoric wielding editors off the hook, it is profoundly POV.
Is Arbcom captured? are there too many scientism-dogmatic folks in its own rows? Is it too difficult to disagree with arbcom systemic mainstream? are too many involved administrators watching? -- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
since it appears, that what we write here is for ourselves and whoever watches/follows these proceedings, the public, I am not pinging any arbitrator.
For the record, I do not understand ...
in closing:
(in response to wuerzele's ping)
viewing from the sidelines, the way this whole things has been dealt with, it's a fucking joke. Semitransgenic talk. 11:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking over the comments above, it's striking how many of the responses to the committee's proposed decision can be summarized as follows:
As I understand it, the purpose of sanctions is not to punish, but to protect the encyclopedia. Bearing this in mind, and taking the comments above into account, the committee may want to consider whether a return to civility and collaboration in this subject area will require restricting the editing privileges of additional editors. Otherwise, I suspect this issue will be revisited here within the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.143 ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to urge the arbitrators to think very carefully about the issues of casting aspersions, COI and outing, as I think the long term ramifications of this issue are perhaps more central than those that this arbitration was raised to deal with.
We have a tremendously diverse group of editors here, and just as some here have expressed a strong stance on the importance of protecting Wikipedia from "being taken over by the corporations", others, who do not necessarily have any conflict of interest, believe that the content of our articles sometimes has taken on an excessively anti-corporate, anti-capitalism, or even an anti-science POV. It is good and healthy for editors of both viewpoints to interact, and to try to generate content that balanced and WP:NPOV.
As it is now, there is constant bad feeling between these two groups, and a battleground mentality. What would help would be a crisper process for dealing with COI concerns. If we can eliminate the suspicion of those "on the left" that they are dealing with covert corporate operatives, and the anger of those "on the right" who feel their integrity is questioned daily simply for having a different POV, we would have a much more productive and collaborative atmosphere.
It won't be easy to design such a process, but I think this is the crux of the problem.
73.162.132.47 ( talk) 23:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
While I understand the reasoning that Jzg was not included. This editors actions during the case should merit more than an admonition, at least a warning, slightly stronger wording, should be included. The reason they were not included was up to the arbs, but the continued actions in the topic area after the case started merit some looking at.
Jytdog did do some good work at COIN, but evidence is clear that he also used it as way to attack those he disagreed with. The incivility alone is well documented and I wonder if those who place themselves in such a high profile role, even though they are not an admin, should be held to a higher standard of civility. Good work in some areas should never be a reason to discount issues in another.
Kingofaces deserves at least a warning for his part in all of this.
The diffs against Petrarchan47 do not seem to rise to the level of a topic ban, nether do those against Prokaryotes.
I am concerned with the sanctions against SageRad, a newer editor who was in a area with more seasoned editors in content disagreements. I would request that the appeal time be lowered to 6 months.
I would also suggest that everyone who in the end is topic banned, take these words into consideration. Its not the end of the world. WP is a big place, and there is lots to do. Try and find an area that is less contentious and be productive, time will fly by. Stay far away from any topic thats even close to the ban. Base everything you do on PAG, and learn as many of them as you can. When you can appeal, these things will be in your favor. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The evidence against wuerzele is very questionable. Battleground consists of one post to Sagerad, and one heated discussion that doesnt really prove the accusation. Edit warring is one report the user was already blocked for, and a lone revert on June 20th. Incivility, again I dont see the issue with the diffs, perhaps I am missing something? Its perhaps one questionable post, the other are replacing an attempt to solve a problem on a users talk page that other editors are removing. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish on the other hand had a massive case of casting WP:ASPERSIONS and he is just reminded? AlbinoFerret 15:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What is even more concerning on the reminder of Tryptofish, is that an Roger Davies, an arb, asked for the diffs in 10 places from Tryptofish [70], and none were provided. He even came back days later with another warning [71] that Tryptofish ignored. Now we get a "reminder" in the PD? That is just sad. AlbinoFerret 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In response to Tryptofish's post here. [72] Yes its no different than in the case where an editor made accusations and did not back them up with evidence even after being asked to do so twice by an arb, but we have a section on Casting aspersions. AlbinoFerret 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner You ask why Kingofaces43 should have sanctions imposed. Here is why.
Engages in edit warring, by jumping into an existing edit war.
The FOF of Minor4th - (Examples of SQS/edit warring: [96], [97], [98] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [99], [100], [101]; revert history on Glyphosate: [102]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [103]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [104], see talk discussion here)
I also ask you to rethink sanctions for Tryptofish considering the facts laid out in my comments just above this one on Kingofaces. AlbinoFerret 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
To address Tryptofish on tag teaming. I also added a section on just plain edit warring in my FOF in the workshop. Jumping into an existing edit war, whether in concert or not is just as bad. Thats Battleground mentality even if acting alone when jumping into revert what others are reverting. I did not even say tag team here, so what you have done is presented a strawman, instead of addressing joining in edit warring and creating a battleground. AlbinoFerret 18:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
One thing I would like to point out are a few faulty defences, the "but I was right" defence. This is not really a defence in edit warring, there is no excuse for edit warring, even if you think or know your right. Every person who edit wars thinks they are right, or tries to justify it after the fact. The problem is, is that WP articles are supposed to be built by consensus, and sometimes that means that even though you may be right, its wrong to revert. The next one is, I reverted but mentioned the talk page in the comments. This is another faulty argument, WP articles are long standing, reverting doesnt have to take place unless its blatant vandalism, or a BLP, or copyright violation. Both of these defences create a battleground enviroment. The alternative is to leave the edit be, start a talk page discussion, and let consensus dictate what should be done. From what I have seen these faulty arguments are used to jump into existing edit wars. The only thing that happens when the second, third and so on editor jumps in is a bigger battle that harms consensus and then nothing is accomplished. The last faulty defense is "the other person was edit warring". Every editor should have learned early in life that two wrongs dont make a right. Every editor that jumps in even to do one revert in an edit war is wrong. Wikipedia need to stop picking who was right in an edit war, and ban/block all that are involved. AlbinoFerret 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember that King and Scoundrels as censors has a basis as a theological reference from seminary classes I audited long ago. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Capeo DrChrissy who works with and teaches veterinarians does good work on animal related content on WP. I believe the arbs made the topic ban different from the others to reflect the good work he has done in respect to animals and focusing in on the problem areas. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that Arbcom will give a great deal of consideration of what it will mean to the small group of editors who are doing their best to prevent corporate control of our encyclopedia and the chilling effect that a decision to prevent Petrarchan's further help in this effort will have on them. Most of my work with this editor comes from the editing of the BP article where she worked for months to bring that article to a place that now shows BP's responsibility for what has been called the greatest ecological disaster in the history of the United States. She worked alone for weeks and continued her work until a media story broke exposing the fact that a corporate representative was responsible for the writing of a great deal of the information in the article. Then as now, Petrarchan was concerned about corporate influence (and I am as well) and I would hope that to merely even make the suggestion that there is evidence of it will not get one banned. Let's face it, when it comes right down to it we have no way to know for a fact that any editor is accepting financial gain from the editing that they do here, unless they admit to it. We must go by what appears to be the case. When one editor is the leading editor of all of the Monsanto articles and has done substantial edits of any article even remotely connected to Monsanto, for example a small TV station that broadcast negative information regarding one of Monsanto's products, is that not an issue of concern? As for the "aspirations" that she has supposedly cast against several other editors, one of these editors all but had their shingle posted on his user page that suggested that he was available to work on litigation cases - until he mysteriously, suddenly left without explanation. Another of them also has, IMO, a similar pro-industry history of edits. I'm not suggesting that an editor should have the freedom to go around suggesting that anyone that disagrees with their POV must be a paid editor should be allowed to do so without comment, but certainly we don't want to start banning people that express concerns regarding an appearance of biased editing. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment regarding Geogene's section: There has been an effort to portray the editors that have been described here (and elsewhere) as anti-Monsanto POV pushers (or worse) as holding the position that GMOs are harmful to human health and that their concerns about Monsanto are based solely on that belief. That is not factual in my case and I'm pretty sure that many if not all or most of the others that have been brought here for a review of their conduct (or those that have made comments that support them) do not hold that position either. My concerns for our Monsanto articles are similar to the concerns I hold for all of our large corporate articles: Are environmental concerns included, are legal issues presented in a fair and unbiased manner, have major accidents been covered, etc. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Viriditas comment: Calling Petrarchan "deeply hostile" is laughable, though it does reflect on an editor that would suggest it as a matter of fact. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I echo the comments of Justdafax and AlbinoFerret above, but not quite as emphatically as Justdafax. I strongly agree with this comment by Justdafax:
JzG's style of communication is strongly biased against users he disagrees with and is not becoming of an administrator. The Evidence presented by Minor4th demonstrates that he cannot act objectively as an "uninvolved admin." on GMO issues, and should be at a minimum banned from any administrative duties related to GMO's. A mere sanction is not enough.
That said, I am pleased that finally something is about to be done to address the problem of Jytdog's tyrannical rule over the GMO pages, that users like me were afraid to even talk about until this ArbCom proceeding came up, because we knew that administrators like JzG would punish us and not Jytdog if we complained at AN/I, as had happened to quite a few users who tried to. Justice will prevail here.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Mailer diablo: It appears that many of the revisions that had been redacted immediately resurfaced when Mailer diablo added this this diff:
Is it a bug in the redacting software or was Mailer diablo working with an old version and not aware of the redactions?
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Here I have assembled the evidence I presented earlier regarding KingofAces43 per this. (I may revise before deadline):
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll first point out that NativeForeigner and Guerillero did a decent job of trying to strike out a core area. I'd really ask arbs to look over the evidence sections where editors have been specifically named though as NativeForeigner has said this is meant to be the proposed decision at a minimum. [113] There is a lot of evidence or even editors not listed in the PD that are plentiful in the evidence section. There's a large number of editors that could be examined more closely in the PD, but I appreciate that the combination of only being able to present so much evidence coherently and limited time for arbs to examine it won't get everything done at once. I'm hoping bringing new cases to enforcement if needed will work for most editors not listed in remedies that have been shown to have problematic behavior if they continue those issues after this case.
That being said, I do think Wuerzele should be listed for an FoF and remedy. They specifically go out of their way to attack editors shown in these evidence sections [114] [115] [116] and summarized in this proposed FoF from workshop. [117] I bring this up because after the close of evidence, Wuerzele has continued to engage in this behavior during this case (otherwise I wouldn't bring it up with it being "new" evidence):
This short talk section with Wuerzele wanting an addition to the lede at Kevin Folta shows them accusing others of "patting each other on the shoulder" when they tried to address the concern, accusing me of spindoctoring, and other bad faith comments. I do suggest arbs read each of Wuerzele's comments in that section especially because that kind of behavior has been an ongoing problem that has not changed regardless of warnings in the past. It's the kind of persistent problem that won't get better that is suited for ArbCom, so I would ask at least an FOF and some sort of remedy (probably topic ban) be proposed for arbs to discuss. This would deal with one of the main sources of incivility in the topic. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I had a quick chance to pop in, and it looks like there's a deluge of involved parties trying to gang up specifically on me after Jusdafax canvassed them (specifically described as campaigning under WP:CANVASS) with a very purposeful attempt to direct editors against me in a "call to action". I still need to ask the drafters and arbs whether they think that attitude and set of actions warrants sanctions. In terms of the additional claims (that have already been rehashed to death in evidence and workshop already):
NativeForeigner I'm just giving you a formal ping to be sure you're aware of my responses above, though I know you're usually keeping up with the talk page discussion. For both you and Guerillero, some in multiple parties have said that 1RR may not be enough. Besides the aspersions of tag-teaming, a scenario can come up with two editors where one adds content, another reverts, and the first reverts again to keep the new content in. Now the 1RR restriction could be specified to say the first edit would count towards 1RR (potential for gaming there), but what would you two think instead about including this proposed principle from workshop in the PD for arbs to vote on? In addition to 1RR, this principle would at least set up the expectation for editors that if a new change is initially rejected, that's the time to go to the talk page and not re-revert regardless of whether it's the same editor or someone different coming in. If there's even an slight inclination that my involvement in trying to move people away from edit warring has been improper, 1RR should enough to diffuse that, but 1RR coupled with the principle should help take care of the underlying edit warring behavior from other editors that's been the main problem in the topic. Kingofaces43 ( talk)
Likewise for DeltaQuad, after seeing this comment, most of the claims by Minor4th are addressed in a few paragraphs up in this section either searching for their name or mention of DrChrissy for some related incidents. A number of the diff descriptions are misleading or show me trying to respond reasonably to other behavior issues outlined in this case already when you actually dig into the context of the edits. I'm not going to put words in NativeForeigner's mouth as to why they haven't proposed any FoF after reviewing the evidence, but they do seem to be most familiar with reviewing my edits and at least previously saying there wasn't evidence for a FoF.
Looking at my edit summaries should show at worst that I've been associated with edit wars, but generally by trying to tamp down the editor warring behavior of other editors trying to edit war in disputed content without talk page conversation. The 1RR sanction should take care of that hopefully, so I'm not sure what else could really be proposed on my part. It's been a bit out of process with the re-presentation of evidence regarding me scattered on this talk page though, so if there are questions on something that I may have missed, feel free to ask here or through email. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to catch up more later, but in response to SMcCandlish and Doug Weller's recent concerns, [161] the idea of addressing an apparent COI issue on the user's talk page or COIN if escalation is needed comes directly from WP:COI at WP:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, so there shouldn't any reason to oppose that in terms of "new" policies or guidelines. That being said, Tryptofish's proposed change [162] is perfectly fine as the main purpose of the principle is to say that aspersions such as a shill gambit are not appropriate on an article talk page and claims of a COI must be instead settled in the appropriate forums, such as COIN. This principle is to prevent the current situation where editors continue sniping (shill, never opposes company X, etc.) on article or admin boards without evidence without ever attempting to resolve the apparent issue at COIN and instead uses aspersion tactics.
Additionally for SMcCandlish, I do agree with the other side you bring up where people are quick to claim aspersions when someone mentions a general behavior problem with an editor (often talked to death at other noticeboards) and someone claims aspersion solely because diffs weren't provided in a repeat conversation that has changed venues/audience. I can see potential for gaming where editors do not acknowledge their behavior issues and constantly claim aspersion even though relevant ANIs have been linked to death in previous conversations. That kind of stuff happens unfortunately, but in a non-ANI, etc. type board where there is context similar to how you described here where you're not expected to provided diffs at that point, someone should simply ask for diffs first rather than impose action. I don't know how to better protect against that in this principle, but the larger problem in this case historically has been the tendency to cast aspersions about editors related to companies to discredit them. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading the IP editor's recent comments, [163] this principle should help alleviate slinging about the shill argument directed at editors if editors continue down that route after this case things end up at enforcement. My hope is that it tempers personal political views a bit to discourage the kind of editor attacking we've been seeing. That's keeping in mind that there's a continuum between appropriate general corporate skepticism (I tend do have a fair dose of that in edits I actually make) and ax grinding or WP:ADVOCACY being interjected into the topic and towards editors.
That being said, I could call for more FoF's and remedies until the cows come home for things like advocacy or advocating fringe views, but that's just not feasible given how difficult it is to get a clear picture presented on some of the more acute problems currently listed in the PD. That's probably why no one else got into the fringe issue much because it deals so much with content intertwined with behavior. We're not going to fix everything at once in this individual case, but I think we're at a point we have a start with some of the listed topic bans, 1RR, DS, principles, etc. to move forward a little more smoothly with future behavior. I don't think anyone has ever gotten everything they want from a case before, so I for one am content to say let's work with what we have in the PD for now to see how it works in the future. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like every motion has reached the threshold number of votes for a pass or fail excluding those involving Prokaryotes, so we should be close to wrapping this up. I understand some arbs may be busy or are taking their time reviewing material before voting, but we've had more edit warring, etc. breaking out at glyphosate in the last two days with editors already aware of existing sanctions. DrChrissy has directly violated the 1RR sanction trying to edit war in new content against consensus [164] [165], while Wuerzele has been trying to edit war the same content in even though there isn't consensus in the ongoing talk page discussion (I've mentioned Wuerzele's previous 1RR violations in an email awhile ago). These editors were notified of the sanctions on their talk pages, while others involved in the recent edits (before my most recent one) where not aware of sanctions and did not violate 3RR, so they are not mentioned in the context of this case.
With the case being so close to finishing, it would seem better to just let this finish and have the topic bans imposed rather than bring this AE, but I am concerned these editors are continuing this behavior when they know their topic bans are coming already. Most other editors involved in this case have stayed out of editing the page for the time being excluding the above two. Will this case be wrapped up soon are separate measures needed for these editors in the interim? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
On the note of the new FoF regarding SageRad, editors have mentioned that the issue with their POV and how it is applied reaches the point of WP:ADVOCACY. Simply having a POV isn't a problem as DGG and Doug Weller have voiced in the original FoF, but the specific wording about advocacy wasn't included in the original FoF (though that's functionally what's been described all along). Advocacy to the level that it becomes disruptive, undue weight, or hyperbole filled is something under the purview of ArbCom that often results in topic bans.
So, this FoF could be tweaked slightly to have "and articulated a clear POV that has reached the point of WP:ADVOCACY in regards to the locus of the case" However, that's only to clear up the questions that have come up if arbs are still looking to discuss the alternate proposal for SageRad. If arbs are willing to move ahead with what already has sufficient votes to pass, the tweak I proposed isn't anything I'd be concerned enough about if it was going to take additional time to implement and discuss amongst arbs when everything else is more or less wrapped up.
I also think Capeo has some valid concerns over DrChrissy's topic ban only applying to GMO plants. I personally wouldn't suggest a change this late in the game as I think a WP:ROPE approach will work fine if problems come up in GMO animal articles. I don't know if it needs to be explicitly stated in the remedy that there is a lower bar for action is the same behavior pops up in closely related topics like GMO animals. It could be worth considering if arbs think it's a minor tweak that won't delay the case and would add some clarity if future issues come up.
I don't have anything else to add for this case aside from those minor thoughts. Thanks arbs for wading through this. I know decisions are never going to be ideal, but we should have something to work forward with in this topic now to hopefully make things run a little smoother. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Considering that JzG is not a party to the original complaint a topic ban serves no purpose. Considering that he is a party to taking part in the case and that he is responsible for his own actions the other two actions should be considered. Each user has received ample warning that their behavior here can be addressed. It's at the top of this very page. "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." I have no position on whether JzG has done anything wrong, just that it shouldn't go unaddressed and written off in a bureaucratic manner. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 20:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom is not here to commend Jytdog or any other member of Wikipedia for their work. They are here to end disputes, primarily conduct disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. I encourage each and every Arbitrator to commend Jytdog and any other editor you deem worthy of your commendation, but I encourage you to do so in your position as an editor and not an Arbitrator. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 01:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not really followed this case, but I noticed the recently added proposed finding and remedy criticizing Tryptofish for submitting workshop proposals without evidence diffs. I don't recall any editor's having previously been called out in a decision and scolded or sanctioned for making insufficiently detailed workshop proposals, and this would be a very strange and undesirable place to start. I believe this editor was trying to synthesize the evidence into findings for the Committee's consideration, and the limitations on his work were apparent on the face of the proposals and acknowledged in response to arbitrators' direct requests for the diffs. I did the same thing myself on occasion before I became an arbitrator. If the Committee wants to establish a rule that all workshop proposals (or at least all proposals for a finding or remedy against a specific editor) require diffs or evidence links, that can be discussed, but still does not warrant the finding and remedy proposed here. Finally, and as delicately as I can, I will point out that the Committee's weird block of Tryptofish in the middle of the case could quite well have limited his ability or dampened his enthusiasm to return to one of the arbitration pages to provide additional information in the limited time remaining before the workshop closed.
Unless I am missing something (always possible), I would hope that these proposals would be withdrawn, and if not withdrawn, definitely not adopted.
I also don't see that Trypofish has been notified that his name now appears in a proposed finding and remedy on the PD. Although he has participated on this talkpage, he may not necessarily be monitoring it every day, and he needs to know about this. I will @ Tryptofish: myself to save time, but could an arbitrator or clerk do the same for anyone else who's been added since the original PD was posted? (If this is already underway, thank you.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I had some time to breathe today and looked in on this case. My RL work remains very consuming and I do not know when I will have bandwidth to contribute again. I debated whether I should say anything at all now, and figured I might as well do what I can to honor the process in this sliver of time I have.
1) I want to thank arbcom for working through all of this. There is a lot, and it is never easy in WP to work through complicated issues especially without the voice of a central figure. I apologize again for bailing in the midst of this, but RL is RL, as I wrote in the email I sent to you all.
2) The proposed decision is more or less what I expected.
a) With regard to me, I do acknowledge that I have acted badly sometimes and I apologize again for that. I've tried hard to follow the spirit (not just the letter) of Wikipedia - to focus on content and sources, to write NPOV, well sourced content, and to treat everyone like the humans they are. I have actly badly at times, no doubt about it. Whether the frequency or pattern of that arises to something that requires a topic ban is of course for you to judge. If I am topic banned, I will abide by it and will steer well clear of the topic. Additional to my own behavior being a justification for a topic ban (if you so judge), there are so many people who have personalized their disputes me with and have then pursued those disputes into this topic and elsewhere, that just removing me from participation may calm the waters in this topic somewhat.
Rolling back up to the big picture. I thank Arbcom again for its service, and wish you good luck in arriving at a wise decision. I apologize again for my bad behaviors, and for not participating in the case, and will abide by any decisions at which you arrive. Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Something is missing from the PD that I hope ARBCOM will consider before it is set in stone. There is no recognition of the tremendous contribution Jytdog has made to the project over the years. A motion that says something like - "Notwithstanding the locus of this case, Jytdog has been a model contributor to the project, and supporter of the pillars"
Similarly, if ARBCOM decides to sanction JzG, perhaps it could consider a similar motion in that regard. Thankyou. - Roxy the dog™ woof 11:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to all participating. I'm allowing users to submit explanations regarding why previous evidence presented against Kingofaces43 is deserving of FoF and sanction. All other evidence should not be posted and will not (and to this point has not) been considered. It will be reverted. Please submit explanations of existing evidence against Kingofaces with explanations as to why you believe it is worthy of sanction. This will be accepted until 12:00 (noon) UTC on Tuesday. Given the lack of clarity, everything currently on the talk page won't be redacted, but any additions of new evidence will be. NativeForeigner Talk 12:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is quite telling. Also agree with Roxy above. AIRcorn (talk)
In order of their occurring to me in reading though this and the diffs of the evidence used (I have not been following this case closely before now, or involved in the dispute, I'm just trying to make sense of where it's heading and why):
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI.
The rest of it makes sense to me and seems well-reasoned. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
As for the other matter, the solution to disproportionate, one-sided, and opportunistically punitive sanctions against editors repeating allegations they've already proven in the past and simply didn't redundantly dump a boatload of repeat diffs about in that particular post, is for ArbCom to simply clarify that it does not want AE and AC/DS to be mis-enforced in such a manner. It's not a potential problem, but an actual one, and the fallout from it (good editors being penalized unfairly, too often inspiring them to quit the project, and even more often chilling their participation to a great extent and making them fearful to enter any discussion that seems to involve controversy) is arguably worse than the effects of doing less about aspersion-casting in general (mostly ranty editor group A flaming at ranty editor group B who return the favor, without either side ever giving up, much less being driven off the project by it). But it's a false dichotomy: It shouldn't take an Arb more than a few minutes to draft, and other Arbs a few minutes to review and approve, a sanctions enforcement clarification for admins, while also continuing to persue DS and other means of reining in camp A vs. camp B flamewarring and other disruption. No gleaming baby need be thrown out with the nasty bathwater. The need for such a review and clarification has been noted by more than just me (see WT:ARBCOM for an admin proposing a second formal DS review in response to these sorts of concerns; the last review was in 2013 and was self-evidently insufficient, even if it was a good start). To get back to this case: I've posted these concerns here because the bulk of the evidence, FoF, and probably the impending sanctions directly involved the "aspersion casting" issue, and this focus seems questionable to me. The civility/battlegrounding/NPA concerns seem far more important to me, and I'd bet to most of WP. Aspersion casting (without being able to back up the claims) is simply one of many forms of incivility (and sometimes attack), neither the most common nor necessarily the worst. By way of silly analogy, I'm reminded of a murder trial in which the focus is mostly on the fact that a hunting knife in particular was used, instead of focusing on the fact that someone was wrongfully killed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that so many opponents of Jytdog have accumulated over the years that Arbcom's hands may be tied here. But I hope that at least some of Committee have the percipience to know what their decision will do to Wikipedia's content in this area. Studies have shown that scientists who understand GMO's and pharma have a markedly different perception of their risk than the general public does [177]. Wikipedia editors are self-selecting, nevertheless they tend to represent the views of the public at large more than those of the scientific community, so anyone knowledgeable about the subject area that edits here is going to be exposed to a lot of conflict. It follows that anybody who edits from a neutral perspective (meaning: aligned with the view of most scientists) is either going to be driven off or will be really unpopular and make a lot of enemies. And the likelihood of being caught in incivility increases in proportion to both the number of disputes a editor engages in and the number of opponents he has. Arbs: you aren't going to do anything positive for Wikipedia by voting Jytdog off the island. Trying to create balanced content is a fool's errand, and there are only so many editors foolish enough to keep at it without you making a systemic problem worse. Maybe you could save some face here if you hide behind bureaucracy and claim that these problems aren't a part of your mandate. But you've still let the project down. Geogene ( talk) 22:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
So here's the kind of thing that I think annoys many observers of ArbCom's process. This case is clearly quite near to being finished, yet a close is not possible because we are waiting for votes from a number of arbitrators. @ AGK:, @ Seraphimblade: and @ Roger Davies: are all listed as active on this case, but have not, as yet, voted -- and their votes have the potential to make a significant difference in a number of proposed remedies. If these arbs are indeed active, I ask them to please vote. If they are not, then the list of active arbs on the case should be re-done and the number of votes needed for passage recalculated. I believe that when this happens, holding up the closure of a case, it frustrates supporters of all sides and onlookers as well.
Perhaps the next ArbCom might like to consider imposing time limits on votes, just as editors have time limits on the evidence and workshop phases. In this case, it's been two weeks since the proposed decision was posted -- that seems to me like sufficient time for all arbs to have submitted their votes. BMK ( talk) 15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in the aforementioned diffs from Petrarchan47 indicating any semblance of "deep hostility". Am I to assume this was an attempt to throw mud at her, hoping that something will stick and tarnish her character? I have read almost every contribution she has ever made to Wikipedia, and while I have significant differences of opinion with her on numerous topics, I have never once seen her "deeply hostile" about anyone or any subject. Wikipedia editors have a bad reputation when it comes to interpreting the emotions of other editors. Instead of perpetuating this erroneous assessment, it would make more sense to strike the finding in its entirety. Viriditas ( talk) 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG: I see this quite often, the assertion that because someone comes to a different conclusion in a situation where reasonable people may differ, so the other person's reasoning abilities are fundamentally flawed. In fact the person who does this most often, in the venues I visit, is one Dana Ullman. Who has a past with ArbCom, by a strange coincidence. Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Due to unforeseeable personal circumstances, I have not had sufficient time to keep up with all the comments and discussion on this case that has occurred since the proposed decision was posted. As I do not have time to catch up with all arbitration matters without delaying things unnecessarily I am going to strike my votes regarding specific findings and remedies and move to abstain. I will be effectively inactive on this case going forward and will not respond to pings or talk page messages regarding it. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that DrChrissy's topic ban differs from the rest wherein "organism" is replaced by "plant". I'm assuming this was intentional? Just trying avoid the inevitable clarification request 10 minutes after this case closes. DrChrissy is current active in Genetically Modified Fish as an example. Does agriculture broadly construed include aquaculture for instance and thus chemicals used in aquaculture? I could see reasonable arguments for either. The simplest definition of agriculture is the cultivation of plants and animals for food. If you are including what might be perceived as potential caveats to the ban it would probably be better to clarify now rather than close the case and rehash it in a couple days. I personally think trying to exclude some GMO's and not others is simply going to lead to more drama given their obvious topical overlap and DrChrissy's focus on animal welfare in agriculture in general. Capeo ( talk) 18:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, that may well be the case, I'm just suggesting to head any issues off at the pass. DrChrissy already ran into some issues on their first topic ban with some claims of intentionally skirting the edges of it. They've edited Glyphosate pretty heavily well after it was clear they are going to be topic banned from it. That's not typical behavior of someone about to get a TB. Looking at their last 1000 edits I'd also say their focus is animal welfare not animals in general and consists of mostly adding negative material about food production processes. That's not a bad thing unto itself if properly balanced but it will inevitably lead to some conflict again. When it does all parties would served if everyone understood the bounds. Too often an ArbCom remedy goes up for clarifcation within a week of the case closing and it leads to a basic rehash of the whole ordeal for everyone. Capeo ( talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Another point that would help avoid further drama is to broaden all the TBs from "agricultural chemicals" to something along the lines of "agricultural chemicals and the companies that create and produce them" or something similar. If the idea of TBs is to serve an editor's and WP's best interest by removing them from areas of potential conflict then it makes sense to predict where their editing may butt up against the TB and clarify as much as possible beforehand. Otherwise you end up with the type of equivocating at AE where an editor claims, "well, sure, parts of the article would violate my TB but the specific part I edited doesn't". You can see that in of the recent Kochs Brothers related AEs. It's silly. It often puts the admins at AE in ridiculous situations of unnecessarily trying to parse technicalities when common sense says the editor is best served not editing the article. I could easily see that happening in relation to the companies that make these chemicals. Specifically in regards to legal proceedings. Capeo ( talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, if it's already been addressed then, very well. I'll try to refrain from saying I told you so when something related to this case pops up at AE in the next couple weeks ;) Capeo ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals" in editing restrictions is very much clear. Obviously, they can edit anything about animals, fungi, viruses or procaryotes. There is no any need for clarification here. Protist are possibly a borderline. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Penwhale ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I'm trying to get started on this PD. As all involved know this is quite a large case with large scope, and so hopefully getting out ahead of it will be fruitful. At this point, I'm aiming to be on schedule, and think it's quite likely/feasible. NativeForeigner Talk 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for the Committee to post the PD can be understandably nerve-wracking for the parties involved. It's common, therefore, that the parties end up bickering with each other here and on the other case talk pages while they're waiting for the PD to be posted. I've been guilty of that myself in the past. Unless new evidence comes out in the interim, I doubt anything that is said here will likely have much impact on the PD, unless someone really loses the plot and earns themselves a sanction just from misguided comments here alone. So, please avoid the temptation of arguing with each other on this page. It might help you to take this and the other case pages off your watchlists until 26 October. Just a suggestion, FWIW. Cla68 ( talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Older comments, from before the posting of the PD. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
I am back at Wikipedia, and, between now and the posting of the PD, the drafting Arbs should feel free to ask me here if you have any questions about diffs, and I'll be happy to try to help. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It would not be my idea, per Streisand effect, to link from here to either my talk page or to that of the editor directly below, especially because I cannot see how it would help with formulating the PD. But: [3], [4], [5]. I'm doing all that I can think to do, to disengage (a completely separate issue from that which I am raising with the Committee on my talk), but maintaining a section about me on her talk page kind of works against that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) In the time between the closing of the Workshop and now, most of the dispute underlying this case has been located at Talk:Kevin Folta and Talk:Vani Hari. I do not mean to imply any accusations in saying that. Rather, it is purely a matter of information, in case any Arbitrators would like to observe what is happening. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC) I would like to request that the drafting Arbs provide an update of when the PD will be posted. (The navbox on the PD page says Nov. 7, which obviously is no longer current.) Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Collapsing older comments, to reduce the wall of text. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Now that the PD has been posted, I want to say thank you to the drafting arbs (who, all things considered, may be surprised that I am thanking them), for your hard work on a difficult and thankless task. I have read the entire PD, and looked for anything needing correction, and not found anything (although I will go over it more carefully again tomorrow, in case I missed something). I think that NF ended up doing an excellent job of working out the case. I also want to say to anyone reading here (who, all things considered, may be surprised at what I am going to say), that I agree with the proposals concerning Jytdog. That is because of his decision not to participate in a meaningful way in this case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Collapsing, in the hope that these errors have been put to rest. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
First, I want to say thank you to Coretheapple and Newyorkbrad for your kind words on this talk page, and also to thank Newyorkbrad for notifying me, since no one else did (but of course I am closely watching here). You, ArbCom, feel it necessary to "remind" me that I should have provided diffs in the Workshop? As you should know perfectly well, the request to me to add diffs was made while I was blocked by the same Arb who posted the proposal to "remind" me. And I had made it very clear that I was, for professional reasons, about to travel to a conference almost immediately after the block was lifted, until after the Workshop was closed. Am I the first editor ever to present Workshop proposals without diffs? Was it difficult to go from my Workshop proposals to my Evidence? I arranged the Workshop proposals by editor, and I arranged my Evidence by editor, in pretty much the same order. All anyone had to do was to go from one to the other, and it all lined up. There was nothing like an "inadequately clear" reference. The WP:NPA policy is not written in terms of needing a specific format for providing reasons for criticism of other editors. And let's look at what ArbCom's own procedures actually say. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop: [11]
I followed those instructions. I referred to my section of the Evidence page. Providing diffs is not required. It is "helpful". If I wasn't "helpful" enough, sorry, but you have no business changing the rules after the fact as a sort of "gotcha". If you want to make it mandatory, then put it in writing, where participating editors can see it – beforehand. There is an appearance here of ArbCom giving in to demands that there must be some sort of "equalization" in how the PD treats parties, as well as the appearance that ArbCom is trying to cover your own posteriors after already having treated me badly and been less than impressive in handling this case. In an ironic way, it will be helpful to see how individual Arbs vote on these proposals. Because you can rest assured that I and others will be watching.
Given that AGK has asked on the PD page which member of the Committee asked for the proposals concerning Guy, I will ask the same question as to which member or members asked for the proposals concerning me. Please identify them, and will they please explain themselves? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@
Tryptofish:, I would not have gone down the route NativeForeigner chose for the FOF. Had I drafted it, I would have gone with a more traditional and straightforward formula, along the lines of Tryptofish has cast aspersions.[diff][diff][diff] There is also probably enough to add something about failing to assume good faith. By way of example of the issues, neither your Petrarchan47 FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct) nor your SageRad FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources) are supported by evidence (either as diffs in the /Workshop or with diffs in your /Evidence). You have made serious allegations but - contrary to the
Personal Attacks policy - you failed/refused to provide evidence for them. This is unacceptable.
|
Done. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
SageRad, I'm putting my reply to you here, because it is separate from what I am saying to ArbCom, and they can either read this or ignore it as they prefer. After all, I'm not making the decisions here. But thank you for caring what I think, and I will try to answer your questions to me carefully. We can also follow up on this at my talk page or yours. Is it possible to edit without a POV? Yes. Of course, all editors have a point of view, but what matters is whether one edits disproportionately according to that POV. I've argued, for example, in favor of edits that might be regarded as "anti-GMO" on some biography pages, on the basis of BLP. An NPOV editor is willing to edit against their POV when that's right for the content. I see you as tilting very one-sidedly, but I also think it's something you can turn around. What about editors pushing in the other direction? Every POV dispute has two sides. So if one group of editors are editing for NPOV, the other editors will see them as editing in a POV way. Here, it's as much about WP:RS as about NPOV, and there is a complete asymmetry between parties. The anti-GMO editors take a POV that contradicts reliable sources, whereas the editors whom you might see as pro-GMO are really just editing for NPOV according to what the sources say. Do I see pushing as coming from one side more than from another? Yes, but that doesn't mean that the other side is blameless, and the PD makes it clear that this is not the case. Do I see it as POV-pushing versus science? I see it as POV-pushing versus the preponderance of reliable sources, and those sources happen to be scientific. Do I see improper conduct from editors on the science side? Yes, and I have come to see it more as the case has played out. The issue you raise about consensus is a complicated one, because there has been such intransigence on the anti-GMO side that, when editors give up on convincing other editors, it may look like not accepting consensus (especially if one just counts the number of editors on each side), but there is a difference in who is and who isn't using sources according to policy and guidelines. Unless the decision changes sharply, I think that the current PD gets it approximately right (failing to appreciate the problems with Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes, but otherwise right). If anyone wants to probe my thinking about what I emphasized in my evidence or my workshop proposals more deeply, let's do it at my user talk. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
|
I see the discussions about wrapping up the case, and I am as eager as the rest of us to see this case done with. But there are some loose ends that the Arbs really need to fix before closing the case. Please do not ignore these things. As I see them:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Close outdated comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Arbs @ Guerillero: @ NativeForeigner: @ Roger Davies: please see my comments here [13] and also see Tryptofish's talk page wherin he re-started the discussion. Thank you. Minor 4th 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Analysis of PDJust absorbing the PD right now and checking diffs. I hope NativeForeigner did not feel pressured to post the PD before it was complete - I'm also curious about whether this version incorporates Guierillo's input or if he will be posting separate PD's? I will have more specific commentary and analysis after dinner :) Minor 4th 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Minor 4th 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Petrarchan47: Arbs don't have to IAR in order to make findings and remedies against JzG. They have always had the latitude to make decisions about editors who are not formally named as "involved parties" and have indeed done so on a number of occasions in the past. Minor 4th Pinging Arbs@ DGG:, @ Doug Weller:, @ Euryalus:, @ Guerillero:, @ LFaraone:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Roger Davies:, @ Salvio giuliano:, @ Seraphimblade:, @ Thryduulf:, AGK ( talk · contribs), @ DeltaQuad: Could you guys please weigh in on this discussion? Please see comments and questions directly above. It would be helpful if you would at least acknowledge that you've considered the discussions on this page about the PD -- and better yet, provide some sort of feedback to those of us who have spent a great deal of time researching and providing evidence and proposed findings and remedies. Please. Minor 4th 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Edit warring:
@ NativeForeigner: I will likely provide more a bit later. Minor 4th 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG:, @ Doug Weller:, @ Euryalus:, @ Guerillero:, @ LFaraone:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Roger Davies:, @ Salvio giuliano:, @ Seraphimblade:, @ Thryduulf:, @ AGK:, @ DeltaQuad:
Please address these issues ASAP.
Thank you, Minor 4th 18:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
::Tap, tap, tap .... 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Or just ignore it completely. Either way ....
Minor
4th 00:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The PD has been posted. I view it as a minimum of what needs to happen, I may add one or two more FoF/remedies in the next day or two, but I think this represents the core of the issue. Comments welcome. As a reminder, no threaded conversation. NativeForeigner Talk 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
JzG should be added as party, given the findings and remedies. NE Ent 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just read the PD and I thank the admin for a careful and considered summary. However, I fail to see why Jytdog has been given "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted;" His extreme disruption and highly objectionable incivility has ranged wide, very very wide. I feel he should have a site ban, but at the very, very least, please reconsider why this topic ban is limited only to genetically modified plants. Surely, this should be "genetically modified organisms". I thank you for reconsidering this.DrChrissy (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
My current topic ban Several editors have commented positively about my current topic ban regarding alt.med, med and MEDRS being raised here. I am not overly concerned that this has been raised by the ArbCom. It is clear some people have seen one or two of my edits as potential violation of this, however, the ArbCom does not agree this has been a violation, or at least has decided not to pursue this further. I am able to appeal this current topic ban in just 8 days! (nope - I have not been counting ;-) ). I think we should let this matter settle here for the moment and if you care to join me on ANI on November 20th, I will welcome your company.DrChrissy (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I am somewhat perplexed about the apparently inconsistent weightings of the proposed remedies in this case. I'm sorry to have to raise this ArbCom - you certainly work extremely hard at this and it is a thankless task. First, I do not understand how it can be proposed that an editor such as Jytdog who has exhibited many types of actionable behaviour, in many areas of the project, and for a considerable length of time, will apparently receive the same remedy as myself (a proposed topic ban). Second, I do not understand how remedies are not being proposed for editors that are named parties and for whom demonstrable evidence has been provided at the Workshop for their actionable behaviours. I have summarised below the (potentially) actionable behaviours of several editors who seem to have slipped under the radar during the transition from the Workshop to the PD. This is despite their behaviours having been more widespread or long-term than my own, yet my own proposed remedy is a very lengthy and potentially very disruptive topic ban. An editor has already made the point that this is an extremely important, high-visibility case and the arbitrators need to send the right messages to the community. I do not feel these current inconsistencies in the weighting of remedies will send the right messages.
Potentially Actionable Behaviour | Proposed Remedy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDITOR | |||||||
Incivility | Edit warring | Tag team editing | Misuse of DR | Forum shopping | Battleground behaviour | ||
Jytdog | Topic ban | ||||||
DrChrissy (me) | - | - | - | - | - | Topic ban | |
Kingofaces43 | - | - | - | None proposed | |||
Alexbrn | - | - | - | - | None proposed | ||
Yobol | - | - | - | None proposed |
In the table, indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.
User:NativeForeigner &
User:Guerillero, just noting the proposed remedy for
User:Jytdog still reads "... genetically modified plants...". Was this your intention, or was it perhaps "genetically modified organisms"? This has been sorted - thank you.
Whilst sitting here watching with growing incredulity that it appears I am to be made a scapegoat for all the battles in GMO (which is ironic as I am perhaps the most recent contributing editor), I have realised the reason why. The PD FoFs have been structured and drafted to portray me individually in a totally negative perspective, especially compared to other editors. There are 2 entire sections entitled DrChrissy: Edit warring and DrChrissy: Existing restrictions. Other editors (e.g. Jytdog) have also been identified as edit warring by the PD, but for some reason, he did not get an entire section entitled Jytdog: Edit warring, it is simply listed underneath his name. These 2 separate sections for me but not others, along with their headings, are unacceptably biasing voter's opinion of me before they have even considered the evidence! All of the other editors in the FoFs are simply named without a prejudicial heading about their behaviour. Why do only I get a section identifying my current restrictions. This obviously portrays me as "He's been naughty before so he must be guilty here". Surely if editor's previous behaviour is relevant, there should be a similarly titled section for Jytdog e.g. Jytdog: Previous warning for incivility - this previous warning is fundamental to the evidence presented at all stages of this case, yet it is not even mentioned in the PD. Arbcom voters who do not read the evidence/workshop pages will be totally unaware of his history, but they are being made conspicuously aware of mine! This biasing of the PD against me is totally unacceptable.DrChrissy (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish:, you recently posted your agreement that Kingofaces43 has been guilty of edit warring and then followed up with, "Arbs may want to consider whether the 1RR restriction added to the DS would suffice to address this". My table above shows that the current proposed remedy for edit warring is a topic ban. It would be inconsistent for Kingofaces43 to receive anything less.DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Kingofaces43: Minor4th's FOFs inn the workshop had the following "(Examples of SQS/edit warring: [37], [38], [39] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [40], [41], [42]; revert history on Glyphosate: [43]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [44]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [45], see talk discussion here)" Please note the accusations of edit warring do not rely on any argument that there is a cabal. Please also note that it appears I am about to receive a substantial topic ban...for (arguably) edit warring. I think we need some parity here.
Procedural soundness of my remedy @ NativeForeigner: @ Guerillero: It is my belief that the proposed FOF are written in such a way that that they are highly and irreversibly prejudicial against me. I have been singled out by having multiple sections for my "offences", and these "offences" are stated in the headings next to my name. This structure of the FOF was not adopted for any other party. I believe this will have considerably influenced the arbitrators' consideration of the evidence (including 3 diffs provided as evidence for 1 instance of edit warring) and ultimately their decision regarding my remedy. Because several arbitrators have already voted on this, I believe it is now impossible to "turn the clocks back" for me to get a fair and paritable hearing in this case. It is my conclusion that any remedy for me is procedurally unsound. I believe ArbCom should therefore declare any remedy against me in this case as null and void.
@ Coretheapple:. Please treat this as a friendly message. You are not named as a party about to receive a remedy. Some of us are, and we are greatly concerned by this for a range of reasons. Calling for a close to this case when there are several important and fundamental pending questions is not helpful for those of us about to have severe sanctions imposed. If this case process is causing you concerns, perhaps simply do not log into the page. Honestly, this is meant in a friendly way.
Jytdog's sudden contribution to this case must be seen for the insignificance that it is. The named parties have been asked to present evidence of any accusations or defences (i.e providing diffs) within a specified time-window. We have all worked hard to do this. Jytdog suddenly arrives and presents hardly a single diff of evidence either in his favour or against other parties. Even if he had, this is so late after the closing date as to be laughable and must be dismissed by ArbCom. His comments should be struck through, or perhaps even suppresed as appears to be happening on the Talk page for other editors' comments.
I note that User:Roxy the dog has now contributed to this page. Is this allowed? Can any editor simply edit this page to try and sway the opinion of ArbCom? If his suggestion is to be taken seriously (which IMHO it should not), then it must be applied across the board for all parties. To start with, I have created/started almost 60 articles (and made significant contributions to many more). I have contributed to several talk pages dealing with issues such as MEDRS, RS and others. I have written an essay on primary and secondary sources. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as [ [46]]. Doesn't this also make me a "...model contributor to the project, and supporter of the pillars." and therefore deserving of such a description here?
Behaviour during ArbCom It is of massive relevance that Jytdog has been blocked today. [47] Will a separate proposed FOF section entitled "Jytdog: Existing restrictions" be created for him as it was for me?
My "Edit warring" I would like to point out something which although obvious to me, might not be obvious to some of the arbitrators supporting a topic ban for me on the basis of my edit warring. In the PD, 4 diffs were provided as evidence in the section entitled "DrChrissy: Edit Warring".
Inconsistent vote tallies In the PD section "3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban." There appear to be 6 votes on favour and 2 of opposition, however, in the table "Proposed Remedies" toward the end of the PD there are 8 in favour and 3 opposes. Which is correct?
The overall picture Although not stated in the locus, it is clear that problems in this topic area are entrenched, long-term and have existed for several years. So, let's look at the remedies that are currently being supported to solve the problem.
1) 1RR for all editors - that will help.
2) 2-way interaction ban for myself and Jytdog - Yes, that will stop the pair of us behaving like petulant children on one article in the topic area, glyphosate.
3) I am topic banned. I have never edited [[Monsanto] (that might be the first time I have written that word!), March against Monsanto or any of those multiple industry-based or BLP articles that seem to have been a focus of the long-term problems this case was intended to address. I am being banned for edit warring on just one page in this massive topic area - this was wrong of me - but will my ban change the overall picture? My first edit in this topic-related area was, I believe, in July 2015. How can I have been a participant in the previous years of conflict that have dogged this topic area.
4) SageRad is topic banned. SageRad, like myself, is very new to this topic area. (His account was only opened on June 10th, 2015.) How could he possibly be responsible for the long-term problems this case is intended to be addressing.
5) Jytdog is topic banned. I think almost everyone is in agreement this will be a good remedy.
So, we have 2 highly productive content editors new to this topic area being held accountable for the sins of many other editors over several years. Will these remedies work? No they will not. The main players from all "sides" will still be there. The disruption will start again within days of this case being closed if it stands. I urge ArbCom to see that what they are voting on is not an overall remedy. I believe the only sensible course of action is to restart this case with a neutral point of view, as has already been suggested. DrChrissy (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Appeal to ArbCom @ DGG: First, may I thank you sincerely for engaging with parties here on the Talk page. The fact that so many, many questions and comments in this case appear to have been ignored or unread by ArbCom has, I fear, not reflected well on this appeal process.
Potentially Actionable Behaviour | Proposed Remedy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDITOR | |||||||
Incivility | Edit warring | Tag team editing | Misuse of DR | Forum shopping | Battleground behaviour | ||
Jytdog | Topic ban | ||||||
DrChrissy (me) | - | - | - | - | - | Topic ban | |
Kingofaces43 | - | - | - | None proposed | |||
Alexbrn | - | - | - | - | None proposed | ||
Yobol | - | - | - | None proposed |
In the table, indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.
There is a total opaqueness regarding why some editors are not listed for voting on a proposed remedy. If this was to be a fair and equitable process, all parties would be listed. Even if this meant that "no remedy proposed" was listed against a name and arbitrators voted on that, it would mean the process is transparent.
Time wasted? @ DeltaQuad: In your vote on the FoFs about Jytdog and myself, you stated that the second diff provided as evidence seems to be a wall of text wasting time. Please could you clarify whose time I was allegedly wasting. This was a discussion which involved only Jytdog and myself on a user's Talk Page space which she volunteered specifically for the 2-way interaction. No other editor or admin was asked to become involved. I fail to see who has had their time wasted.DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC).
"Editors have voiced concerns" is not a proper finding. A proper finding must assert that the concerns are valid. Looie496 ( talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a fair decision to me in the proposed remedies. I would ask the committee, however, if there are any underlying problems or factors with this case that should be addressed if you think they might arise again and continue to cause problems in this and other topic areas, namely: Do established editors get more leeway to violate WP:CIVIL than newbie editors? Is it ok to continually accuse other editors of being "SPAs"? Are editors who claim to support "science" allowed to break WP's rules more than others? Cla68 ( talk) 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Tuck this section away as stale |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When Petra attempted to discuss some of the NPOV issues on their own TP, on the TP of a BLP and during a 3-O discussion on Tryptofish's TP, the result is the proposed TB in this case with no apparent consideration for the fact that Jytdog was both the lead COIN investigator and steward of the GMO articles at the time. He had also banned several editors from his TP. I also fail to see how casting aspersions is supported in the FoF against Petra based on the diffs provided. I am also thoroughly confused over the proposal to simply admonish Jytdog for his obnoxious treatment of other editors, his extreme profanity and overall disruptive behavior (reverts, SQS, etc.) Yet, a full blown TB is being proposed against Petra for a few legitimate, civil TP discussions attempting to resolve an ongoing issue of noncompliance with NPOV, one of WP's 3 core content policies. Those concerns have still not been addressed in this case, and many of us were hoping they would be. Please forgive my ignorance, but from where I sit, the diffs simply do not support the allegation that Petra cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith. The message you're sending to other editors is that it's okay to shout profanities at another editor and create disruption - you'll just be admonished for it - but don't dare try to discuss a potential COI that may be involved or you'll get a TB.
It appears to me that imposing the far-reaching sanctions that have been proposed on an academic (DrChrissy) who is knowledgeable about animals, their diets and behavior may not be in the best interests of WP in the long term. I hope that ArbCom can find a malleable solution that isn't restrictive in "the broadest sense" as what has been proposed. Perhaps some consideration can be given to excluding sanctions that involve animals directly, much the same way medical doctors are given leeway and an advantage over medical articles. It appears far too much leniency is being given to biotechnology at the expense of experts in the areas that are affected by such technology. Biotech ag, chemicals, etc. are so intertwined in our everyday lives that determining whether or not a GMO, fringe, or whatever TB applies to an article about a horse's diet (example: eating hay from a field that was treated with Round-up) would be nearly impossible, and will create more problems than it could possibly resolve. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Atsme 📞 📧 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Curious - Guerillero and NativeForeigner, is this TP for editors to discuss things among themselves or do ArbCom members automatically read and utilize the information posted here? Is it necessary to ping Arb members to bring them here as with some of the other TPs in the Case? There have been several valid comments made here, such as what Jusdafax has demonstrated, along with a few other comments that preceded and have followed his, yet we're not seeing any changes or comments from ArbCom that addresses any of these very serious concerns. In some instances, it appears that some of us have wasted our time providing important supporting diffs that are unmistakable when all we had to do was include any old diffs and insist they support our argument whether that's true or not. It's embarrassing if not a total travesty. I've cringed at some of the off-WP reports regarding this matter, specifically how this case is being handled and how it will be remembered for years to come. I'm usually quite tolerant and patient, but some of the comments on the PD (or lack thereof) have become quite disconcerting. Atsme 📞 📧 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) One last comment - the section Behaviour on this page located at the top of this page is what I've always perceived to be our conduct policy across WP but based on current events and what I've seen happening here, it appears that it not only doesn't apply across the board on WP, it doesn't even apply here. Atsme 📞 📧 13:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) I noticed new evidence was added to this case, and didn't realize that was allowed. If so, then the PD may need to be reworked in its entirety, perhaps just start over with new diffs and a whole new approach. Why isn't the evidence we already provided being used now since they clearly support our allegations, opinions and proposals as demonstrated during WS discussions? Arbs don't have to dig deep for them as what just happened to Petrarchan47. I am even more confused over NF adding diffs that demonstrate opinions Petra expressed during consensus gathering at the WS. They are not diffs pointing to problematic behavioral issues by Petra but to opinions regarding the problematic patterned behavior of Jytdog, so why weren't any of the diffs used from Evidence that support Petra's opinions? Why have the aspersions that were cast against us without one supporting diff not mentioned in the PD? For example, Kingofaces cast aspersions against me in WS and I called him on it. Roger is aware of what took place, and stated that diffs had to be provided, but they never were, so what exactly is going on here? |
When a member of ArbCom adds new evidence to FoF (after evidence is closed) to justify unsupported allegations (that were nothing short of casting aspersions) and basically ignores the in-your-face evidence, bad behavior, and unsupported allegations by our accusers, it creates a chilling effect. Another editor mentioned "double standard", and while I doubted it before, I don't feel the same after what just happened. I'm sure NF's additions were well-intentioned, but it just doesn't measure up to what one would expect from WP's highest court.
The following diffs demonstrate same behaviors at G. Edward Griffin BLP and the group support. While I was not aware of the GMO controversy or Griffin's possible connection at the time, I later discovered he authored a book and gave lectures that cast a negative light on Monsanto and GMOs. What took place at Griffin with Jytdog, JPS, Kingofaces, etc. in their PAs and bullying was because I was trying to get the BLP compliant with NPOV (the RfC supported my position). The behavior I endured there demonstrates the same behavioral pattern being discussed now in this ArbCom case. PS: the attempt to get the Griffin BLP deleted was the 4th RfD for G. Edward Griffin (instigated by JPS), all of which have failed. The most recent attempt was initiated by JPS with support from Jytdog, Kingofaces and other familiar names in the GMO support group:
Kingofaces' edit interactions further demonstrate patterns:
Comment in response to Kingofaces further aspersions - he just won't stop, which is why ArbCom needs to act. It's a serious behavioral issue. I stopped editing Griffin back in February or March, but Kingofaces' aspersions continue to follow me. Callan's hatting of them wasn't enough. Perhaps an iBan should be imposed to prevent him from causing further harm to my credibility. He simply could not make it any more obvious than what he already has throughout this case. Please, Arbs, please make him stop. Look at my edit history and where my focus has been as an editor on WP. It does not align with the allegations made against me by Kingofaces and it certainly didn't justify the WP:POV_railroading I already endured. You are witnessing him in action and you already know how repeated derogatory comments can destroy a person's reputation. His tactics have not changed - aspersions with no supporting diffs. Also keep in mind that the anonymity I once enjoyed has since been removed because of the COIN fiasco. I'm editing now as the RL me, not some IP or fictitious user name that protects one's RL identity; therefore, the aspersions are harmful to me personally. Please, just look at the pattern of harassment by the same small group of editors who appear to have made a game out of harassing me to see who can take me down - the patterned behavior and the diffs I've provided in evidence support my claims. Follow the trail - from the WP:AVDUCK essay to the WP:COIN fiasco which led to unwarranted attacks on the GAs/FA I edited and co-authored right up to the AN/I case I filed because of the harassment and misbehavior which led to an unwarranted boomerang that was based in aspersions with no diffs to support the claims. Please, please give this situation your careful consideration. Atsme 📞 📧 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner, Guerillero - if a FoF doesn't pass, is it still possible that a Proposed Remedy based on that FoF will pass? Atsme 📞 📧 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbs, please respond @ DGG:, @ Doug Weller:, @ Euryalus:, @ Guerillero:, @ LFaraone:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Roger Davies:, @ Salvio giuliano:, @ Seraphimblade:, @ Thryduulf:, AGK ( talk · contribs), @ DeltaQuad: We added the evidence requested by Native Foreigner regarding Kingofaces43 and we need the arbs to please review it. See Minor4th's section as well as this and others where the evidence has been presented. You asked us to go the extra mile, we did, now please closely review that evidence, and before you close this case, we expect a proposed resolution. Please respond. Atsme 📞 📧 15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Not complaining, just an observation regarding how some thought I was joking about early holiday shopping when this case was first filed. Atsme 📞 📧 13:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus, I just read your post [56] and agree with the no consensus regarding the one editor, but I was wondering if perhaps you were unaware of what Amanda has been working on? While some of us wanted this case to be over shortly after it began, there is still a bit of unfinished business. Are you of the opinion that ArbCom should just drop everything while there are other pending issues that remain unresolved, one of which Amanda said would be tended to today? Atsme 📞 📧 13:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Redirected sidebar question to DrChrissy's section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
:::I thought threaded discussions were not permitted on here - is this different for the arbitrators? I would very much like to disagree with DGG, but where is the appropriate place for me to do this?DrChrissy (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
|
WP:AVDUCK actually addresses the issues being discussed now regarding POV pushing, advocacy, COI, etc. Any perspective from a true NPOV will see two sides to that coin, both requiring equal consideration irrespective of one's preference to heads or tails. Atsme 📞 📧 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Some editors: Prokaryotes, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Minor4th, Tryptofish, Atsme, wuerzele, AlbinoFerret, Gandydancer, David Tornheim, Tsavage, Dialectric Some arbs: In actu, LFaraone, Thryduulf, NativeForeigner, Euryalus, Salvio giuliano, AGK, DeltaQuad, DGG, Doug Weller
So far, i have asked many times for a solid and real explanation of why this case has gone the way it has gone. Why it feels like a McCarthyism. Why it feels like an ideological split in which editors of one leaning are heavily railroaded, while those of another leaning (save for one, the token worst one) are untouched.
I started editing regularly 9 or 10 months ago. When i entered the topic of glyphosate, which was my interest, i found an atmosphere that was heavily charged with attacks and hostility. I was also new to Wikipedia, having edited mundane articles in the past, but never in such a contentious atmosphere. I was baptized by fire, you might say. I learned the guidelines by having every acronym hurled at me in clearly POV pushing attempts, so i then got the sense that Wikilawyering was the norm, and i got defensive. Who wouldn't? With negativity coming at me from the likes of Jytdog and Pete/Skyring and others whose apparent purpose wasn't to be collegiate, but to try to game the system to push content. So i learned that was the way it works -- it appeared to be a battleground -- because it was and still is -- but that was not me causing a battleground to appear. It was me, a newcomer, finding this to be what Wikipedia appeared to be. As time went on, i learned the guidelines solidly, and how to actually work for the true mission of Wikipedia: to reflect reality in a verifiable way though the use of good sources represented accurately. My modus operandi changed, and then my "pushing" was only pushing for integrity -- for genuine dialogue, honesty, and respect for all valid points of view, to make NPOV articles. There was a whole month of contention just to include one sentence in the Monsanto legal cases article on the recent group of lawsuits by major U.S. cities about PCBs contamination. That was a clear case of POV pushing in the opposite direction, and i persevered along with several others, through an RfC that was then closed in a non-neutral way by JzG/Guy, who then refused to recuse, and while Pete/Skyring put up images to mock me when i wrote on the talk page, etc.... hostility and gaming of the system, and i and several others continued to argue on the principles and guidelines that it deserved to be included, instead of assenting to the railroading tactics being used to block its inclusion. This was a rather clear case of POV pushing in the direction that would be to the benefit of the industry.
So, 6 months ago i shot a reply to Jytdog like "Stop hounding me, dude... ever heard of copyediting?" ... while i could have been more "polite" it was an accurate defense in that context. Is that the basis on which i'm probably being topic banned? Or that i revised the Norman Borlaug article to be more accurate, despite Kingofaces43's pushing to the contrary (contrary to the sources, by the way), and his bringing it to AN and misrepresenting it there, etc...
And we have some arbs actually calling me "pugnacious" and suggesting that i should be site banned and that i have "plainly inflamed the topic area" here ... Is this alright to be coming from arbs? Have i actually "inflamed the topic area" or was the topic area under heavy POV pushing and i pushed against that pushing, thereby becoming a lightning rod for attack? Shooting the messenger. I did not make this an inflamed topic area, and if having deep discussions on whether there is POV bias in the area is "inflaming" it then we need it to be inflamed, sort of like an infected area of the human body gets inflamed -- to bring immune defense to the problem.
I edit according to guidelines, and sourcing, to bring articles closer to NPOV. I learned a few months into my editing, about 3 or 4 months ago, that i did not want to push an agenda. I have a POV, a valuable one, but i don't want to push it into articles. I give attention to things like whether glyphosate harms the ecology, but that's ok. I don't push that into articles. As you can see in the recent discussion at the glyphosate article, i spent some effort to figure out, from sources, what sources were most reliable, and how to use them well.
I am writing this to call for a discussion -- a threaded discussion at my talk page, or some other more neutral location where we can use threading -- to actually try to understand why i'm being topic banned. As it stands, i feel like it's an agenda-based railroading of some editors, and it is definitely going to result in the topic area being biased. It feels like those who question the industry-friendly POV are being identified as a "problem" in a biased way, and railroaded out. If i cannot understand what i've done wrong, and why i'm being identified as an "enemy of Wikipedia" in this topic area, and in general (by the statements of some of the arbs) then i will never know how i can improve. I know i have improved and i know i do good work by the guidelines of Wikipedia. If i'm being banned on the basis of a few naughty words from 6 months ago, then what's this world coming to? What's this encylopedia coming to? This really does matter. It's a matter of human dignity, and justice, and human knowledge. It's not a game on a computer screen. When some people hold power over others, they ought to use it with integrity. The Sword of Damocles is real.
I'm calling for a threaded discussion to occur on a neutral page, and for arbitrators to write something like a decision, along the lines of what courts do upon making judgments, to explain and justify why it's reasonable to ban me from the topic area, and not others who have other sorts of POVs of the sort that make them want very badly to exclude cases against Monsanto regarding PCBs from the article on cases involving Monsanto, for instance. Or who want to exclude the fact that glyphosate seems to reduce the viability of earthworms from the article on glyphosate, for instance.
So... i can't let this decision go down without voicing a deep lack of confidence in its soundness, and a call for explanation and discussion about it. It's too important to let it drop. It's not just "oh well, it's only Wikipedia" -- it's about human dignity and what sort of power dynamic we allow to determine what represents human knowledge. As it stands, this decision looks to me like a biased dynamic rules the day. I know arbs are busy, and it takes time to go deep, but it must be done. I've got work to do, as well, and i've sunk a lot of time into this as well. I never asked for anyone to stand in judgment of me, but if it's going to be that way, then it had better be with unbiased integrity or i'll call it what it is.
SageRad SageRad ( talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, that's really heavy and inaccurate language against me. I resent that inaccurate accusation: behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban.
Just ridiculous accusation and recommending a site-ban because i've been standing up to bullying and talking about it. Another in the long saga of this ridiculous trial.
SageRad (
talk) 15:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The above is literally one of the arbitrators making an untrue blanket statement and accusation against me. Let's call this whole damn sham of a trial off. SageRad ( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, your ill advised and incorrect comments in this case have already
been used against me by other editors in discussions. You haven't answered me yet about this language that you used. You said that my behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban.
Do you really hold this to be true? Do you really think that i use constant accusations of bullying against anyone who might disagree? What remedy do you propose when another editor uses your words as was done in the above diff to attempt to discredit my contributions in dialogue? What remedy is right here? No remedy, i'm asking the very arbitrator who cast the aspersion in the first place. I hope you see the damage your incorrect comments have done to my ability to edit even in other topic areas outside of the scope of this case.
SageRad (
talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This being an unthreaded page, dialogue looks like this (hard to follow but important):
DGG, i find the idea of preventative topic bans puzzling. I'm not sure i understand the concept. It's not punitive or based on wrongdoing, but you think i'm going to do something bad in the future? I'm trying to understand this and failing. Do you think i'm going to be a problem in the topic area in the future? I don't think the community is asking for the arbitrators to judge the content of the topic area, but only the behaviors of editors. Do they follow sourcing? Are they civil? Are they able to work out solutions with editors with differing points of view? This sort of thing ought to be enough to determine who is a persistent and unteachable problem in an area. I believe i am teachable, but all i am asking is to be able to understand what i did, or am supposedly going to do, that makes me a problem in the topic area. I'm very receptive to understanding this, but i don't understand it yet. That's why i've been asking for explanations from arbitrators as to why they think i'm a problem more than most others. SageRad ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, you suggest changing "and articulated a clear POV" to "and edited with a clear POV" in the FoF. I'd agree with that, but i still don't think this is grounds for a topic ban. I would say "pushing a POV" would be grounds for a topic ban, if the person refused to knock it off. I think i've knocked it off. I'm editing for the best representation of reality in the articles, not to fulfill some POV propaganda need. I'm seriously here with a desire to make sure the articles follow reliable sources, follow
WP:DUE, and represent subjects well and with dignity. If a chemical appears safe, so be it. If a chemical appears risky, so be it. If a river was polluted, so be it. If a Tory's cave is not notable, so be it. A food activist doesn't deserve to get smeared any more than a plant scientist who worked with Monsanto. We need balance and we need respect. I do edit with a point of view, as does every single person who is an editor here. Some do so consciously and respect others. Some try to push their point of view. Some try to deny that they have a point of view at all. Some try to say that their point of view is the only one. It all comes down to sources and civility and good dialogue, in the end. I'v edited with a clear point of view, but so has nearly everyone else who has edited in the topic area. It's alright for there to be a tension between editors with different points of view, like advocates in a courtroom. If we follow the policies and guidelines, i think it works out very well.
SageRad (
talk) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed,
Kingofaces43 is correct that there is some rampant POV pushing at
glyphosate right now. The problem is that the topic bans that are decided will
[63] not solve all the issues. It seems there is some serious POV pushing being done by editors who are not up for sanctions. Thankfully, other editors, including some who are up for bans, have done some looking out for the integrity of the article. Ironic, isn't it?
SageRad (
talk) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"Getting in fights to push a POV" ... a fight takes fighters on both sides. I didn't bring fights. I've learned how to defuse and bypass fights more and more. The shallowness of this decision is remarkable. Where is the use of judgment, getting into the details, using discernment? It's so easy to judge by a couple diffs and tone of voice, buy I'd really like to see a deep reasoning involved in the judgments made about me and others here. I'd like to read a decision like the Supreme Court publishes. However, that's not what we get. We need arbitrators who can understand human behavior and see goading where it's apparent, abs ingenuine dialogue where it's apparent. We need arbitrators who can go more than surface level in looking at conflicts. SageRad ( talk) 20:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, i really do care what you think, and really trying to understand it. Thank you for your reply to my questions. I have a few more.
Is it possible to edit without a POV? Yes. Of course, all editors have a point of view, but what matters is whether one edits disproportionately according to that POV. I've argued, for example, in favor of edits that might be regarded as "anti-GMO" on some biography pages, on the basis of BLP. An NPOV editor is willing to edit against their POV when that's right for the content. I see you as tilting very one-sidedly, but I also think it's something you can turn around.
I agree mostly, and i have also on a good number of occasions edited against what would be seen as "my side" and stood up for sourcing instead of pushing, even when the pushing might have been good for "anti-GMO propaganda". Ironically, i'm not even really anti-GMO. I have no strong opinion on the technology. I see dangers in some traits and some chemicals, and i don't trust the industry fully. So, please know that i've pushed against things that would have been called "anti-GMO" many times here in the last 6 months or so. I'd prefer integrity to the sources over propaganda in articles. That said, everyone edits according to their passions and what they think is needed in articles. So when i see an article that appears heavily biased toward what is seen as "industry POV" or by some "science" (though i will contest that label as biased in itself), i felt compelled to edit article to lessen that POV, toward NPOV. Vani Hari was a case in point. I came to that article and saw an attack piece against her, written as if by the authors of "Fear Babe" themselves. That was unacceptable bias, especially in BLP but for any article it's a bad bias. I think i've turned around, a few months ago, from wanting to push a side, toward wanting NPOV integrity in articles. I really mean that. Reality is the only arbiter. Solid sources reflect reality.
What about editors pushing in the other direction? Every POV dispute has two sides. So if one group of editors are editing for NPOV, the other editors will see them as editing in a POV way. Here, it's as much about WP:RS as about NPOV, and there is a complete asymmetry between parties. The anti-GMO editors take a POV that contradicts reliable sources, whereas the editors whom you might see as pro-GMO are really just editing for NPOV according to what the sources say.
Yes, i fully grasp the relativity of points of view. That's why i want to base any sanctions on behavior, and not on POV, as should be the case. Having a POV and editing with a tendency toward a "side" should not be sanctionable, but rather if someone's pushing contrary to good sourcing and contrary to WP:DUE then that behavior should be sanctionable. But of course the relativity of POV makes it hard for anyone to really be objective about that judgment.
Do I see it as POV-pushing versus science? I see it as POV-pushing versus the preponderance of reliable sources, and those sources happen to be scientific.
That may be true in many cases, but can you see that it may be flipped in other cases? Such as the recent question of glyphosate's effects on earthworms. Some seemed to be pushing, against available scientific sources, to represent glyphosate as having little or no effect on earthworms, or to omit the information if it had to say that there is some effect on earthworms. In this instance, which "side" was aligned with science? Science does not take sides. People do take sides when they interpret science, omitting some and magnifying other studies.
In the glyphosate article over the last few days, there was an editor pushing hard for a POV-based take on effects on earthworms. I took part to make sure the sources were followed correctly and a POV not pushed against the actual science. In this case, it did show that glyphosate has some effect on earthworms. The editor wanted to make it seem as if glyphosate has no effect on earthworms but that's not what the best unbiased look at secondary articles would say.
Do I see improper conduct from editors on the science side? Yes, and I have come to see it more as the case has played out. The issue you raise about consensus is a complicated one, because there has been such intransigence on the anti-GMO side that, when editors give up on convincing other editors, it may look like not accepting consensus (especially if one just counts the number of editors on each side), but there is a difference in who is and who isn't using sources according to policy and guidelines. Unless the decision changes sharply, I think that the current PD gets it approximately right (failing to appreciate the problems with Petrarchan47 and Prokaryotes, but otherwise right). If anyone wants to probe my thinking about what I emphasized in my evidence or my workshop proposals more deeply, let's do it at my user talk.
Thank you for the acknowledgement above, although i think this decision didn't get it right by a long shot, but that there are complex issues involved.
I see sides get polarized. When it seems like a group of editors is hellbent on including or excluding content, and they don't respond to rational arguments, and they don't show good faith in dialogue (using strawmen and condescension and such things), then one is tempted to throw up one's hands. And then if Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms also seem to side with obstructionism, as it sometimes does, then one just feels like the "proper channels" don't work, and good faith dialogue doesn't work, and it can feel like articles are owned by oen "side" without any recourse.
Thanks for this dialogue. It helps me to know what others are thinking. I know you're probably a busy person. I am really trying hard to understand, and to see things from other points of view. I hope you are, too. Thanks, Tryptofish. SageRad ( talk) 00:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@ AGK:, how did i force anyone's hand? What is meant by this?
Did an arb on this case just say that they put a lot of the evidence from the case directly into their recycle bin? [64] It appears so. How can anyone feel confident in the outcome of this case? SageRad ( talk) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Tide has again turned so that i'm topic banned.... for having a point of view? Everyone has a point of view. Pushing a point of view is wrong. Having a point of view is called "being human".
And still, nobody who votes to topic ban me has dared to answer my questions.
Kingofaces43 has a point of view. Pete/Skyring has a point of view. Roxy the Dog has a point of view. Ronz has a point of view. Having a point of view is not wrong. Pushing a point of view against WP:UNDUE and against WP:RS is what's wrong. Show me doing that in any sort of flagrant way any more than any of these editors, and i'll accept a topic ban. Otherwise, it continues to look like opposition to an editor based on an ideological bias because my point of view is not that of the industry's preference.
SageRad ( talk) 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't like pages where the discussion cannot be threaded, but still feel i must register my deep concern, that this case does matter, and a topic ban does matter. It matter in a few ways:
1. Biased banning of people from the topic area will cause a bias in the topic area moving forward. 2. It affects the editors (like me) who feel their integrity demeaned and unappreciated. 3. It affects the sense of integrity in Wikipedia as a project on the whole. 4. It affects the sense of whether justice can be obtained by appealing to the highest court in the land (ArbCom).
All these, mixed together. I don't think i'm a "sore loser". I think i'm rather indignant because i know where i was coming from in my editing in this topic area, and i am proud of the editing i did once i learned the guidelines in spirit and practice. I've removed bias from articles, and i've helped to resolve conflicts, or at least delineate them accurately and see what was the real lay of the land, by making positions explicit. So, i have to vote no confidence. SageRad ( talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No answers yet from any Arbitrators on my questions below.
IS IT AGAINST GUIDELINES TO HAVE A POV? THIS CASE AND THE JUDGMENT TO BAN ME CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS. However, guidelines say the opposite.
What we have here is a new McCarthyism, and shooting the messenger. It's an ugly system and state of affairs and a lot of people ought to be very ashamed. SageRad ( talk) 13:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey arbitrators who voted to topic ban me,
I'm really, really interested to hear your honest opinions as to why it was the right thing to do. Please take a minute to provide that for me. I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, how am I going to learn? Thanks.
I'll boil down a couple of main points that i would love to have you respond to:
1. One reason i'm being banned is that i "articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case". However, according to the guidelines, having a point of view is not wrong and is not disallowed and is even embraced in many senses, because it leads to a richer, more diverse encyclopedia. What is wrong is to push a point of view, which means to Wikilawyer and bully and that sort of thing to get your desired content in, or to not listen to others. So, having a point of view is one thing. I grew up near polluted rivers, from the old hat industry in my hometown. I saw nature destroyed by chemicals, mercury and PCBs and things... so i have a point of view like everyone does. I respect sourcing and dialogue and content guidelines.
2. Another reason i'm being banned is "added unsourced content". However, according to the guidelines, not all content must be sourced. Simple things that are commonly accepted, like in the article Dog it says "Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals." That is not sourced. The one instance for which i'm being cited for "adding unsourced content" it was rather innocuous content -- simply that pesticides are not sprayed solely from helicopters but also from floater sprayers, and also that glyphosate is "the most widely used systemic herbicide". That's pretty common knowledge to people who know about glyphosate, and upon challenge i would be happy to source it. Wikipedia works on a challenge system, i thought. Nearly everything i ever added, i have sources, but that one little factoid about glyphosate being "the most widely used systemic herbicide" i thought wouldn't be challenged, as it's not even POV related, it's just simple. Or maybe is it simple copyediting like this which is being called "unsourced"? Anyway, as i understand it, this is not a chargeable offense to the guidelines. If someone is adding controversial unsourced content all the time, then sure, big problem -- but my record on content is very little unsourced, and nothing that i thought was controversial.
3. Last thing i'm being banned for is to have "cast aspersions" but the diffs are reaction to really jerkish behaviors... and from long ago ... and everyone has their moments, especially when spoken to badly by others, and really, at this point Jytdog is not even banned but i am, and in terms of casting aspersions i thought he had no equal in this topic area. I was treated really badly by a lot of people in the topic area, time after time, and i am the one being banned for "casting aspersions"???? Really it's unbelievable to me. So what is the reason?
Please, please offer comments, to the arbs who think i should be topic banned.
It would help me really to understand.
-SageRad SageRad ( talk) 19:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted this reluctantly, and in the text i provided my ambiguous feelings. I wrote this in all honesty, with integrity in respect to the incidents involved. In each case, Kingofaces43 was in the wrong or just being obstinate and not actually being WP:HERE, whether just auto-piloting on opposing anything i ever did, or what, i don't know. I'd just removed this, but upon KoA's denial of any fault in the interactions, i return it here for others to look at and to point out his current blatant misrepresentation of these incidents in his defense on this page itself. He had some good points, but is not "drama-raising" to insist on integrity of representation of sources, and to focus on the article for the sake of the readers. In both cases, KoA made that process unnecessarily difficult, a pattern i've seen often. Polarized editors need to actually read each others' comments and respond in good faith to them.
Two incidents:
In his response here, KoA cited this diff to say that i "accuse[d] him of hounding" but in the diff, i said "It has the appearance of following or hounding me, as you and i have had contentious interactions in the recent few months, as well. That's another reason for being a but more cautious in your editing on this, after my bringing this point up." The "appearance" is different from accusing, and allows a chance to respond. He could have responded without getting up in arms and saying "stop casting aspersions".
He said my question on Norman Borlaug article referring to a non-existant widespread famine of the Indian Subcontinent in the 1960s was a "personal point of view objection (rather than finding other sources to dispute it or even reading the source in question at first)". Actually, i did some research and found no evidence of any such "widespread famine" but there was "food shortage" which is a very different thing, and so i did more looking into it, and flagged a pretty glaring inaccuracy in the article. For that, he accuses me of a "personal point of view objection" and says i didn't find sources? I was right in that whole conflict. The source did not back up the claim, and the source was also a biased piece of reporting, so it was two levels wrong how the article was before. I was working for the article to be right -- this is not pushing a point of view. So once again, he's misrepresenting easily verifiable things, which wastes everyone's time, and i think is an aspect of contentious and obstructive editing.
And he said that in in this conversation he characterized me as "removing sourced content based mostly on personal views (i.e., the source didn't include other species)" whereas i clearly say in the conversation, "Reasons i did this: this statement seemed out of place in terms of weight (level of detail too small for summary paragraph)" and that "the statement was sourced to hearsay reports from a dated agricultural extension page that is no longer on the Internet, and was using the "Wayback Machine" to source it". I noted that there are many other plants with resistance to clover as well, but this being a sub-lede, it was not appropriate level of detail. This is all so clear in the conversation, and KoA is misrepresenting both of these incidents right here and now, which shows again the way in which interactions with him can lead to edits taking up way too much time and effort, because of inaccurate representations on his part.
It's this sort of thing -- unnecessary contention, not responding to dialogue in a whole and honest way -- that are subtle and yet really get in the way of good editing. It's hard to really see, but it feels like obstruction of solid editing. I'm in it for the articles to be right and the article contained a falsehood that i was trying to correct -- the false story of a more widespread famine than actually existed (at
Norman Borlaug) -- and therefore i was actually trying to remove a POV bending of facts that was already in the article. I got that level of contention and obstruction from Kingofaces43. It worked out in the end, but why should it take hours of back and forth to get the article right. It felt like Kingofaces43 just assumed that i was pushing a POV in both of these instances, whereas i was seriously trying to improve the articles.
SageRad (
talk) 17:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that in the end, both articles were improved and that i was not pushing a POV but only fact checking and copyediting. KofA describes it as if I were pushing POV and he was saving the articles. SageRad ( talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And there's always just plain old what looks like POV editing like
here. That is some very useful knowledge being deleted.
SageRad (
talk) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Minor note on mistake in evidence presented against me by Kingofaces43: I didn't notice until now, but in evidence presented against me by Kingofaces43 they cite a diff in which they say i used the aspersion "King of Scoundrels" but i did not. I said, "Censorship is the refuge of Kings and Scoundrels, and the two are the same," and i still stand by this statement. It was not name-calling. It was a statement of principle in which i meant that those who wish to dominate knowledge by censorship are scoundrels. This evidence was used by @ Salvio giuliano: to characterize me as "pugnacious" meant to imply WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and so i think it's relevant to correct the record on this little error. Perhaps it tips a balance. In that case, it was a misrepresentation of myself to say that i had name-called and used the term "King of Scoundrels" when i did not. Thanks for taking this into consideration. SageRad ( talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, i see a reference in your section to Kings and Scoundrels... I came up with it myself, perhaps from some long-filed memory of some other reference but not consciously, and i meant it as i said it. I did not call Kingofaces43 a "King of Scoundrels" as his evidence states. But i'm happy to hear of an archetypal sort of memory based on this phrase. SageRad ( talk) 14:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@ SMcCandlish: First off, i want to say that i appreciate your comments, and i see you've spent some time digging into the case, to an admirable and time-consuming level. Thanks for that. On the topic of the alleged outing of my real-world identity and use of that to poison the well against me, I sent evidence of JzG's alleged outing of me to the email address given by an arbitrator when requested long ago, and another piece of evidence since, and have heard nothing except confirmation of receipt on that. And JzG's actions toward me were often abusive and accusatory and head-butting, and many many other things were problematic there. Just so you know, i have sent evidence of JzG doing "opposition research" (here is a more focused diff) to the arbitrators and didn't get any action response or judgment yet. He did that and did make remarks on many occasions that seemed very solidly intended to shut me up, i.e. have a chilling effect, to stereotype me, and to "poison the well" quite strongly, in many, many instances. So there is serious violation of policy against outing, for doing opposition research and then using allusions to outside-Wikispace identity to do ad hominem argumentation in disputes about article content. Discussing content should be discussing content. Discussing principles should be discussing principles. Thank you for your comments. Just wanted to clarify this. Yes, i did originally post this comment without a diff but i added one when this was questioned. SageRad ( talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I find Geogene's comment astounding, because it presupposes what the topic area should say. Geogene saying that "Arbcom's hands may be tied here" means that he wishes ArbCom could somehow retain Jytdog for holding of a Wikipedia "party line" in regard to biotechnology (a single line, not the complexity of the real world). He laments the loss of Jytdog, as if he were "holding the line" against the unwashed rabble who cannot read the Good Science seal of approval that guarantees that all biotechnologies are safe.
If Wikipedia decides who stays and who goes based on ideological agenda or affiliation in this way, it's shaping the outcome without reference to sources and actual cooperative tension among editors. The real knowledge is in the sources, in the nitty-gritty details, in the secondary papers, in some primary papers, in positions of various organizations, in the expert assessments of many, many people. There is not a single conclusion reached by "science" that says "Biotech is safe! You can go home, everyone, it's safe." There are some studies that show relative safety of transgenic plant X or herbicide Y, or the combination of the two. There are some studies that show that pesticide Z causes higher rates of cancer in rats. These are all relevant. Wikipedia does not exist to be a platform either for industry, or for activists. It exists to be a reliable summary of sourced knowledge.
Behavior of editors is what matters. Does an editor follow sources? Represents sources honestly? Does not push a POV unduly? Does an editor work cooperatively with other editors? Have good dialogue? All of these things matter. With good dialogue, and following reliable sources, the content works itself out. That is the way of Wikipedia. Editors follow sources to write articles, and talk about it cooperatively. ArbCom should not be in the business of seeking a specific point of view or outcome in articles, should it? SageRad ( talk) 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to go through all the diffs cited in this decision, but I started with Petrarchan, as (full disclosure) I have seen her around quite a bit on other articles outside of the GMO area. I have to say that absolutely none of them support the statement made in the proposed decision. These are not necessarily the most serene comments known to mankind, but in context are quite consonant with a heated discussion, typical of heated discussions everywhere, and certainly not sufficient for a topic ban in any rational sense. Arbitrators, don't rubber-stamp this please. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read through the diffs, I have to agree with Jusdafax (except re JzG, as I am not all that sure his conduct was quite so bad). It seems to me that Arbcom sort of went on autopilot, and issued a fill-in-the-blanks boilerplate "let's topic ban everyone and try to be evenhanded" decision, irrespective of the merits. The total absence of merit of a Petrarchan topic ban illuminates my point. There is "no there there" in her diffs. There just ain't. Let's not make a mockery of the situation, arbcom. Seriously. Make believe there is supposed to be due process, evidence and all that. Just pretend. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one last thing about "casting general aspersions": in my experience, administrators, those delightful example-setters we all look up to as models of behavior, are masters at "casting aspersions," "general" or otherwise. (One recent example, from an admin-checkuser with 500 years on-Wiki and an in-your-face and admitted COI, cheerfully supplied upon request.) Let's be honest. Yeah, I know "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS," which is Wikipedia parlance for "Let's be arbitrary and inconsistent." Coretheapple ( talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that an arbitrator, reacting to comments concerning the paucity of evidence against Petrarchan, has added two more diffs, both not from the articles but from these proceedings. Parties and non-parties are asked for evidence and commentary against other editors, and that was provided. But seriously folks, you're going to use this diff to topic ban Petrarchan? Seriously? This diff is similar in wording and tone to much of the other evidence. If it's so terrible, strike it out. Don't take it and shove it up the rumps of parties who are simply trying to do what they're supposed to do.
Re JzG: I'm not enamored of his behavior. He was clearly involved. But if he was behaved so terribly, why wasn't he brought in as a party? You screwed up, arbccom. Just ain't fair to take any action against him. I'm against admin abuse more than most but you got to at least pretend to be fair sometimes. Addendun: I agree with Cla68's comment at 23:50, 12 November 2015, which I just noticed. "Bizarre" is correct. Yes, I know, this is not a bureaucracy, not a tribunal. But you call yourself an "arbitration" committee, which implies a quasi-judicial function. This tends to raise expectations, so perhaps a name change is in order if you're going to name people as parties despite the absence of evidence against them, and then propose sanctions against editors who are not parties. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Petrarchan: yes you make a valid point. However, I think that the monumental incompetence shown by arbcom in these proceedings really needs to be highlighted. Also I would not trust Arbcom frankly to utilized WP:IAR correctly. Dragging in Jusdafax, forcing him to participate at Jytdog's behest, despite a paucity of involvement, indicates to me that arbcom needs to obey the rule on a uniform basis. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So now, well into the process, there are penalties proposed for two additional editors, Tryptofish and Wuerzele, the former for the terrible felony of not providing diffs in the workshop phase of this arbitration? Unreal. Bring this mess to a close, please. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the above (and apologies for the untoward length of this section) I'm deeply distressed by Wuerzele being yanked in to these proceedings for diffs that fail utterly to support any sanctions. And, obviously by the outing for which Jytdog was recently blocked. Clearly a site ban is in order. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The call for sanctions for JzG, including ArbCom removal of the the administrator title and buttons, is appropriate. I see an argument is being made that because he is not a named party in this case, that he is somehow immune to correctional action here. That argument is specious and should be rejected.
Site ban option needed for Jytdog. In vivid contrast to JzG/Guy, I was added as a party to this case despite virtually no involvement in editing any of the articles in mainspace. This was originally done by named party Jytdog as retaliation for my statement, which pointed out a number of glaring facts regarding Jytdog; his action to add me was an obvious tit-for-tat move that continued his overall pattern of abuse of process. Like JzG, Jytdog abruptly ceased editing while this case was in progress after things started looking bad for him, including several pointed warnings on Jytdog's Talk page regarding his grave dancing to named Party GregJackP, who stood up to Jytdog effectively. The sharp administrator warnings were then removed from Jytdog's Talk page by Jytdog. GregJackP's opening statement remains relevant and important as Jytdog is the primary actor in this case.
I ask proposed sanctions, including a topic ban, for KingofAces. Not to do so, yet point to other editors as deserving of such, is a serious error, as I see it. KoA has been highly disruptive and he merits corrective action. NOTE: added Nov. 15, 2015: In this diff, Kingofaces supports another editors deletion of two entire sections of links to documentaries and books about or relating to Monsanto. When Wuerzele replaced the deleted sections and objected, Kingofaces characterizes his comments as "ranting" on the Monsanto article Talk page in an attempt to belittle and intimidate Wuerzele. I eventually had to issue Kingofaces a formal warning on the Talk page after he continued to talk down to Wuerzele and SageRad, who both stood up to Kingofaces' ownership tactics. So is it any wonder SageRad is subsequently targeted, repeat, targeted for harassment? Any wonder that Wuerzele is now added to the sanctions list on the Proposed Decisions page at the insistence of Kingofaces? These two editors, Wuerzele and Sage Rad, stood up to bullies trying to whitewash the Monsanto article. We see what has happened to Wuerzele and Sage Rad. This is, as clearly shown in the diffs, not acceptable behavior by Kingofaces and needs to be acknowledged by ArbCom as sanction-worthy. Nor is censorship acceptable. Our very concept of a free encyclopedia is at stake, in my opinion.
Proposed topic bans for SageRad, Petrarchan47, DrChrissy and Prokaryotes are deeply wrong. These people are legit editors who without exception have been bullied and harassed on their own Talk pages, article Talk, and elsewhere. I repeat: the proposed sanctions against these editors are flat-out wrong. Proposals to site ban SageRad are, per Tryptofish above, excessive, and, I feel, incredible. He has learned and matured from his early errors, and he is an important contributor to Wikipedia. The proposal to topic ban Petrarchan47 is shockingly thin. "Casting aspersions?" 3 diffs, including one from a conversation on my Talk page? You have got to be kidding.
No mention of Pete/Skyring despite obvious substantial and prolonged disruption at Monsanto legal cases. I am astonished by this.
Conclusion: I am in general profoundly disappointed with this Proposed Decision (PD). I call on Arbitrators to make corrections promptly. I believe this case is crucial to the future of Wikipedia, and I feel it will be referred to by future Wiki-historians. The choices made here will reverberate for years to come, and the responsibilities to act fairly are now up to the Arbitrators. I urge that the final decisions be made in a spirit of justice, and wisdom. Jus da fax 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@jtrevor just below who is not a Party to this case: My statement above includes a goodly number of diffs and links. You present none to support your broad contentions, and your statement in my view carries little persuasional heft. Those interacting with Jytdog for years have presented a strong case in favor of serious sanctions, and your just saying it isnt so leaves me cold. Come on, man. Jus da fax 02:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In direct response to Jusdafax's call for a site ban of Jytdog: The facts simply do not support such a call. A permanent site ban is a very extreme measure, to be used only in the worst of circumstances when no other recourse is available, to deal with users who have not, or cannot, contribute positively to WP. This does not describe Jytdog; the evidence abundantly proved, despite his attitude and sharp words, that he is quite capable of making positive edits and enforcing WP policies. This is true even in the areas that ArbCom is considering topic-banning him in. If a site ban is considered for Jytdog for behavior, it must by necessity be considered as well for his opponents such as DrChrissy which exhibited strikingly similar behavior. Failure to do so would indicate unacceptable bias on the part of ArbCom. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I will make one more comment, but otherwise will reserve judgment on the PD until it is more complete, as it clearly is a work in progress. If Jytdog and/or JzG are topic-banned from this area, then other editors will have to step up to fill the vacuum left behind. These two authors, in my opinion, have done the most to provide a counterpoint to the constant push towards a non-scientific (or dogmatic!) viewpoint in the articles in question. In other words, they have done the most to preserve WP's intended stance on controversial, scientifically pertinent articles. Their attitudes, particularly Jytdog's, are a direct result of the constant drain caused by this neverending fight. I hope the next author(s) do not respond similarly to the onslaught. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jusdafax I don't need to provide additional diffs beyond those already provided during the evidentiary gathering. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I am at a loss. I would really appreciate if someone could spell out for me what I have done wrong, otherwise I don't know how to respond or defend myself. Every diff that's been presented against me in this case shows an edit or comment that I stand behind today; I wouldn't change a thing. I take my time before pressing enter, and I don't drink whilst editing. So I know there are no gotcha's out there lurking, and that it isn't possible for anyone to come up with diffs to prove that I am problematic. They don't exist. The 3 chosen to show that I am casting aspersions do not show anything of the sort. Claims against me in this case have ranged from POV pushing, fringe pushing, battleground behaviour, edit warring, WP:NOTHERE, and more. Yet it all boiled down to a (IMO, bogus) claim of aspersion casting. That means that there were numerous aspersions cast against me (perhaps even including the PDs) that never had evidence. Aspersions cast during ArbCom should result in sanctions. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been attempting to tell you all for over three years about a bias that is staining the reputation of Wikipedia, and am being ignored and demonized. When readers found out that BP was allowed to pen much their article, [68] there was an outcry from the public, with many calling for a boycott by ceasing donations. The readers abhor the idea of corporate spin on what appears to be the most unbiased source available on the web for most subjects.
Jytdog and supporters misused sources such as the WHO, and created through SYNTH a false claim that has had independent scientists crying foul for a few years now. I first noticed the bias (is "COI-like editing" safe to say?) from a group of editors when working on the March Against Monsanto article, and went to DGG for help. He agreed that their attempts to insert scientific claims about GMO safety were not appropriate for that article, but Jytdog and the group continued to guard that material as recently as this August, [69] which is after the RfC found that his sources did not support this claim of "scientific consensus" on GM food safety. To this day, a web search will turn up only one other source for this claim, the AAAS. Jytdog had to admit, by changing in this diff after close of the RfC, that his claim posted to numerous articles for roughly 3 years was unsupported. (The new version of the claim, "general scientific agreement", is based only on a poll of AAAS scientists, and coupled with more SYNTH that again doesn't support the claim.)
This misuse of sources has to be one of the most egregious ever in your history. ArbCom rules on the misuse of sources, but there is no PD yet.
There is a PD for speaking out about the aforementioned, but no PD for calling me a supporter of fringe science, one of the worst things that can be said about an editor here. I dedicated myself to learning the MEDRS guideline, and have been diligent about using sourcing correctly; no evidence has emerged to prove otherwise. But I am being demonized regardless, as are others in this case, for "pushing fringe".
No support was offered for claims of 'POV pushing', or 'anti-GMO editing', even though this entire case was framed around this story-line. And that's all it was. I'd call it "spin-doctoring an ArbCom". There is no PD for all of the false accusations, just as there is no PD protecting me and others (who aren't editing with a pro-corporate, or any, bias) from continuing to be called derogatory terms.
Once the PD is passed giving greater support to editors who are using your site to push false claims than to independent editors trying to alert you all to it, Wikipedia will have officially crossed a line, representing a move that I, and arguably your readers, disagree with vehemently. If you do favor one 'group' over the other, it should be in favor of those protecting the veracity of your content, not those harming it and your reputation. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
*@Atsme, As a result of inappropriate accusations and the haphazard manner in which this entire case was drafted,
Petrarchan47 has retired. I reject this interpretation of my motivation, but thank you. My "final note" above says it all. One arb's opinion of me had no impact on my decision.
174.71.67.48 (
talk) 01:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
was called here by the clerk saying this is a proposed decision. I could not believe this is it, waited for two days, until now, to post. Being naive to Arbcom proceedings, Arbcom politics, Arbcom everything I feel baptised by fire: where is reason, where is the decision coming from, why the glaring double standard? none, if any wrist slaps for pro-GMO editors in general and harsh sanctions against bona fide editors who insert critical next to the mainstream information. the division is along exactly those lines that I had established in my first post on the evidence page. seems like a 180 degree turn where those who stepped forward to confront Jytdog were treated more harshly than him.
yes, it was a difficult case, large scope, house move and whatever, so we endured the more than one month delay, but this decision (if no more FOF's are forthcoming) is so unbelievably one-sided, penalizing serious, critical editors, while letting arrogant, editwarring rhetoric wielding editors off the hook, it is profoundly POV.
Is Arbcom captured? are there too many scientism-dogmatic folks in its own rows? Is it too difficult to disagree with arbcom systemic mainstream? are too many involved administrators watching? -- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
since it appears, that what we write here is for ourselves and whoever watches/follows these proceedings, the public, I am not pinging any arbitrator.
For the record, I do not understand ...
in closing:
(in response to wuerzele's ping)
viewing from the sidelines, the way this whole things has been dealt with, it's a fucking joke. Semitransgenic talk. 11:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking over the comments above, it's striking how many of the responses to the committee's proposed decision can be summarized as follows:
As I understand it, the purpose of sanctions is not to punish, but to protect the encyclopedia. Bearing this in mind, and taking the comments above into account, the committee may want to consider whether a return to civility and collaboration in this subject area will require restricting the editing privileges of additional editors. Otherwise, I suspect this issue will be revisited here within the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.143 ( talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to urge the arbitrators to think very carefully about the issues of casting aspersions, COI and outing, as I think the long term ramifications of this issue are perhaps more central than those that this arbitration was raised to deal with.
We have a tremendously diverse group of editors here, and just as some here have expressed a strong stance on the importance of protecting Wikipedia from "being taken over by the corporations", others, who do not necessarily have any conflict of interest, believe that the content of our articles sometimes has taken on an excessively anti-corporate, anti-capitalism, or even an anti-science POV. It is good and healthy for editors of both viewpoints to interact, and to try to generate content that balanced and WP:NPOV.
As it is now, there is constant bad feeling between these two groups, and a battleground mentality. What would help would be a crisper process for dealing with COI concerns. If we can eliminate the suspicion of those "on the left" that they are dealing with covert corporate operatives, and the anger of those "on the right" who feel their integrity is questioned daily simply for having a different POV, we would have a much more productive and collaborative atmosphere.
It won't be easy to design such a process, but I think this is the crux of the problem.
73.162.132.47 ( talk) 23:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
While I understand the reasoning that Jzg was not included. This editors actions during the case should merit more than an admonition, at least a warning, slightly stronger wording, should be included. The reason they were not included was up to the arbs, but the continued actions in the topic area after the case started merit some looking at.
Jytdog did do some good work at COIN, but evidence is clear that he also used it as way to attack those he disagreed with. The incivility alone is well documented and I wonder if those who place themselves in such a high profile role, even though they are not an admin, should be held to a higher standard of civility. Good work in some areas should never be a reason to discount issues in another.
Kingofaces deserves at least a warning for his part in all of this.
The diffs against Petrarchan47 do not seem to rise to the level of a topic ban, nether do those against Prokaryotes.
I am concerned with the sanctions against SageRad, a newer editor who was in a area with more seasoned editors in content disagreements. I would request that the appeal time be lowered to 6 months.
I would also suggest that everyone who in the end is topic banned, take these words into consideration. Its not the end of the world. WP is a big place, and there is lots to do. Try and find an area that is less contentious and be productive, time will fly by. Stay far away from any topic thats even close to the ban. Base everything you do on PAG, and learn as many of them as you can. When you can appeal, these things will be in your favor. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The evidence against wuerzele is very questionable. Battleground consists of one post to Sagerad, and one heated discussion that doesnt really prove the accusation. Edit warring is one report the user was already blocked for, and a lone revert on June 20th. Incivility, again I dont see the issue with the diffs, perhaps I am missing something? Its perhaps one questionable post, the other are replacing an attempt to solve a problem on a users talk page that other editors are removing. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish on the other hand had a massive case of casting WP:ASPERSIONS and he is just reminded? AlbinoFerret 15:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What is even more concerning on the reminder of Tryptofish, is that an Roger Davies, an arb, asked for the diffs in 10 places from Tryptofish [70], and none were provided. He even came back days later with another warning [71] that Tryptofish ignored. Now we get a "reminder" in the PD? That is just sad. AlbinoFerret 20:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In response to Tryptofish's post here. [72] Yes its no different than in the case where an editor made accusations and did not back them up with evidence even after being asked to do so twice by an arb, but we have a section on Casting aspersions. AlbinoFerret 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
NativeForeigner You ask why Kingofaces43 should have sanctions imposed. Here is why.
Engages in edit warring, by jumping into an existing edit war.
The FOF of Minor4th - (Examples of SQS/edit warring: [96], [97], [98] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [99], [100], [101]; revert history on Glyphosate: [102]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [103]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [104], see talk discussion here)
I also ask you to rethink sanctions for Tryptofish considering the facts laid out in my comments just above this one on Kingofaces. AlbinoFerret 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
To address Tryptofish on tag teaming. I also added a section on just plain edit warring in my FOF in the workshop. Jumping into an existing edit war, whether in concert or not is just as bad. Thats Battleground mentality even if acting alone when jumping into revert what others are reverting. I did not even say tag team here, so what you have done is presented a strawman, instead of addressing joining in edit warring and creating a battleground. AlbinoFerret 18:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
One thing I would like to point out are a few faulty defences, the "but I was right" defence. This is not really a defence in edit warring, there is no excuse for edit warring, even if you think or know your right. Every person who edit wars thinks they are right, or tries to justify it after the fact. The problem is, is that WP articles are supposed to be built by consensus, and sometimes that means that even though you may be right, its wrong to revert. The next one is, I reverted but mentioned the talk page in the comments. This is another faulty argument, WP articles are long standing, reverting doesnt have to take place unless its blatant vandalism, or a BLP, or copyright violation. Both of these defences create a battleground enviroment. The alternative is to leave the edit be, start a talk page discussion, and let consensus dictate what should be done. From what I have seen these faulty arguments are used to jump into existing edit wars. The only thing that happens when the second, third and so on editor jumps in is a bigger battle that harms consensus and then nothing is accomplished. The last faulty defense is "the other person was edit warring". Every editor should have learned early in life that two wrongs dont make a right. Every editor that jumps in even to do one revert in an edit war is wrong. Wikipedia need to stop picking who was right in an edit war, and ban/block all that are involved. AlbinoFerret 22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember that King and Scoundrels as censors has a basis as a theological reference from seminary classes I audited long ago. AlbinoFerret 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Capeo DrChrissy who works with and teaches veterinarians does good work on animal related content on WP. I believe the arbs made the topic ban different from the others to reflect the good work he has done in respect to animals and focusing in on the problem areas. AlbinoFerret 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that Arbcom will give a great deal of consideration of what it will mean to the small group of editors who are doing their best to prevent corporate control of our encyclopedia and the chilling effect that a decision to prevent Petrarchan's further help in this effort will have on them. Most of my work with this editor comes from the editing of the BP article where she worked for months to bring that article to a place that now shows BP's responsibility for what has been called the greatest ecological disaster in the history of the United States. She worked alone for weeks and continued her work until a media story broke exposing the fact that a corporate representative was responsible for the writing of a great deal of the information in the article. Then as now, Petrarchan was concerned about corporate influence (and I am as well) and I would hope that to merely even make the suggestion that there is evidence of it will not get one banned. Let's face it, when it comes right down to it we have no way to know for a fact that any editor is accepting financial gain from the editing that they do here, unless they admit to it. We must go by what appears to be the case. When one editor is the leading editor of all of the Monsanto articles and has done substantial edits of any article even remotely connected to Monsanto, for example a small TV station that broadcast negative information regarding one of Monsanto's products, is that not an issue of concern? As for the "aspirations" that she has supposedly cast against several other editors, one of these editors all but had their shingle posted on his user page that suggested that he was available to work on litigation cases - until he mysteriously, suddenly left without explanation. Another of them also has, IMO, a similar pro-industry history of edits. I'm not suggesting that an editor should have the freedom to go around suggesting that anyone that disagrees with their POV must be a paid editor should be allowed to do so without comment, but certainly we don't want to start banning people that express concerns regarding an appearance of biased editing. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment regarding Geogene's section: There has been an effort to portray the editors that have been described here (and elsewhere) as anti-Monsanto POV pushers (or worse) as holding the position that GMOs are harmful to human health and that their concerns about Monsanto are based solely on that belief. That is not factual in my case and I'm pretty sure that many if not all or most of the others that have been brought here for a review of their conduct (or those that have made comments that support them) do not hold that position either. My concerns for our Monsanto articles are similar to the concerns I hold for all of our large corporate articles: Are environmental concerns included, are legal issues presented in a fair and unbiased manner, have major accidents been covered, etc. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Viriditas comment: Calling Petrarchan "deeply hostile" is laughable, though it does reflect on an editor that would suggest it as a matter of fact. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I echo the comments of Justdafax and AlbinoFerret above, but not quite as emphatically as Justdafax. I strongly agree with this comment by Justdafax:
JzG's style of communication is strongly biased against users he disagrees with and is not becoming of an administrator. The Evidence presented by Minor4th demonstrates that he cannot act objectively as an "uninvolved admin." on GMO issues, and should be at a minimum banned from any administrative duties related to GMO's. A mere sanction is not enough.
That said, I am pleased that finally something is about to be done to address the problem of Jytdog's tyrannical rule over the GMO pages, that users like me were afraid to even talk about until this ArbCom proceeding came up, because we knew that administrators like JzG would punish us and not Jytdog if we complained at AN/I, as had happened to quite a few users who tried to. Justice will prevail here.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc:, @ NativeForeigner:, @ Mailer diablo: It appears that many of the revisions that had been redacted immediately resurfaced when Mailer diablo added this this diff:
Is it a bug in the redacting software or was Mailer diablo working with an old version and not aware of the redactions?
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Here I have assembled the evidence I presented earlier regarding KingofAces43 per this. (I may revise before deadline):
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll first point out that NativeForeigner and Guerillero did a decent job of trying to strike out a core area. I'd really ask arbs to look over the evidence sections where editors have been specifically named though as NativeForeigner has said this is meant to be the proposed decision at a minimum. [113] There is a lot of evidence or even editors not listed in the PD that are plentiful in the evidence section. There's a large number of editors that could be examined more closely in the PD, but I appreciate that the combination of only being able to present so much evidence coherently and limited time for arbs to examine it won't get everything done at once. I'm hoping bringing new cases to enforcement if needed will work for most editors not listed in remedies that have been shown to have problematic behavior if they continue those issues after this case.
That being said, I do think Wuerzele should be listed for an FoF and remedy. They specifically go out of their way to attack editors shown in these evidence sections [114] [115] [116] and summarized in this proposed FoF from workshop. [117] I bring this up because after the close of evidence, Wuerzele has continued to engage in this behavior during this case (otherwise I wouldn't bring it up with it being "new" evidence):
This short talk section with Wuerzele wanting an addition to the lede at Kevin Folta shows them accusing others of "patting each other on the shoulder" when they tried to address the concern, accusing me of spindoctoring, and other bad faith comments. I do suggest arbs read each of Wuerzele's comments in that section especially because that kind of behavior has been an ongoing problem that has not changed regardless of warnings in the past. It's the kind of persistent problem that won't get better that is suited for ArbCom, so I would ask at least an FOF and some sort of remedy (probably topic ban) be proposed for arbs to discuss. This would deal with one of the main sources of incivility in the topic. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I had a quick chance to pop in, and it looks like there's a deluge of involved parties trying to gang up specifically on me after Jusdafax canvassed them (specifically described as campaigning under WP:CANVASS) with a very purposeful attempt to direct editors against me in a "call to action". I still need to ask the drafters and arbs whether they think that attitude and set of actions warrants sanctions. In terms of the additional claims (that have already been rehashed to death in evidence and workshop already):
NativeForeigner I'm just giving you a formal ping to be sure you're aware of my responses above, though I know you're usually keeping up with the talk page discussion. For both you and Guerillero, some in multiple parties have said that 1RR may not be enough. Besides the aspersions of tag-teaming, a scenario can come up with two editors where one adds content, another reverts, and the first reverts again to keep the new content in. Now the 1RR restriction could be specified to say the first edit would count towards 1RR (potential for gaming there), but what would you two think instead about including this proposed principle from workshop in the PD for arbs to vote on? In addition to 1RR, this principle would at least set up the expectation for editors that if a new change is initially rejected, that's the time to go to the talk page and not re-revert regardless of whether it's the same editor or someone different coming in. If there's even an slight inclination that my involvement in trying to move people away from edit warring has been improper, 1RR should enough to diffuse that, but 1RR coupled with the principle should help take care of the underlying edit warring behavior from other editors that's been the main problem in the topic. Kingofaces43 ( talk)
Likewise for DeltaQuad, after seeing this comment, most of the claims by Minor4th are addressed in a few paragraphs up in this section either searching for their name or mention of DrChrissy for some related incidents. A number of the diff descriptions are misleading or show me trying to respond reasonably to other behavior issues outlined in this case already when you actually dig into the context of the edits. I'm not going to put words in NativeForeigner's mouth as to why they haven't proposed any FoF after reviewing the evidence, but they do seem to be most familiar with reviewing my edits and at least previously saying there wasn't evidence for a FoF.
Looking at my edit summaries should show at worst that I've been associated with edit wars, but generally by trying to tamp down the editor warring behavior of other editors trying to edit war in disputed content without talk page conversation. The 1RR sanction should take care of that hopefully, so I'm not sure what else could really be proposed on my part. It's been a bit out of process with the re-presentation of evidence regarding me scattered on this talk page though, so if there are questions on something that I may have missed, feel free to ask here or through email. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to catch up more later, but in response to SMcCandlish and Doug Weller's recent concerns, [161] the idea of addressing an apparent COI issue on the user's talk page or COIN if escalation is needed comes directly from WP:COI at WP:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, so there shouldn't any reason to oppose that in terms of "new" policies or guidelines. That being said, Tryptofish's proposed change [162] is perfectly fine as the main purpose of the principle is to say that aspersions such as a shill gambit are not appropriate on an article talk page and claims of a COI must be instead settled in the appropriate forums, such as COIN. This principle is to prevent the current situation where editors continue sniping (shill, never opposes company X, etc.) on article or admin boards without evidence without ever attempting to resolve the apparent issue at COIN and instead uses aspersion tactics.
Additionally for SMcCandlish, I do agree with the other side you bring up where people are quick to claim aspersions when someone mentions a general behavior problem with an editor (often talked to death at other noticeboards) and someone claims aspersion solely because diffs weren't provided in a repeat conversation that has changed venues/audience. I can see potential for gaming where editors do not acknowledge their behavior issues and constantly claim aspersion even though relevant ANIs have been linked to death in previous conversations. That kind of stuff happens unfortunately, but in a non-ANI, etc. type board where there is context similar to how you described here where you're not expected to provided diffs at that point, someone should simply ask for diffs first rather than impose action. I don't know how to better protect against that in this principle, but the larger problem in this case historically has been the tendency to cast aspersions about editors related to companies to discredit them. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading the IP editor's recent comments, [163] this principle should help alleviate slinging about the shill argument directed at editors if editors continue down that route after this case things end up at enforcement. My hope is that it tempers personal political views a bit to discourage the kind of editor attacking we've been seeing. That's keeping in mind that there's a continuum between appropriate general corporate skepticism (I tend do have a fair dose of that in edits I actually make) and ax grinding or WP:ADVOCACY being interjected into the topic and towards editors.
That being said, I could call for more FoF's and remedies until the cows come home for things like advocacy or advocating fringe views, but that's just not feasible given how difficult it is to get a clear picture presented on some of the more acute problems currently listed in the PD. That's probably why no one else got into the fringe issue much because it deals so much with content intertwined with behavior. We're not going to fix everything at once in this individual case, but I think we're at a point we have a start with some of the listed topic bans, 1RR, DS, principles, etc. to move forward a little more smoothly with future behavior. I don't think anyone has ever gotten everything they want from a case before, so I for one am content to say let's work with what we have in the PD for now to see how it works in the future. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like every motion has reached the threshold number of votes for a pass or fail excluding those involving Prokaryotes, so we should be close to wrapping this up. I understand some arbs may be busy or are taking their time reviewing material before voting, but we've had more edit warring, etc. breaking out at glyphosate in the last two days with editors already aware of existing sanctions. DrChrissy has directly violated the 1RR sanction trying to edit war in new content against consensus [164] [165], while Wuerzele has been trying to edit war the same content in even though there isn't consensus in the ongoing talk page discussion (I've mentioned Wuerzele's previous 1RR violations in an email awhile ago). These editors were notified of the sanctions on their talk pages, while others involved in the recent edits (before my most recent one) where not aware of sanctions and did not violate 3RR, so they are not mentioned in the context of this case.
With the case being so close to finishing, it would seem better to just let this finish and have the topic bans imposed rather than bring this AE, but I am concerned these editors are continuing this behavior when they know their topic bans are coming already. Most other editors involved in this case have stayed out of editing the page for the time being excluding the above two. Will this case be wrapped up soon are separate measures needed for these editors in the interim? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
On the note of the new FoF regarding SageRad, editors have mentioned that the issue with their POV and how it is applied reaches the point of WP:ADVOCACY. Simply having a POV isn't a problem as DGG and Doug Weller have voiced in the original FoF, but the specific wording about advocacy wasn't included in the original FoF (though that's functionally what's been described all along). Advocacy to the level that it becomes disruptive, undue weight, or hyperbole filled is something under the purview of ArbCom that often results in topic bans.
So, this FoF could be tweaked slightly to have "and articulated a clear POV that has reached the point of WP:ADVOCACY in regards to the locus of the case" However, that's only to clear up the questions that have come up if arbs are still looking to discuss the alternate proposal for SageRad. If arbs are willing to move ahead with what already has sufficient votes to pass, the tweak I proposed isn't anything I'd be concerned enough about if it was going to take additional time to implement and discuss amongst arbs when everything else is more or less wrapped up.
I also think Capeo has some valid concerns over DrChrissy's topic ban only applying to GMO plants. I personally wouldn't suggest a change this late in the game as I think a WP:ROPE approach will work fine if problems come up in GMO animal articles. I don't know if it needs to be explicitly stated in the remedy that there is a lower bar for action is the same behavior pops up in closely related topics like GMO animals. It could be worth considering if arbs think it's a minor tweak that won't delay the case and would add some clarity if future issues come up.
I don't have anything else to add for this case aside from those minor thoughts. Thanks arbs for wading through this. I know decisions are never going to be ideal, but we should have something to work forward with in this topic now to hopefully make things run a little smoother. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Considering that JzG is not a party to the original complaint a topic ban serves no purpose. Considering that he is a party to taking part in the case and that he is responsible for his own actions the other two actions should be considered. Each user has received ample warning that their behavior here can be addressed. It's at the top of this very page. "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." I have no position on whether JzG has done anything wrong, just that it shouldn't go unaddressed and written off in a bureaucratic manner. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 20:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom is not here to commend Jytdog or any other member of Wikipedia for their work. They are here to end disputes, primarily conduct disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. I encourage each and every Arbitrator to commend Jytdog and any other editor you deem worthy of your commendation, but I encourage you to do so in your position as an editor and not an Arbitrator. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 01:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not really followed this case, but I noticed the recently added proposed finding and remedy criticizing Tryptofish for submitting workshop proposals without evidence diffs. I don't recall any editor's having previously been called out in a decision and scolded or sanctioned for making insufficiently detailed workshop proposals, and this would be a very strange and undesirable place to start. I believe this editor was trying to synthesize the evidence into findings for the Committee's consideration, and the limitations on his work were apparent on the face of the proposals and acknowledged in response to arbitrators' direct requests for the diffs. I did the same thing myself on occasion before I became an arbitrator. If the Committee wants to establish a rule that all workshop proposals (or at least all proposals for a finding or remedy against a specific editor) require diffs or evidence links, that can be discussed, but still does not warrant the finding and remedy proposed here. Finally, and as delicately as I can, I will point out that the Committee's weird block of Tryptofish in the middle of the case could quite well have limited his ability or dampened his enthusiasm to return to one of the arbitration pages to provide additional information in the limited time remaining before the workshop closed.
Unless I am missing something (always possible), I would hope that these proposals would be withdrawn, and if not withdrawn, definitely not adopted.
I also don't see that Trypofish has been notified that his name now appears in a proposed finding and remedy on the PD. Although he has participated on this talkpage, he may not necessarily be monitoring it every day, and he needs to know about this. I will @ Tryptofish: myself to save time, but could an arbitrator or clerk do the same for anyone else who's been added since the original PD was posted? (If this is already underway, thank you.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I had some time to breathe today and looked in on this case. My RL work remains very consuming and I do not know when I will have bandwidth to contribute again. I debated whether I should say anything at all now, and figured I might as well do what I can to honor the process in this sliver of time I have.
1) I want to thank arbcom for working through all of this. There is a lot, and it is never easy in WP to work through complicated issues especially without the voice of a central figure. I apologize again for bailing in the midst of this, but RL is RL, as I wrote in the email I sent to you all.
2) The proposed decision is more or less what I expected.
a) With regard to me, I do acknowledge that I have acted badly sometimes and I apologize again for that. I've tried hard to follow the spirit (not just the letter) of Wikipedia - to focus on content and sources, to write NPOV, well sourced content, and to treat everyone like the humans they are. I have actly badly at times, no doubt about it. Whether the frequency or pattern of that arises to something that requires a topic ban is of course for you to judge. If I am topic banned, I will abide by it and will steer well clear of the topic. Additional to my own behavior being a justification for a topic ban (if you so judge), there are so many people who have personalized their disputes me with and have then pursued those disputes into this topic and elsewhere, that just removing me from participation may calm the waters in this topic somewhat.
Rolling back up to the big picture. I thank Arbcom again for its service, and wish you good luck in arriving at a wise decision. I apologize again for my bad behaviors, and for not participating in the case, and will abide by any decisions at which you arrive. Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Something is missing from the PD that I hope ARBCOM will consider before it is set in stone. There is no recognition of the tremendous contribution Jytdog has made to the project over the years. A motion that says something like - "Notwithstanding the locus of this case, Jytdog has been a model contributor to the project, and supporter of the pillars"
Similarly, if ARBCOM decides to sanction JzG, perhaps it could consider a similar motion in that regard. Thankyou. - Roxy the dog™ woof 11:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to all participating. I'm allowing users to submit explanations regarding why previous evidence presented against Kingofaces43 is deserving of FoF and sanction. All other evidence should not be posted and will not (and to this point has not) been considered. It will be reverted. Please submit explanations of existing evidence against Kingofaces with explanations as to why you believe it is worthy of sanction. This will be accepted until 12:00 (noon) UTC on Tuesday. Given the lack of clarity, everything currently on the talk page won't be redacted, but any additions of new evidence will be. NativeForeigner Talk 12:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is quite telling. Also agree with Roxy above. AIRcorn (talk)
In order of their occurring to me in reading though this and the diffs of the evidence used (I have not been following this case closely before now, or involved in the dispute, I'm just trying to make sense of where it's heading and why):
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI.
The rest of it makes sense to me and seems well-reasoned. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
As for the other matter, the solution to disproportionate, one-sided, and opportunistically punitive sanctions against editors repeating allegations they've already proven in the past and simply didn't redundantly dump a boatload of repeat diffs about in that particular post, is for ArbCom to simply clarify that it does not want AE and AC/DS to be mis-enforced in such a manner. It's not a potential problem, but an actual one, and the fallout from it (good editors being penalized unfairly, too often inspiring them to quit the project, and even more often chilling their participation to a great extent and making them fearful to enter any discussion that seems to involve controversy) is arguably worse than the effects of doing less about aspersion-casting in general (mostly ranty editor group A flaming at ranty editor group B who return the favor, without either side ever giving up, much less being driven off the project by it). But it's a false dichotomy: It shouldn't take an Arb more than a few minutes to draft, and other Arbs a few minutes to review and approve, a sanctions enforcement clarification for admins, while also continuing to persue DS and other means of reining in camp A vs. camp B flamewarring and other disruption. No gleaming baby need be thrown out with the nasty bathwater. The need for such a review and clarification has been noted by more than just me (see WT:ARBCOM for an admin proposing a second formal DS review in response to these sorts of concerns; the last review was in 2013 and was self-evidently insufficient, even if it was a good start). To get back to this case: I've posted these concerns here because the bulk of the evidence, FoF, and probably the impending sanctions directly involved the "aspersion casting" issue, and this focus seems questionable to me. The civility/battlegrounding/NPA concerns seem far more important to me, and I'd bet to most of WP. Aspersion casting (without being able to back up the claims) is simply one of many forms of incivility (and sometimes attack), neither the most common nor necessarily the worst. By way of silly analogy, I'm reminded of a murder trial in which the focus is mostly on the fact that a hunting knife in particular was used, instead of focusing on the fact that someone was wrongfully killed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that so many opponents of Jytdog have accumulated over the years that Arbcom's hands may be tied here. But I hope that at least some of Committee have the percipience to know what their decision will do to Wikipedia's content in this area. Studies have shown that scientists who understand GMO's and pharma have a markedly different perception of their risk than the general public does [177]. Wikipedia editors are self-selecting, nevertheless they tend to represent the views of the public at large more than those of the scientific community, so anyone knowledgeable about the subject area that edits here is going to be exposed to a lot of conflict. It follows that anybody who edits from a neutral perspective (meaning: aligned with the view of most scientists) is either going to be driven off or will be really unpopular and make a lot of enemies. And the likelihood of being caught in incivility increases in proportion to both the number of disputes a editor engages in and the number of opponents he has. Arbs: you aren't going to do anything positive for Wikipedia by voting Jytdog off the island. Trying to create balanced content is a fool's errand, and there are only so many editors foolish enough to keep at it without you making a systemic problem worse. Maybe you could save some face here if you hide behind bureaucracy and claim that these problems aren't a part of your mandate. But you've still let the project down. Geogene ( talk) 22:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
So here's the kind of thing that I think annoys many observers of ArbCom's process. This case is clearly quite near to being finished, yet a close is not possible because we are waiting for votes from a number of arbitrators. @ AGK:, @ Seraphimblade: and @ Roger Davies: are all listed as active on this case, but have not, as yet, voted -- and their votes have the potential to make a significant difference in a number of proposed remedies. If these arbs are indeed active, I ask them to please vote. If they are not, then the list of active arbs on the case should be re-done and the number of votes needed for passage recalculated. I believe that when this happens, holding up the closure of a case, it frustrates supporters of all sides and onlookers as well.
Perhaps the next ArbCom might like to consider imposing time limits on votes, just as editors have time limits on the evidence and workshop phases. In this case, it's been two weeks since the proposed decision was posted -- that seems to me like sufficient time for all arbs to have submitted their votes. BMK ( talk) 15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in the aforementioned diffs from Petrarchan47 indicating any semblance of "deep hostility". Am I to assume this was an attempt to throw mud at her, hoping that something will stick and tarnish her character? I have read almost every contribution she has ever made to Wikipedia, and while I have significant differences of opinion with her on numerous topics, I have never once seen her "deeply hostile" about anyone or any subject. Wikipedia editors have a bad reputation when it comes to interpreting the emotions of other editors. Instead of perpetuating this erroneous assessment, it would make more sense to strike the finding in its entirety. Viriditas ( talk) 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG: I see this quite often, the assertion that because someone comes to a different conclusion in a situation where reasonable people may differ, so the other person's reasoning abilities are fundamentally flawed. In fact the person who does this most often, in the venues I visit, is one Dana Ullman. Who has a past with ArbCom, by a strange coincidence. Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Due to unforeseeable personal circumstances, I have not had sufficient time to keep up with all the comments and discussion on this case that has occurred since the proposed decision was posted. As I do not have time to catch up with all arbitration matters without delaying things unnecessarily I am going to strike my votes regarding specific findings and remedies and move to abstain. I will be effectively inactive on this case going forward and will not respond to pings or talk page messages regarding it. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that DrChrissy's topic ban differs from the rest wherein "organism" is replaced by "plant". I'm assuming this was intentional? Just trying avoid the inevitable clarification request 10 minutes after this case closes. DrChrissy is current active in Genetically Modified Fish as an example. Does agriculture broadly construed include aquaculture for instance and thus chemicals used in aquaculture? I could see reasonable arguments for either. The simplest definition of agriculture is the cultivation of plants and animals for food. If you are including what might be perceived as potential caveats to the ban it would probably be better to clarify now rather than close the case and rehash it in a couple days. I personally think trying to exclude some GMO's and not others is simply going to lead to more drama given their obvious topical overlap and DrChrissy's focus on animal welfare in agriculture in general. Capeo ( talk) 18:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, that may well be the case, I'm just suggesting to head any issues off at the pass. DrChrissy already ran into some issues on their first topic ban with some claims of intentionally skirting the edges of it. They've edited Glyphosate pretty heavily well after it was clear they are going to be topic banned from it. That's not typical behavior of someone about to get a TB. Looking at their last 1000 edits I'd also say their focus is animal welfare not animals in general and consists of mostly adding negative material about food production processes. That's not a bad thing unto itself if properly balanced but it will inevitably lead to some conflict again. When it does all parties would served if everyone understood the bounds. Too often an ArbCom remedy goes up for clarifcation within a week of the case closing and it leads to a basic rehash of the whole ordeal for everyone. Capeo ( talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Another point that would help avoid further drama is to broaden all the TBs from "agricultural chemicals" to something along the lines of "agricultural chemicals and the companies that create and produce them" or something similar. If the idea of TBs is to serve an editor's and WP's best interest by removing them from areas of potential conflict then it makes sense to predict where their editing may butt up against the TB and clarify as much as possible beforehand. Otherwise you end up with the type of equivocating at AE where an editor claims, "well, sure, parts of the article would violate my TB but the specific part I edited doesn't". You can see that in of the recent Kochs Brothers related AEs. It's silly. It often puts the admins at AE in ridiculous situations of unnecessarily trying to parse technicalities when common sense says the editor is best served not editing the article. I could easily see that happening in relation to the companies that make these chemicals. Specifically in regards to legal proceedings. Capeo ( talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, if it's already been addressed then, very well. I'll try to refrain from saying I told you so when something related to this case pops up at AE in the next couple weeks ;) Capeo ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals" in editing restrictions is very much clear. Obviously, they can edit anything about animals, fungi, viruses or procaryotes. There is no any need for clarification here. Protist are possibly a borderline. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)