Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Zeitgeist (film series)		2 July 2015	{{{votes}}}
Abuse of COIN		12 July 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	8 August 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Zeitgeist (film series)

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonpatterns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEarl_King_Jr.&type=revision&diff=669687314&oldid=669677006

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyTheGrump&type=revision&diff=669687432&oldid=669666578

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASfarney&type=revision&diff=669687563&oldid=669683044

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJonpatterns&type=revision&diff=669687684&oldid=669663347

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APincrete&type=revision&diff=669687813&oldid=669115767

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_115#Talk:Zeitgeist_.28film_series.2
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr.
• Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)/Archive_2
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive272#Request_Admin_Eyes_at_Talk:_Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Non-factual_smear_on_Zeitgeist_the_film_page (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Robert McClenon

The topic of Zeitgeist (film series) has been the subject of considerable battleground editing. Moderated discussion was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and resulted in three RFCs, two of which are awaiting closure, and one of which is about to close. The discussion has resulted in frequent personal attacks and has been subject to tendentious editing. An example of the personal attacks was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZeitgeist_%28film_series%29&type=revision&diff=665286949&oldid=665283024

A previous AN thread was archived without conclusion. An ANI thread is now running, involving a request to topic-ban one editor. However, that editor is not the only editor about whom there are conduct concerns. A full case is requested to identify editors to be sanctioned. While some aspects are already subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911, WP:ARBAP2, and WP:BLP, the entire topic may need discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Earl King Jr.

That article brings out hot debate on the talk page. Too hot. Too aggressive and to personal. The talk page needs current and future review with little to no tolerance of battling or personal attacks or tendentious editing. I suppose one way to do that that fairly distributes responsibility is too look at the overall behavior of all persons connected for perspective. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Firstly, I would like to reiterate what I have already said on the current ANI thread - that I don't think arbitration will be necessary if Earl King Jr. is topic banned, and that if he is, I will voluntarily stay away from the topic myself. In the event that this does go to arbitration, I will of course present evidence concerning the background to the post that Robert McClenon links above - evidence which amply demonstrates that not only has EKJ routinely used article talk pages as a soapbox for his own opinions on the topic, in an entirely inflammatory manner, but that he has blatantly violated WP:BLP policy in doing so. Something which the community (or at least that part of it that posts at ANI) has repeatedly refused to address. If 'personal attacks' are really the issue here, the attacks made by EKJ on a named individual need to be the starting point of any discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sfarney

Difficult to comment without a specific question. I will try to collect a list of issues with a summary statement, if that will help, but I don't know how anyone can arbitrate an issue without a statement. Can we be more specific? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is a controversial subject, I recommend the most neutral language. Since the film and the movement are now combined, and may or may not be again separated, I must include my comments on both. An encyclopedia is by nature a neutral source of information. And given the breadth of audience who will use it, neutrality is a vital element. Human knowledge advances by breadth and freedom, not narrow orthodoxy. And every group so far that thought it was totally right and could violate that idea has eventually be proved wrong. But what is neutrality?

1. Information must always trump attitude and opinion. Loaded, value laden words and statements should be tightly corralled in an area such as "reception," "objections," or "controversies." Outside that corral, mixing information with opinion is highly improper. Specifically, using the lede to announce these films are about "conspiracy theory" or "pseudo-documentary" is wrong.
2. Not all "reliable sources" are really reliable, or quotable. When an RS offers ill-formed opinion in place of fact, it is not appropriate for WP. When I started looking at this article a few weeks ago, reviews were cherry picked to say the films were "bogus" and "crap." Wikipedia can and should rise higher than that.
3. When a primary source makes a clean statement of its own goals, that statement should be permitted, even if couched in a "they say" clause.
4. I firmly believe that the existence of WP is dependent on respecting and following the copyright and BLP rules. We are not excused from libel and slander by putting the words in quotes and arguing that someone else said it first. Every publication has its own rules for libel, and some have very deep pockets to defend those rules or take the hit. Wikipedia does not. Specifically, we get nowhere by calling a living person an "antisemite," even if the word is credited to some RS keyboard, and even when that word is in the opinion section. Messing with people's professional reputation can get us shot -- and if we do it, we probably should be.
5. The value and respect for Wikipedia by the general public tacitly depends on these rules. Fox News loses audience by slathering its reports with opinions. It winds up preaching only to the choir. We shouldn't let that happen to Wikipedia in either direction. If you really want to reach past the choir, clean up the language. Honest, neutral information gets through everyone's information censors. Opinions are stopped and searched at the borders. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first started reading this article about two months ago, it was nothing BUT opinions. The editors objected to some of the statements in the films and never got past it. King argued that it's not a documentary because it is not factual. Never mind the definition of a documentary, it isn't one because it isn't factual. It's propaganda, conspiracy, etc. A whole RfC and hundreds of thousands of bytes argued on whether it is a documentary. I believe that point was eventually won in favor of a documentary. But this is an improper use of sources. Sources establish fact. Sources also offer opinion, but sources differ on opinions and people do not come to Wikipedia for opinions. When people look for opinions, they read the Jerusalem Post, Fox News, or the editorials of St. Louis Dispatch. They do not come to Wikipedia for opinion. Furthermore, if Wikipedia tries to state as fact what these sources present as personal opinions, the Wikipedia becomes a fraud, and a misrepresentation of the sources it pretends to quote. A documentary may be said to be propaganda (as many documentaries are) and it may be called "propaganda" by a reliable source (as many do), but it is still a documentary by the Academy of Motion Pictures. And that is the only reliable source, not some $10 a word opinion factory in the Washington Times. If Wikipedia publishes opinions as facts, it will be fraught with contradictory statements, all from reliable sources. It will be a Tower of Babel, a chattering confusion like the Internet itself.

A few weeks ago, the article was little more than one long expression of contempt, with no statement of what the film is, what the movement is, or anything else. It was fact-free, like a diet soda or a "news" item in People Magazine. As King recently explained, he has many times in the past reverted statements from the primary source, and strongly hinted he would do again, so I haven't bothered to try.[1] Disallowing Zeitgeist producers or Zeitgeist movement to speak for itself is a violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." But King has made very "free" with WP policy and rules, and never admits when he is proved wrong. This strongly suggests that King's misstatements, inventions, and ignorance are intentional -- he will not be corrected beyond the moment because he has not learned anything because it was not a mistake to begin with -- it was intentional abuse of policy.

King has even argued that my BPL notification titled "Non-factual smear on Zeitgeist the film page" was itself a BPL violation.[2] The logic is awkward and difficult to follow, but apparently, when I say our Wikipedia article is a smear (vilification[3][4]) of producer Peter Joseph's reputation by calling his statements "antisemitic," somehow I am violating BPL on the reviewer whom WP is quoting.[5] It is tortured logic to reverse the spear and force me to hold the blade. But the worst of this is the logic by which one Chip Berlet arrives at his accusation of antisemitism. It seems some of the arguments in the film sound similar to arguments Berlet has heard from a list of antisemites. Therefore, the film must have "borrowed" the ideas from those antisemites, and therefore, the films must be antisemitic. Another reviewer who cites Berlet's opinions admits that the films do not mention Jews, and therefore the films contain "covert antisemitism." I do not argue whether Joseph is antisemitic in his personal life -- but our sources do not support the slanderous accusation. The statements are not statements of fact, and their reasoning is simply not factual. But through the abuse of RS authority that King says we must follow, we must quote those statements from the reviewers, else we would be "censoring reliable sources." But to complete the hypocrisy. those are almost the ONLY statements from the reviews that we cite. In my way of thinking, we cannot quote those accusations without smearing Peter Joseph himself, because he wrote, produced, and narrated the film. Pincrete agrees that a person could not produce an antisemitic work without being an antisemite,[6] which confirms my argument that accusations of antisemitism against the films are really accusations against producer Joseph and therefore BPL issues. [The BPLN is stalled now because of the ANI and this action.]

In conclusion, I have worked with dozens of other editors in varying degrees of disagreement over the years. King seems unwilling or unable to collaborate on editing that does not match his opinions. I am suspicious that he has worked on little else in the last year outside this group of articles. His pattern of editing closely matches WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE.

Statement by Jonpatterns

There is an ongoing problem with the actions of a particular editor. It looks likely action will be taken on this, and that this ArbCom will be rejected. Therefore, I'm not going to comment further here at this point.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pincrete

My involvement extends only to the last 2-3 weeks, becoming involved only as a result of an RFC. I agree with most of what Arthur Rubin says immediately below:

• Earl King Jr. has sometimes been uncivil, bordering on personal attacks, also tactless in a manner which may have inflamed discussion. He would probably like the article to present a very negative impression of the film and 'movement', however, in my limited experience, I believe he has 'backed off' on behaviour and content when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. Small but significant steps have recently been made in both balance and readability ('documentary style', neutral synopses, removing 'conspiracy crap', 'trademark' and the needless repetition of 'conspiracy theories', have all been changed with little 'drama'). Possibly he should be sanctioned, but a topic ban is not justified and would reduce attempts to make the article WP:NPOV.
• AndyTheGrump has made personal attacks and needlessly 'personalised' disagreements, but has largely been a positive influence in my short experience.
• Sfarney repeatedly personalises all discussion in a manner which is combative, on a number of occasions, when asked to stop by me, he intensified and appeared to regard it as his right to do so. I endorse Arthur Rubin's comments about his actions re: BLP. Grammar/Sfarney took little part in discussions on the 'incremental' improvements which I refer to above, appearing to be more interested in 'grandstanding' and 'gladitorialising'. I believe he should be warned about his behaviour, which is persistently disruptive.

I'll supply diffs if required. Since I won't have this on my watchlist, I would be grateful if someone would 'name' me if my attention is required.

nb I strongly resent Grammar/Sfarney's use of my name, and selective quoting above to support an argument which he knows I disagree with. The diffs he offers are clearly pointing out the difference between being XYZ and having been described by ABC of being XYZ, a distinction which he consistently refuses to acknowledge or sees as irrelevant (The first is an assertion of fact, the second is an attributed opinion). Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved non-party Arthur Rubin

There are definite problems here, which do not seem to be being properly dealt with on the drama pages. As I see it:

• Earl King Jr. has been uncivil, and his accusations of editors "supportive" (my term) of the films and/or movement of being "fans" (his term) borders on personal attacks. However, I believe he has a reasonable approach as to what should be in the article or articles. Possibly he should be sanctioned, but a topic ban would reduce attempts to make the article WP:NPOV.
• AndyTheGrump has made personal attacks.
• Sfarney has made some personal attacks, and violated WP:BLP on the article talk page and in WP:BLPN while accusing Earl King Jr. (and me, in restoring text) of violating WP:BLP in the article. I'll supply diffs in the evidence phase, but much of the offending text was still there as of the end of the month.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

We have a Community General Sanctions proposal (redrafted to our normal standards) in play on ANI for the topic area; the vague idea got 5 yes 2 discussions/questions (one of which was the note it was too vague) prior to my redrafting / reproposing. I would not close since I redrafted, but it looks likely to pass if the same support level transfers to the redrafted, enforceable one. IMHO, it would be wise to wait and see if that consensus and pass happens and if neutral admins working with general sanctions can settle things down, rather than the full effort of a Arb case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have been deeply involved in the disputes over these articles until early this year, particularly disputes with Earl, departing due to my commitment and ArbCom's advisement to stay away from contentious topic areas following the GamerGate arbitration case. My rather minor involvement since then has been strictly limited to the sidelines until today. At the current ANI case I explained my prior involvement in the disputes mentioned by the initiator of that discussion and cited past instances where Earl's conduct was raised. The current topic ban proposed for Earl is the fourth I can recall. I initiated the first in this thread started by Andy and @Somedifferentstuff: initiated the second one in this thread. As can be seen above, since then @JzG: and @Dennis Brown: have proposed topic bans. From what I have seen and based on my own interactions with him, I think Earl is probably the biggest source of disruption and conflict in that topic area. More than enough evidence exists at present to support a topic ban, perhaps even a site ban given the copyright issues he shows elsewhere. Should the current ANI discussion result in a topic ban for Earl and general sanctions for the topic area then I think this arbitration request will not be necessary. If either of those fails, especially if both fail, then an arbitration request is probably the best way to resolve these issues.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Committee should avoid declining the case until the ANI discussion is closed, I think. At the moment it is not clear that consensus there will see community sanctions implemented or a topic ban for Earl. Should either of those fail, especially if both fail as is possible at the moment, then arbitration is unavoidable. Earl's conduct is long-standing over many years and, in my experience interacting with him, I am not sure anything short of removal from the topic area will resolve the problems he creates and I don't feel waiting for the community sanctions to try and fix his conduct issues is desirable. While I get you won't want to accept a case if both the sanctions and topic ban measures succeed and I agree it would be unnecessary in that event, there should be some allowance for the ANI discussion to close first before you make that call of letting the community handle it. No point in forcing the request to be re-filed and statements remade should the ANI discussion not reach a consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JudeccaXIII

I want to clarify some things since I was kind-of involved with having the article protected. I requested administrator Ed Johnston to protect the article for reasons be 2RR violators & the disputes in the article's talk page. The request is here. Before the request, I had sent warning notices of 2RR violations both to Sfarney and Earl King Jr. Sfarney cooperated with my notification, however, Earl King Jr. removed the notice with the edit summary of ...Ikan. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by mildly involved Dennis Brown

Part of the problem is a common one, too many proposals going on at one time. I proposed a topic ban, it was going strongly, then someone does a GS (overkill, since it boils down to one person), and then he takes it to Arb. Well meaning, but you end up getting zero sanctions when you muddy the waters so much. Regardless, I don't see evidence that the community can't handle it without Arb intervention, so taking the case seems out of process. We need fewer processes, not more. If we would have just left it at the topic ban, there would be no further problems that a block can't fix. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved Softlavender

An ANI, a GS draft, and an ArbCom request, all filed on exactly the same day? And while multiple RfCs are running? Doesn't work. Choose one (or two), and let them run their course and then after a few months ascertain their efficacy, and if necessary, then ArbCom. There's a reason that one of the blanks to fill out here is "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Sanctions are likely to be required, but given that the Zeitgeist movement is pretty much covered by WP:FRINGE I'm not convinced that a new case is needed. There seems to me to be good evidence of long term POV-pushing by Zeitgeist fans, but we do actually have the tools to deal with that and it does not rise to the level of Gamergate or some of the other festering sores on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by completely baffled Rich Farmbrough

• There is a proposed sanction at AN/I. Therefore "other resolution methods" have not been exhausted. Reject, without prejudice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  

Statement by Z1720

I commented on the Zeitgeist (film series) talk page when I saw an RFC proposed by Robert McClenon in late-May.

I observed many conflicts of interests from editors on both sides of the argument who were trying to push their POV. Instead of figuring out what is best for Wikipedia, some editors were trying to win an argument. The above-mentioned RFC (and other threaded discussions) can be seen on the Zeitgeist talk page. Eventually I decided not to comment anymore because I thought my time and efforts would be better served in other articles. If editors still want my opinion on the topic they can comment on my talk page and I will be more than happy to help.

From what I observed in late-May/early-June, the dispute is between some editors who want to give more coverage to the Zeitgeist movement (that emerged from the movie) and those who want to purge information on Wikipedia of the movement because it is potentially a WP:FRINGE topic. I hope uninvolved editors will seek a remedy by consensus so we can put more time into improving the article and Wikipedia.

If this case is accepted I would ask the Arbitration Committee to consider the WP:Battleground behaviour of editors on both sides. I also hope the ArbCom will look at potential violations of WP:COI of editors within an RFC. The proposed remedies should aim to allow uninvolved editors to develop consensus on how to move forward with this article.

Please do not hesitate to comment on this case page or my talk page if you have any questions/concerns about my statement. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Zeitgeist (film series): Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Given that this is being discussed currently at ANI, I would like to see the outcome of the threads there before deciding whether or not to take this case. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given the way things are going there, Decline, with no prejudice towards the filing of new case request if the proposed community sanctions are not implemented/are proved to be ineffective. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to see the community processes given a chance to work before initiating a case. Watching those processes but leaning to decline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. Without prejudice to a case being requested should the community mechanisms fail, but they appear to be working at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• I feel like cases should be requested after other dispute resolution processes have been tried, not while they're ongoing. If these are closed and the problems continue, then perhaps it is time for a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Decline We can hear this later if it's required (I don't think it is currently), but as it stands I think it just obfuscates other dispute resolution mechanisms which are ongoing. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline due to current ANI thread. Only when all other avenues of dispute resolution are tried should we look at this. Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Community sanctions have not been attempted, meaning that this request is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. To use a crude analogy, the DR process is a progressive dinner. You can't just skip all the prior steps and decide they weren't worth trying. The ANI looks like it might well solve this, but if it for some reason fails, there is always the option to refile here. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of COIN

Initiated by Atsme^📞📧 at 01:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• COIN July 4, 2015
• July 6, 2015

Statement by Atsme

I respectfully request an extension of the allowed word count as the information demonstrates behavioral patterns, sharp contrasts and double standards in advocacy editing, breaches of privacy, abuse of COIN, and cabal-like behavior.

Jytdog prepared and presented a case against me at COIN that was not only handled improperly, it was punitive. He conducted an intense investigation, probing deep into my RL off-wiki, and equally as deep on WP which resulted in a discussion at ELN in 2011. I was still a newbie and trustingly disclosed my affiliation with Earthwave Society; a volunteer position as exec dir of a small educational nonprofit consisting of nothing but volunteers. I was also a founder of the organization with help from a group of biologists back in the 90s. I was unaware that my disclosure could possibly cause me harm until a more experienced editor advised me, suggesting that I contact the OS team to have it removed which I did. I'm not implying my disclosure was wrong rather that I should have handled it differently.

March 30, 2014 Came back after a 2 year hiatus and announced retirement. I discovered more RW info on WP. Someguy1221 and ronhjones removed it. I thought it was gone but as this case demonstrates, it was not. The mistakes I made as a newbie in 2011 are my own but I did not deserve what happened to me at COIN or what arose at Gabor B. Racz and David Gorski as a result.

• Personal FB site Jytdog posted a link to a FB page in my suite of personal pages, but the ELs in question were linked to the official site for Earthwave Society. I have since removed the FB page because of RW exposure at COIN.
• Jytdog had the declaration from 2011 and the notice of my retirement on my user page. A simple email from him or brief post on my TP would have sufficed if he had questions.

The evidence will demonstrate an agenda of ill-will behind Jytdog's actions. I asked him to remove the personal info but he refused. I attempted it myself but was reverted by User:Kevmin and User:Ca2james, July 5, 2015, July 5, 2015 and July 6, 2015, the latter two tags still remain despite other editors replacing the cited material and ELs. I contacted the OS team for help regarding my RW information. Risker was the OS admin on my id case and also closed the COIN case.

I'm of clear mind regarding my contributions to the handful of fish articles presented in the case at COIN. The edits were made after my retirement in 2014 and are compliant with WP:PAG.

• Jytdog wrongfully listed Ambush predators which I never edited;
• He also listed Gabor B. Racz based on my FB blog and probed deep into my personal information and domain registrations trying to find a link between me, Racz and Earthwave.

Arising from the COIN case in a patterned cabal-like fashion, a group of proj med editors (the majority of whom I've had prior disagreements) descended on the Racz BLP in a flurry, nominated it for reassessment, took control of it and reduced its readable prose by at least 1/3 to fit their POV and writing style, all without consensus. In contrast is the WP:OWN cabal-like behavior at David Gorski regarding NPOV and a SOAPBOX for skepticism. Diffs will example double standard and advocacy.

• July 7, 2015 Alexbrn's edit summary stated, ...the lurking suspicion of a COI taint, and - with a flurry of recent edits - the article is now unstable. Couldn't be a clearer case for de-listing, really.
• July 11, 2015, July 11, 2015 The irony of Alexbrn having COI issues of his own that were never declared.
• July 7, 2015 Reviewer, Cwmhiraeth, stood by original GA assessment.
• July 9, 2015 Jytdog's link to create more suspicion.
• July 6, 2015 DGG's edits to Racz were riddled with errors.
• July 10, 2015 Harsh unwarranted criticism by DGG
• July 11, 2015 a sharp contrast of DGG's position and lack of editing to resolve advocacy issues that consume the BLP.
• July 7, 2015, July 7, 2015 Jytdog added recruiting tag and wrongfully accused me of canvassing.
• July 11, 2015 IP tag-teaming "second times a charm".

COIN being used for bullying and an excuse to probe

• July 6, 2015 Casting aspersions - evidence of probing into GoDaddy domain registration.
• July 6, 2015 Trying to satisfy doubts, I requested an update to the EWS website to reflect emeritus status.
• July 8, 2015 At first, I only suspected Jytdog's motives were punitive or retaliatory. Emails will confirm. I asked if he would release them to be presented here.
• July 7, 2015 An uninvolved editor also recognized case was mishandled and punitive.

The COIN close

• July 5, 2015 First close by Risker, a true representation of the situation.
• July 5, 2015 Updated close dismissing my retirement, believing I misrepresented involvement.
• July 6, 2015 I asked Risker to reconsider.
• July 6, 2015 The depth of Jytdog's probing into my personal life.
• July 6, 2015 Risker told Jytdog that "he is not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, COI or not."

Jytdog's enjoyment of impunity as a volunteer at COIN

Our PAGs do not support infinite tethering to a disclosure or declaration of a volunteer position in an all-volunteer organization, emeritus status, or any other past affiliations. If I'm mistaken then it should apply across the board including experts, professionals, grant funded academia, advocates of causes, etc..

1. Jytdog made a "self-declaration" as a biotech but did not name his affiliations or employer(s). User:Jytdog#Self-initiated_COI_Investigation
2. He denies a COI or advocacy; the majority of his edits are highly controversial and include issues relating to human health.
3. His comments off-wiki confirm his advocacy and possible COI in academia. The articles he edits reflect same and have raised numerous questions by others.

• dated 2011 Jytdog: I support BIO’s advocacy and education efforts and believe they are important;
• [7] jytdog says: May 28, 2013 at 2:42 am Thanks for responding Madelaine. I work in academia, and I find it laughable that people think academic scientists are somehow free of conflict. Academic science is pretty darn cut-throat – you live and die by getting grants awarded, and you get grants awarded if you are able to publish work based on your prior grant, and the more “relevant” you can make it, the better. I have seen paper after paper on good basic science strain to push its conclusions to find some direct tie to health. I have seen poor paper after poor paper too, do the same thing.

I ask that the ARBCOM give this case request careful consideration as it will further reveal important advocacy issues and the very disconcerting cabal-like behavior that GF editors are being subjected to, such as the intense probe into my personal life. PAGs that were designed to resolve disputes are being used abused to further support the goals of advocacies by ridding WP of all opposition...one editor at a time.

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Abuse of COIN: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)