Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 180: Line 180:
I would like to point out that the only thing that Rose2LP's list shows is that the fringers aren't in any way shy about opening noticeboard complaints against Jytdog, trying to shut him down by any means possible -- however, they've been very unsuccessful at getting their complaints to stick and result in sanctions. Looking at [[WP:Editing restrictions]] I see only a voluntary I-ban with CorporateM, which has nothing to do with this issue, and his block log is completely clear. Rose2LP appears to feel that the fact he's not been sanctioned means that he's gaming the system. A more reasonable and logical conclusion is that he hasn't been sanctioned because he's not done anything sanctionable. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the only thing that Rose2LP's list shows is that the fringers aren't in any way shy about opening noticeboard complaints against Jytdog, trying to shut him down by any means possible -- however, they've been very unsuccessful at getting their complaints to stick and result in sanctions. Looking at [[WP:Editing restrictions]] I see only a voluntary I-ban with CorporateM, which has nothing to do with this issue, and his block log is completely clear. Rose2LP appears to feel that the fact he's not been sanctioned means that he's gaming the system. A more reasonable and logical conclusion is that he hasn't been sanctioned because he's not done anything sanctionable. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
:Unless, of course, he's protected by the infamous pro-GMO admin cabal. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
:Unless, of course, he's protected by the infamous pro-GMO admin cabal. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
::@Cla68 - An encyclopedia such as ours isn't a repository of "ambiguity", it is a repository of information which is supported by [[WP:RELIABLE SOURCES]]. Unfortunately for the anti-GMO crowd, the reliable sources in this instance do not support their position. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


=== Statement by Cla68 ===
=== Statement by Cla68 ===

Revision as of 07:07, 9 September 2015

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
GMO articles   8 September 2015 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland none (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 21 June 2024

GMO articles

Initiated by Looie496 (talk) at 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Looie496

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jytdog

Statement by Yobol

Statement by Prokaryotes

Statement by GregJackP

My sole involvement in the GMO field is via either: 1) legal articles in which GMO is only tangentially related to the article; or 2) an actual GMO article where a legal case was tangentially related to the article. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. is an example of the first, Pharming (genetics) is an example of the second.

In both cases, my sole involvement is on the legal portion of the content. I could care less whether GMOs are safe or not safe and don't intend to wade into that minefield.

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

Note that he labels those who disagree with him as "fringe", "COI", and "POV", even when that is not the case. It is behavior that shows the extreme ownership that he feels for these articles and issues, and is not good for wikipedia.

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

I urge ArbCom to accept this case to resolve the conduct issues by Jytdog, if for no other reason. GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish:; @JzG:. Both of these editors paint this as a "fringe v. not-fringe" issue, but, as noted by AndyTheGrump, that is an over-simplification of the issue. Pointing at it and posturing so as to limit it to just two sides promotes battleground behavior and should be discouraged. I can see a number of different perspectives here. There are pro-GMO and anti-GMO editors as Tryptofish and JzG indicated. Then there are editors focusing on legal/intellectual property issues, that don't really have a GMO position. Then there are editors who come in completely neutral and end up fleeing the topic because of the conduct issues involved. It's too easy to gloss this over as a two-party issue, it's much more complex than that. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@jps: stated that "the issue is that these sources tend to be either unpublished or published in dubious journals. . . .". He's correct. Any citations for scientific material needs to be cited to reliable sources, and while I'm not sure if there is a ScienceRS like MedRs, there should be. (There should also be a LawRS, but that's a separate issue) Arbcom should clarify this sourcing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RoseL2P:, I concur with her evaluation of Jytdog's conduct. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petrarchan47

With thanks to the OP, I must note some problems with the framing of this case. For the insinuation that editors have been promoting the idea that "GMOs are inherently dangerous intrinsically harmful", I would like to see at least a couple diffs or some proof that this is happening and causing trouble. [On second read, it does not appear OP has made this insinuation about our editors. My apologies for misreading.] The ANI thread does not show that "many" are edit warring, and a quasi-consensus can also be claimed for the idea that Jytdog and the ownership issues at the GMO suite since 2013 need to be the subject of deep investigation, as does the support from the community that upholds the POV and ignores glaring behavioural issues with Jytdog. Instead of the false claim that anyone is pushing "pseudoscience" at GM articles, the truth is that Jytdog has constructed and protected a Safety Consensus statement on GMO foods, pasted to at least 6 GMO articles, which does not have support even with 18 references he put together. Proof: RfC. This false construct published by Wikipedia is the subject of this paper which names our GMO article specifically and shows we are (thanks to Jutdog) misrepresenting science. Editors protecting this claim and other GMO POV pushing are hostile to science that doesn't support it, hostile to editors seeking balance, and call any questioning of this "fringe". Science that is being disallowed shows that although the number of studies finding harm is small, it is significant enough to make Wikipedia's wide-ranging safety claims untenable at best.

The suggestion at ANI was that GMOs could fall under pseudoscience by referencing Seralini. I spoke to that here / +, and suggest a deep look into the Seralini case, and WP editors' responses to it. petrarchan47คุก 18:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@jps the idea that the March Against Monsanto article was promoting fringe claims, rather than simply informing readers about a protest movement, was tested and found to be unwarranted in this recent RfC. petrarchan47คุก 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP, "There are pro-GMO and anti-GMO editors as Tryptofish and JzG indicated." I have not seen "anti GMO editors" on the GM foods page. If they exist on another page, I'd like to see diffs before this statement is taken as fact. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food and archives going back to at least #6. I think people will be surprised what they find when they read these. For instance, you'll see arguments that prevailed stating WP:SYNC prevents us from mentioning the percentage of Americans who want GMOs labelled. I think you'll be surprised by some of the editors' patience and diligence; I don't see how you could describe anyone on that page as anti-GMO, and haven't seen evidence that there is any anti-GMO POV pushing going on. I think what we have are editors questioning the application of sources and PAGs, and others making sure the result of every discussion is gridlock.
@Rose, for the sake of accuracy, it is untrue that Jutdog escapes without 3rr. I saw at least one case this summer that he brought forth in which he was actually the guilty party. He laughed it off and was let off the hook. [I am on iPad for the remainder of this ArbCom case, and wasn't able to find this diff in a cursory search.]
I would like to reaffirm all of my statements in the ANI that birthed this case, and hope that all of the evidence submitted by all parties be considered. In particular, I noted that Jytdog would not be a problem were it not for those who support him. In the investigation, the same names will continue to pop up as supporting the edit warring and spindoctoring, as well as the activity at ANI and other noticeboards to vote in unison and have people banned. If not outright support, the input is to ignore any bad behaviour on the part of Jytdog whilst helping to defeat his opponents. The "culture of support" includes people we all know and like, so this could get a bit uncomfortable. Banning an individual for bad behaviour is irrelevant though, if the support remains for the next Jytdog. Therefore I am afraid this ArbCom will ultimately include a few handfuls of people who have been participating. For the most part, I am here to present evidence but am hampered by a dead computer. I am counting on my statements being affirmed after edits and archives are reviewed by the committee. Jytodg's edits beginning around August 2012 are a good place to begin. That was when he began overhauling all of the biotech articles. petrarchan47คุก 06:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

Almost simultaneously with Looie's filing of this request, I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience. As I said there, there are reasonable arguments for either a full case or a more incremental effort. If you decide on a full case, I may want to add myself as a party here, and there are probably other editors who should also be added as parties. But ArbCom might do better to go with a more limited first step. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have copied the following, per Salvio's request, from the Request for Clarification page, where I originally requested the clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Additional comment: At the time of my comment now, some of the editors making statements have spoken in broad terms about two groups of editors: those who POV-push that GMOs are evil, and those that push back. Other editors' statements tend to focus on the conduct of a single editor (Jytdog), and the Committee may find it useful to understand that these same editors are the ones on the opposite side of the POV dispute from that single editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is necessary, if a full case is accepted, to add the following parties to the case.

Definitely:

Probably:

If this is a full case, there also needs to be an examination of hounding that has been directed at Jytdog. But that's "if"; I'm not convinced that a full case is the best choice yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

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

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

Statement by AlbinoFerret

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

I agree with AndyTheGrump's statement here [7] and that the infighting has likely scared away editors from the articles. I participated in an RFC on the GMO Food article, but found the caustic nature of the talk page to be more than I wanted to endure, so I left. I believe there are probably others who feel that its just not worth dealing with the caustic nature, and leave, because of this the articles suffer. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

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

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

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

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

Statement by (uninvolved) AndyTheGrump

I'd just like to add my voice to those pointing out that this isn't just a 'pseudoscience' issue - there are multiple reasons for opposition to GMOs, many of which have nothing to do with the natural sciences as such, and it is a gross oversimplification to present this as some sort of battle against a fringe driven by irrationality. The debate also involves a complex interaction of economics, politics and sociocultural issues, and proper encyclopaedic coverage needs to take this into account - something that the current battleground behaviour has made a distant prospect. If ArbCom takes on this case, I would suggest that they consider the first priority to be ensuring that measures are taken to ensure that the topic be given the broad encyclopaedic coverage it merits, rather than allowing it to be dominated by faction-fighting AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DrChrissy

Question Please can we agree on the scope here. GMO is not only GM-food, it includes GM-animals, other organisms and very possibly, related articles such as Glyphosate. I am not really concerned what the scope is, but I do think we need to be extremely clear here.DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it usual to have a question placed under a "Statement" heading?DrChrissy (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, I am wondering why you are so emphatic that I should be named as an involved editor. I am still confused as to what is happening here, but it seems like the names of many articles considered as relevant are being posted which I believe I have never even visited let alone edited (please note this is not a definitive statement - I have not checked this). For example, Pseudoscience case, Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1#"Broad scientific consensus", Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Séralini affair and Genetically modified food controversies#Health. Perhaps you could give a little clarity as to why I should be definitely considered as an involved editor.DrChrissy (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Atsme

I will echo concerns that were raised several months ago by User:SlimVirgin regarding disruptive behavior and the "Monsanto suite of articles" which would likely end up at ArbCom because of "repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests." I agree that it isn't necessarily the result of a COI, rather it could be the result of simply agreeing with a company or advocating one's own beliefs. [8]. Whatever the reason, it doesn't appear anything has changed, and often results in noncompliance with WP:NPOV which creates behavioral issues. It has reached the point of bleeding over into a number of different areas such as BLPs, agriculture and entomology, the latter of which is far reaching as it includes a cross-section of topics as diverse as molecular genetics, behavior, biomechanics, biochemistry, systematics, physiology, developmental biology, ecology, morphology, paleontology, mathematics, anthropology, robotics, agriculture, nutrition, forensic science, and more. It is clearly a case that is ripe for ArbCom.

Statement by JzG

The issue will I have no doubt be well known to t'committee. GMOs are a bête noir of the environmental movement, being the approximate analogue of climate change to fundamentalist Conservatives. The science shows no credible evidence of risk, the few studies that purport to show risk (e.g. Séralini) display motivated reasoning if not outright fraud. The most illuminating example for me is golden rice, which has no royalty payable to agribusiness, keeping and replanting seed is permitted, it's tested, shown to be safe, and yet the anti-GMO brigade still oppose it even after their standard objections are all blown away. That is one of the reasons I have moved away from my youthful opposition to GMOs.

So: it is a standard example of science vs. deeply-held belief. In Wikipedia, and indeed in the real world, these two are not equivalent and should not be treated as such. It's not pseudoscience (apart from the likes of Séralini), though it is often hard to distinguish since the trappings of science are often used by those with a philosophical objection to the perceived corporatisation of agriculture. It's ironic that the same people who insist that cannabis is not a gateway to harder drugs, do insist that GMOs are a gateway to Monsatan taking over our food.

So: discretionary sanctions can be used, the handful of fundamentalist editors can be quietly topic-banned, and we can all get on with writing a biography of someone who has risen to the dizzy heights of county clerk and spent a few days in jug for refusing to obey court orders to do her job. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others have said it's not that simple. Yes, it genuinely is. The root of the problem is in ideological commitment to two sides of a debate, but one side is science and the other is dogma, and Wikipedia explicitly prefers the former over the latter. Of course the dogmatists perceive the science camp as equally dogmatic (and usually as "shills" for Monsatan) but that is just psychology. Science doesn't care who owns a technology, only whether it works. Ate everything paints this as "agreeing with a company" or following one's beliefs. That puts the shoe on entirely the wrong foot - it's like portraying the reality-based approach to climate change as "agreeing with Michael Mann". The editors who oppose the anti-GMO POV are pro-science, not pro-Monsanto. Monsanto can be the most evil firm on the planet and that would not in any way change the scientific status of GMOs. The relevance of views like Atsme's is that it shows a fixation on the firms involved (hence also the fixation on glyphosphate among anti-GMO activists), this is an us v. Them thing to them, whereas to the scientific community it is purely about the evidence. And as the Seralini affair shows, the evidence is on the side of GMOs. Regulatory concerns about Monsanto are a separate matter but are conflated by the anti-GMO camp. I hold by my view that discretionary sanctions should be the first step, not least because arbCom does not choose up sides in content disputes, and that's what is needed here - a community-based enforcement of WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 06:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lfstevens

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved RoseL2P

I've taken a quick look at the recent ANI reports (2014-15) filed against all involved editors, and it seems very clear that Jytdog has a disproportionately larger number of cases filed against him compared to all other editors:


This is just the tip of the iceberg, there is much more to be found if one has time to dig through the archives [9]. What is most striking to me, is the fact that there appears to be no action taken against him (apart from an inconsequential interaction ban and repeated warnings) despite the length of evidence presented in some of these reports. I can't decide whether incivility or stealth edit warring is a bigger problem here. This user seems to be regular participant over at WP:AN/3RR and often succeeds in getting some new user blocked [10][11][12][13][14][15][16], but each time he's reported he always remains unsanctioned [17][18][19][20][21][22]. It takes more than one person to edit-war, so it looks to me like he's permanently WP:GAMING the system by reverting without crossing the 3RR limit. -RoseL2P (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

Unless, of course, he's protected by the infamous pro-GMO admin cabal. BMK (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla68 - An encyclopedia such as ours isn't a repository of "ambiguity", it is a repository of information which is supported by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Unfortunately for the anti-GMO crowd, the reliable sources in this instance do not support their position. BMK (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

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

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).

GMO articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>

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

  • For the record, I have asked that the comments made at ARCA be moved here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Salvio. We can dispose of a case request by motion if it turns out that it's appropriate. So far as what should be done here, awaiting additional statements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=680182510"