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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD Date

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

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

The wait

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

Tryptofish's section

I am back at Wikipedia, and, between now and the posting of the PD, the drafting Arbs should feel free to ask me here if you have any questions about diffs, and I'll be happy to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked again at the Workshop page, and I am specifically concerned about an Arb comment made while I was away from Wikipedia, at [1], because it seems to have been made without awareness of what I previously said just above it at [2]. ("In presenting proposed findings about individual editors, I am not providing diffs here, but in every case I am basing it upon the evidence in my section of the Evidence page, which please see.") I never said that "the arbitrators can find the diffs if they look". I said very clearly that the diffs are in my section of the Evidence page. There is a huge difference, and I trust that the Arbs actually read the Evidence page. Perhaps I'm being a bit sensitive here, but I think that I have good reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It would not be my idea, per Streisand effect, to link from here to either my talk page or to that of the editor directly below, especially because I cannot see how it would help with formulating the PD. But: [3], [4], [5]. I'm doing all that I can think to do, to disengage (a completely separate issue from that which I am raising with the Committee on my talk), but maintaining a section about me on her talk page kind of works against that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In the time between the closing of the Workshop and now, most of the dispute underlying this case has been located at Talk:Kevin Folta and Talk:Vani Hari. I do not mean to imply any accusations in saying that. Rather, it is purely a matter of information, in case any Arbitrators would like to observe what is happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request that the drafting Arbs provide an update of when the PD will be posted. (The navbox on the PD page says Nov. 7, which obviously is no longer current.) Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments after the PD was posted

Now that the PD has been posted, I want to say thank you to the drafting arbs (who, all things considered, may be surprised that I am thanking them), for your hard work on a difficult and thankless task. I have read the entire PD, and looked for anything needing correction, and not found anything (although I will go over it more carefully again tomorrow, in case I missed something). I think that NF ended up doing an excellent job of working out the case. I also want to say to anyone reading here (who, all things considered, may be surprised at what I am going to say), that I agree with the proposals concerning Jytdog. That is because of his decision not to participate in a meaningful way in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I just read DrChrissy's comment, and I agree that a change from "genetically modified plants" to "genetically modified organisms" would be a good idea. And I would do that as well for the DS (as it already is) and for all parties subject to topic bans, with one exception, who is in fact DrChrissy. I feel very strongly that in DrChrissy's case, there is an excellent track record of editing about animals, and I would not want a topic ban to infringe upon that by extending beyond plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@NF: About the changes from "plants" to "organisms", there are still a few parties that haven't been changed yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Not yet done. Still needs to be fixed for Prokaryotes and SageRad.  Done

I found a typo: in the topic ban for SageRad, it instead has Prokaryotes' name. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Done

Very trivial: the Proposed Principles should have a header identifying them as Principles, Done and the Principle about edit warring should have a lower-case w for warring in the header. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Not yet done.

• A very general comment: one of the things that happened during the Workshop was editors lining up to vote (as opposed to !vote) according to which "side" they were on. I'm beginning to see that happening again here, so I would urge Arbs to be critical in terms of how much weight they should give to comments on this talk page that recommend taking a different overall position than what the initial PD has taken. (Obviously, that does not apply to editors making comments in their own defense.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Another general comment, but one prompted by what Coretheapple said below, about the diffs in the PD, as well as what I just saw Euryalus say on the page. I urge the Arbs, particularly those who are not drafters, to take the time to really go through the Evidence page (and I do not mean just my own section, but rather the whole thing), and see for yourselves. Also, the "Analysis of evidence" section of the Workshop page is important to read. For some parties, it simply isn't something that can be reduced to three or so diffs (nor to impassioned statements on this talk page, especially when those statement argue that everyone on one "side" is good and everyone on the other "side" is bad), but one has to look at patterns of conduct over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• About SageRad, I see some Arbs considering a site ban instead of a topic ban. I really think that that would be excessive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Where Cla68 said [6], I think that's a reasonable point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Clerks (@Penwhale: @L235: @Jim Carter:): I am seeing editors presenting new evidence on this talk page, and editors engaging in threaded discussions. Perhaps you might want to take a look at those things. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: and really all participating Arbs: I'm concerned about some of your comments on the PD. I think that you seem to have confused two of the parties, where you refer, in respect to one party, in the Remedies, to something that you said about a different party in the FOF. now fixed Also, about both those parties, I'm beginning to realize that the drafter failed to provide adequate diffs in the PD; however, that does not mean that the evidence was not presented in the case. I'm seeing some of you getting the facts wrong. (The fact that some of you seem to regard SageRad, and maybe DrChrissy, as having been more disruptive than some other editors, when the opposite is really true, is a problem.) Again, I urge all Arbs who are not drafters to read the entire Evidence page (not just my own section, but the whole thing), as well as the Analysis of evidence at the bottom of the Workshop page. There are chronic patterns of behavior that do not reduce well to just a few diffs. Also, please keep Proposed Principle number 1, "Purpose of Wikipedia", clearly in mind as you critically evaluate the evidence (the specific wording, in this case, of the principle; you are not simply looking at a POV dispute with two points of view). There's a lot of noise on this talk page, which reflects the problem that ArbCom has been asked to solve, but you should not be more swayed by that noise than by the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• I also see that Minor4th is refusing to drop the stick about me. In the past, ArbCom does not make findings based on a single incident, but rather only for patterns of conduct over time, unless there is reason to expect that the single incident will become a continuing problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• My name came up here again, this time with Wuerzele suggesting that NativeForeigner and I are in some sort of cabal on my talk page (not to mention me not being a content editor). NF explained here: [7], that he was responding to a comment that I had made, and it was "no more and no less". Given all the theatrics on this talk page, about editors who are allegedly pushing a "pro-industry" POV because they cite reliable scientific sources, ArbCom may find in this aspersion an example that you can relate to, about how the actual POV-pushers use slurs to impugn users they disagree with. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • And I see now that Wuerzele's response to what I said here is an analysis of my activity spanning the time when I was away from Wikipedia due to my mother's death, and Wuerzele seems to conclude that I am not a productive editor on Wikipedia. I urge ArbCom to consider very seriously what it will take to bring peaceful editing to the scope of this case, and again, please look at the link in Aircorn's section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I sadly ask the Arbs to take note of the link given in Aircorn's section below. I fully understand how these proceedings can lead to bad feelings, but given the rules about conduct during a case, it reflects significantly on multiple parties here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I see that Albino Ferret is still commenting about me, and I hope that what I said just below sets that to rest. Albino Ferret is also repeating something (which he struck after my comment here) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) about Kingofaces43 that several other editors have said: that Kingofaces43 and Jytdog engaged in tag-team editing, as though it were something coordinated between them. That is not what really happened. Rather, these were two editors who agreed on content issues (and they were generally correct, according to sourcing and POV policies). The ABF in ascribing the edit patterns to a deliberately coordinated group is the same thing as the often-repeated claim that editors who care about MEDRS are part of an organized group, and the often-repeated claim that editors are motivated by secret pay from agricultural companies, and is an aspersion. That goes hand-in-hand with the mean-spirited copying of the blocked editor's deleted post, accompanied by gleeful mockery, referred to below in Aircorn's section. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I've been looking over the evidence that is being presented about Kingofaces43. I think I do see real evidence of edit warring, however much the other evidence has been spun. Arbs may want to consider whether the 1RR restriction added to the DS would suffice to address this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• David Tornheim just added more evidence about Kingofaces43. I've read it, I've tried to understand the point of it, but I cannot see anything wrong with anything Kingofaces43 did there, although there do seem to be some boomerang implications that the present PD does not yet address. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Again, please see what Aircorn drew attention to, in his section below. Please. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I was reading the candidate statements for the upcoming election, and some things I saw there prompted my memory about something, sort of an "aha!" moment. I'll point it out here, as a very general remark, and Arbs can take it or leave it, although I hope some of you will take it. Some editors observed that a problem with you, the present members of the Committee, is a tendency to judge cases by whether or not you see obviously policy-violating diffs, and thereby tend to miss more subtle problems with POV editing over time. I think that's true, and I hope some of you are responsible enough to take it as constructive advice, given in the best interests of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As I watch how some of you Arbs have been voting, I am becoming concerned that you may end up with a final decision in which there are contradictions between the Principles and the other parts of the decision. I am particularly concerned about Principle 1, where in part you correctly indicate that Wikipedia is not to be used to catalyze social change beyond what reliable sources permit, and Principle 5, where in part you indicate that it is disruptive to make shill-type accusations without using the proper dispute resolution channels. You all appear to be endorsing these Principles, as you properly should. But then, in the subsequent sections of the PD, some of you are voting that these things might not rise to the level of making findings. It comes across like only edit warring is really a serious matter. And that will make life difficult for administrators who will be tasked with trying to enforce the Discretionary Sanctions, outside of edit warring. If an editor comes to them, complaining that they are being unfairly called a shill or unfairly called editing for the industry POV, and citing your Principles, other editors will respond that what they are doing is no different than what they did prior to this case, and so there is nothing to enforce. You need to anticipate that, and figure out how to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • A recent question on this talk page, [8], goes to the very heart of this case. And it goes to the very heart of what I said just above, about how it could become difficult for administrators to enforce DS. The Arbs really need to think about what it means. The most important goal here really isn't protecting the sanctity of ArbCom case pages, but making sure that content will be edited non-disruptively in the future. Let's all stipulate that this case has been rife with errors, some of them made by me, some of them made by other parties, and some of them made by Arbs. I hope that no one wants edits that are made to covertly advance a company's commercial interests. But when edits are made to comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:RS or WP:NPOV or WP:RGW, you better not let editors be accused of editing for a company's POV. Go down that road, and Wikipedia will end up reporting that vaccines cause autism and abortions cause breast cancer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Response

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: [9]

3. Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful.

I followed those instructions. I referred to my section of the Evidence page. Providing diffs is not required. It is "helpful". If I wasn't "helpful" enough, sorry, but you have no business changing the rules after the fact as a sort of "gotcha". If you want to make it mandatory, then put it in writing, where participating editors can see it – beforehand. There is an appearance here of ArbCom giving in to demands that there must be some sort of "equalization" in how the PD treats parties, as well as the appearance that ArbCom is trying to cover your own posteriors after already having treated me badly and been less than impressive in handling this case.

In an ironic way, it will be helpful to see how individual Arbs vote on these proposals. Because you can rest assured that I and others will be watching. (Oh, and you still haven't fixed "plants" → "organisms" for Prokaryotes and SageRad.) fixed --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that AGK has asked on the PD page which member of the Committee asked for the proposals concerning Guy, I will ask the same question as to which member or members asked for the proposals concerning me. Please identify them, and will they please explain themselves? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case I was concerned about the number of FoFs without direct citation that noted that individuals had engaged in misconduct. Roger Davies brought this to my attention most vigorously. I am somewhat concerned by it, but you're absolutely right that the actual standard is lower. I'll plead ignorance, and that's my fault. It was an assumption on my part to think that more vigorous standards were required (in most recent cases there have been inline diffs, but if we go back a year or two it's less common, a couple years back even fewer). I'll withdraw it, the guide is clear this isn't the standard required. I think it really ought to be, and I'd advocate for requiring inline diffs for for findings of fact on direct editor conduct, as anything less is somewhat making the recipient guess what specific evidence presented is problematic. You're right that this would be applying a bit of a double standard, given the letter of hte law. I'll withdraw it as such. Sorry for this. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing it. That's a good step in the right direction. I certainly hope that you will agree with me that I have tried to be helpful to you in this ArbCom case, even if I am, gasp!, not perfect. @Roger Davies: I think that you need to explain what you did here, as well as reply to what I previously said here, and maybe explain whether all of this grew out of whatever was going on in your mind here. (Oh look! I provided diffs!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that. I've reviewed the guide to arbitration and it's quite out of date, and should be updated. I'd advocate for a change in the wording there that says that more specific linking for individuals is required. I think we're both about equally guilty for looking at it and thinking it was problematic. I don't however doubt that you meant well and that you've been helpful to this case. There was a reason it was a reminder (meant to bring attention to and remind, not necessarily warn). I also sincerely doubt that there is any connection between the link you provide and Roger's feelings on this mattter. I see nothing to indicate Roger would act puniitively against you for your edits there. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Then I am sure that he can clarify that himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:, I would not have gone down the route NativeForeigner chose for the FOF. Had I drafted it, I would have gone with a more traditional and straightforward formula, along the lines of Tryptofish has cast aspersions.[diff][diff][diff] There is also probably enough to add something about failing to assume good faith. By way of example of the issues, neither your Petrarchan47 FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources, attacked other editors, and engaged in battleground conduct) nor your SageRad FOF (has repeatedly misrepresented sources) are supported by evidence (either as diffs in the /Workshop or with diffs in your /Evidence). You have made serious allegations but - contrary to the Personal Attacks policy - you failed/refused to provide evidence for them. This is unacceptable.
I'm sorry that parts of the Guide to Arbitration are out of date. I have already started to get a group of people together to update it comprehensively. The part pertaining to the /Workshop has already been fixed. Having given the point that you raise some thought, the text that you have quoted does not override policy nor longstanding practice, though it is not really relevant to a "casting aspersions" finding.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies, thank you for your reply. I will make note that I have exchanged emails with the Committee, and I have been very frank in my reply to Roger, as he has been frank in his reply to me. But I will say here, Roger, that if you had been drafting that FOF, I rather expect that you might not have been supported by other members of the Committee. As I said in one part of my email, "I presented evidence in good faith. Some of you appear not to find it convincing. That's fine, and I defer to your judgment, and that's how Arbitration works. I made Workshop proposals in good faith. You decided not to use all of them in the Proposed Decision (although, in fact, you used a lot of them, so apparently some of my proposals were helpful). That's fine too, and I defer to your judgment there as well. But the fact that you believe that my evidence wasn't good enough to justify some proposals does not lead to the conclusion that I presented them in bad faith." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

And on re-reading, I just noticed your statement about my proposals for two editors not having diffs in my evidence. I did provide diffs. If you disagree with me about whether or not those diffs support my conclusions, that's your prerogative and I defer to you, because that's how this process works. But I hope that you misspoke in appearing to say that the diffs did not exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th's section

Arbs @Guerillero: @NativeForeigner: @Roger Davies: please see my comments here [11] and also see Tryptofish's talk page wherin he re-started the discussion. Thank you. Minor4th 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Case will be a bit late, I think. Other arbcom silliness has eaten my allocated wikitime. Nonetheless good progress has been made thus far, expect posting by the end of the month at latest. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Much appreciated. Minor4th 03:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I last minute started a new job and that has reduced the amount of free time that I have --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well congratulations on the new job. So what are we looking at for an estimated time frame for the PD? Thanks. Minor4th 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

And I last minute interviewed for one. But that being said I think either 11/3 or 11/4 are likely. Reconsidering a couple aspects but I'm nearing the point where I'm happy with it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Minor4th 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of PD

Just absorbing the PD right now and checking diffs. I hope NativeForeigner did not feel pressured to post the PD before it was complete - I'm also curious about whether this version incorporates Guierillo's input or if he will be posting separate PD's? I will have more specific commentary and analysis after dinner :) Minor4th 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are only two things that I am going to add; however, our notes pretty much line up and we worked though the evidence independently. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I am disappointed in the quality of the proposed decision in several respects and even more disappointed in the lame diffs that are provided in support of most to the findings - especially since editors and parties provided a huge collection of better quality diffs and analysis. Overall, it seems the arbs did not meaningfully consider the evidence provided and the workshop discussions -- I see some arbs being unaware that JzG participated in this case as much as any party, and had to be interaction banned with another party during the case and for edits he made on case pages. Also, Arbs are apparently unaware or indifferent to the fact that multiple editors requested that JzG be added as a party, multiple times throughout the case. Those requests were repeatedly ignored. It appears to me that this Arb committee is either burned out or lazy - or for some other reason unable or unwilling to step up to the plate and do the work required to really understand the case and take meaningful action where it is needed to alleviate the disruption in this topic area.
2. Petrarchan47 - The diffs provided do not support the finding of fact or show any wrongdoing. I studied the editing behavior and patterns of each party and there is no evidence to support the findings or proposed remedy for Petrarchan. This editor actually seems very knowledgable about evaluating sources in the topic area. I believe there
3. KingofAces43 - I am shocked that there are no findings or remedies for KingofAces43. If a finding that Dr Chrissy has edit warred, there should certainly be a finding that Kingofaces43 has edit warred per this and this and this
4. JzG - I provided evidence of several edit wars he engaged in during the case; he had to be placed under a 2 way Iban for his behavior during the case. He has been admonished for similar behavior in past Arb cases, and he has used his tools and commentary to promote a battleground in the topic area - he has clearly stated his POV as well. His behavior during the case was worse than many of the parties who are now having severe remedies proposed against them. There is no question that his edit warring and behavior that led to the interaction ban during the case is conduct unbecoming an administrator. And again, if there is a finding and remedy for Dr Chrissy edit warring, there should certainly be a finding and remedy for JzG edit warring ...as he actually crossed the 3RR threshold on at least one article and edit warred on 2 others as well during the case. He only stopped when an interaction ban was imposed.
5. Jytdog - he has been the most disruptive force in the whole topic area, across numerous articles and towards numerous editors. This behavior has continued for several years. A ton of evidence was provided about him. I am astonished that a site ban is being discussed for SageRad but not for Jytdog. What are you guys thinking??
6. Tryptofish - he was blocked during the case for his editing behavior on case pages, edits that were directed against parties he unilaterally added to the case and against whom he proposed sanctions. A finding should be included in this case and an admonishment. Their absence gives the perception that Arb was intimidated or bullied into inaction because of Tryptofish's numerous and voluminous complaints and demands for an apology - as if he were the victim! His addition of parties to the case should also be examined and I believe a finding would be appropriate.. he added me, GregJackP, AlbinoFerret and Atsme as parties and there was no evidence presented against us that would be in any way actionable. See Justdafax's comments below for further discussion of this same phenomenon.
7. This proposed final decision looks like either gross incompetence from the committee or unacceptable bias. Please fix this, even if you have to take additional time to actually read and evaluate the evidence in order to make a logical and meaningful set of proposals. So far, you have missed the mark by a long shot.

Minor4th 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Arbs are apparently not reading the evidence or workshop or this talk page before voting. Disappointing that such an important case is being handled with such carelessness. Minor4th 22:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect I should have added him to the case when the talk page issues arose. I'd hope that if there are further issues/ds is needed the admin takes note of the behavior. That being said the assertion I'm ignoring evidence is pretty absurd. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: the following posted also on my Talk page, as well as Native Foreigner's:
• As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele is heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jusdafax 14:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Arbs don't have to IAR in order to make findings and remedies against JzG. They have always had the latitude to make decisions about editors who are not formally named as "involved parties" and have indeed done so on a number of occasions in the past. Minor4th

Pinging Arbs

@DGG:, @Doug Weller:, @Euryalus:, @Guerillero:, @LFaraone:, @NativeForeigner:, @Roger Davies:, @Salvio giuliano:, @Seraphimblade:, @Thryduulf:, AGK (talk · contribs), @DeltaQuad:

Could you guys please weigh in on this discussion? Please see comments and questions directly above. It would be helpful if you would at least acknowledge that you've considered the discussions on this page about the PD -- and better yet, provide some sort of feedback to those of us who have spent a great deal of time researching and providing evidence and proposed findings and remedies. Please. Minor4th 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging that I have seen this ping, and that I will take a look again. However I will not have the time to do that before Monday. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick response. There's no rush, but I felt it necessary to ping the arbs because a number of votes were being cast while it seemed like the voting arbs had not really considered the other case pages or these ongoing discussions. Minor4th 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't had the time to do this that I hoped to today. At the moment it's 50/50 whether I will tomorrow but I promise I will get to it as soon as I can. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Minor4th 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll only reply wrt JzG: ArbCom may, in the past, have passed remedies against non-parties (I don't really know), but we haven't done that for a good many years. And for good reason: being listed as a party is a warning to an editor that his conduct may be scrutinised; this allows him to know that he'll have to keep an eye on the case pages, if he wants, giving him the chance to comment on and rebut all evidence which may be submitted concerning his conduct. Proposing FOFs and remedies against non-parties at this stage deprives said non-parties of the ability to provide comments and rebuttals. It's not simply blind bureaucracy. I don't know why AGK declined the request to add JzG and I haven't checked if there were other requests to the drafters that were denied as well, but, the point is, JzG was not added and, under the circumstances, it would be unfair to pass remedies against him. This doesn't mean, however, that his conduct will not be examined. Anyone may file an amendment request at ARCA after this case closes. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence re: Kingofaces43

Edit warring:

• Edit warring with Dr Chrissy on Glyphosate during this case: [12], [13], [14]. Note JzG was also involved in this edit war.

• Glyphosate March 2015: [15], [16]

• Glyphosate December 2014 with edit summaries that make no sense: [17], [18]

• Vani Hari December 2014: [19], [20], [21]

• Syngenta March 2015: [22], [23]

• Genetic engineering March 2015, Jytog/Kingofaces43 tag team: Jytdog [24], Jytdog [25], Kingofaces43 [26]

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

Re: PD

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

My own section

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

DrChrissy's section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Kingofaces43: Minor4th's FOFs inn the workshop had the following "(Examples of SQS/edit warring:[27], [28], [29] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [30], [31], [32]; revert history on Glyphosate: [33]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [34]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [35], 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 [[36]]. 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.[37] Will a separate proposed FOF section entitled "Jytdog: Existing restrictions" be created for him as it was for me?

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

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

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th diffs are from the same interaction between myself and Jytdog on Glyphosate. The 2nd diff (#17)[38] shows Jytdog making a substantial edit of my previous content addition. The 3rd diff (#18)[39] shows my reverting his edit (because my content addition had been previously discussed). The 4th diff (#19)[40] shows Jytdog reverting my revert. In short, this series of 3 diffs provided to Arbcom shows my input to this interaction was a single revert. I do not understand how this series can be construed as evidence of my "edit warring". There was no 1R-rule imposed on me or the page. Surely, a single revert in isolation can not be evidence for sanctions to be imposed upon an editor.

Looie496's section

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

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

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

Montanabw's section

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

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

Cla68 comments

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

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

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

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

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

Atsme comments

Petrarchan47

When Petra attempted to discuss some of the NPOV issues on their own TP, on the TP of a BLP and during a 3-O discussion on Tryptofish's TP, the result is the proposed TB in this case with no apparent consideration for the fact that Jytdog was both the lead COIN investigator and steward of the GMO articles at the time. He had also banned several editors from his TP.

I also fail to see how casting aspersions is supported in the FoF against Petra based on the diffs provided. I am also thoroughly confused over the proposal to simply admonish Jytdog for his obnoxious treatment of other editors, his extreme profanity and overall disruptive behavior (reverts, SQS, etc.) Yet, a full blown TB is being proposed against Petra for a few legitimate, civil TP discussions attempting to resolve an ongoing issue of noncompliance with NPOV, one of WP's 3 core content policies. Those concerns have still not been addressed in this case, and many of us were hoping they would be.

Please forgive my ignorance, but from where I sit, the diffs simply do not support the allegation that Petra cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith. The message you're sending to other editors is that it's okay to shout profanities at another editor and create disruption - you'll just be admonished for it - but don't dare try to discuss a potential COI that may be involved or you'll get a TB.

1. The first diff is a discussion on Petra's own TP regarding an article being noncompliant with NPOV. The exact statements are: "not going out on a limb here to say that any article"; "If you find ONE article that Monsanto; "so the system, as you say, has been gamed." The latter was simply repeating what another editor had stated.
2. The second diff is a discussion on the TP of a BLP regarding (again) noncompliance with NPOV. The section title is Rename article for neutrality? The statement Petra made was this article should be retitled. How is that an aspersion?
3. The third and final diff is on the TP of Tryptofish discussing the ongoing issues editors have had with Jytdog. The crux of the statements made by Petra is (yet again) about noncompliance with NPOV, and an RfC that actually supported the position of those who opposed the noncompliance. How is that casting aspersions? If editors are going to be TB for discussing problems with an article's NPOV on their own TP, or on the TP of a BLP, or during a dispute discussion on the TP of another editor, then ArbCom will be TBing the majority of WP editors while contradicting their own beliefs that such discussions should take place at those venues. Again, keep in mind that Jytdog was the lead COIN investigator and also the steward over the the GMO articles. I respectfully request that the committee more closely review the diffs provided before imposing a TB on a GF editor whose only concern has been compliance with WP policy. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 15:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy

It appears to me that imposing the far-reaching sanctions that have been proposed on an academic (DrChrissy) who is knowledgeable about animals, their diets and behavior may not be in the best interests of WP in the long term. I hope that ArbCom can find a malleable solution that isn't restrictive in "the broadest sense" as what has been proposed. Perhaps some consideration can be given to excluding sanctions that involve animals directly, much the same way medical doctors are given leeway and an advantage over medical articles. It appears far too much leniency is being given to biotechnology at the expense of experts in the areas that are affected by such technology. Biotech ag, chemicals, etc. are so intertwined in our everyday lives that determining whether or not a GMO, fringe, or whatever TB applies to an article about a horse's diet (example: eating hay from a field that was treated with Round-up) would be nearly impossible, and will create more problems than it could possibly resolve. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Atsme^📞📧 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent chart, DrChrissy - a real eye-opener. 👀 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Curious - Guerillero and NativeForeigner, is this TP for editors to discuss things among themselves or do ArbCom members automatically read and utilize the information posted here? Is it necessary to ping Arb members to bring them here as with some of the other TPs in the Case? There have been several valid comments made here, such as what Jusdafax has demonstrated, along with a few other comments that preceded and have followed his, yet we're not seeing any changes or comments from ArbCom that addresses any of these very serious concerns. In some instances, it appears that some of us have wasted our time providing important supporting diffs that are unmistakable when all we had to do was include any old diffs and insist they support our argument whether that's true or not. It's embarrassing if not a total travesty. I've cringed at some of the off-WP reports regarding this matter, specifically how this case is being handled and how it will be remembered for years to come. I'm usually quite tolerant and patient, but some of the comments on the PD (or lack thereof) have become quite disconcerting. Atsme^📞📧 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

One last comment - the section Behaviour on this page located at the top of this page is what I've always perceived to be our conduct policy across WP but based on current events and what I've seen happening here, it appears that it not only doesn't apply across the board on WP, it doesn't even apply here. Atsme^📞📧 13:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Roger_Davies, NativeForeigner, Guerillero -

I noticed new evidence was added to this case, and didn't realize that was allowed. If so, then the PD may need to be reworked in its entirety, perhaps just start over with new diffs and a whole new approach. Why isn't the evidence we already provided being used now since they clearly support our allegations, opinions and proposals as demonstrated during WS discussions? Arbs don't have to dig deep for them as what just happened to Petrarchan47. I am even more confused over NF adding diffs that demonstrate opinions Petra expressed during consensus gathering at the WS. They are not diffs pointing to problematic behavioral issues by Petra but to opinions regarding the problematic patterned behavior of Jytdog, so why weren't any of the diffs used from Evidence that support Petra's opinions? Why have the aspersions that were cast against us without one supporting diff not mentioned in the PD? For example, Kingofaces cast aspersions against me in WS and I called him on it. Roger is aware of what took place, and stated that diffs had to be provided, but they never were, so what exactly is going on here?

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

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

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

Additional diffs demonstrating Kingofaces behavioral issues as requested by NativeForeigner

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

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

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

Kingofaces' edit interactions further demonstrate patterns:

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

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

SageRad comments

Hey arbitrators who voted to topic ban me,

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would help me really to understand.

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

Kingofaces43

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

Two incidents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coretheapple comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jusdafax's section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jtrevor99's section

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

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

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

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

Petrarchan47's section

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

• My evidence ended with the phrase "The foxes are guarding the hen house". I linked to Sarah (SV) saying (during another ANI where Jdog was attempting to have someone banned for questioning his POV) that Jytdog is the author of the very rules the Arbs are now quoting in the PDs, which she argued astutely could have a chilling effect. She furthered, "We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point. Editors should at least be allowed to say that they believe it is happening, without risk of sanction."[41]

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

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

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

• @Coretheapple Regarding Guy, the Arbs should apply "Ignore all the rules" if for no reason other than to save face. JzG should have been added as a party (see other comments on this page, especially Minor's), and the failure to do so needs to be addressed. petrarchan47คุก 22:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Update: (* [42])

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

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

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

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

• @Wuerzele, in response to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

wuerzele's comments

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

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

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

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

For the record, I do not understand ...

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

in closing:

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

Prokayote's section

(in response to wuerzele's ping)

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

Incompetence

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

Unregistered user section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlbinoFerret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tryptofish

Tryptofish on the other hand had a massive case of casting WP:ASPERSIONS and he is just reminded? AlbinoFerret 15:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What is even more concerning on the reminder of Tryptofish, is that an Roger Davies, an arb, asked for the diffs in 10 places from Tryptofish [43], and none were provided. He even came back days later with another warning [44] 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.[45] Yes its no different than in the case where an editor made accusations and did not back them up with evidence even after being asked to do so twice by an arb, but we have a section on Casting aspersions. AlbinoFerret 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43

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

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

• 9/1/2015 Jytdog reverts [46][47][48][49] IP removes some of the same content [50] Kingofaces involved [51]
• 5/4/2015 Jytdog reverts [52][53][54][55] Kingofaces43 also revered [56]
• As entered into evidence in David Tornheim's opening statement, this AN/I is quite telling.[57] Kingofaces43 lists another example where he and Jytdog teamed up to both reverted in an edit war, here is the diff from that section to make it easier to find.[58]
• Another long term example: Jytdog [59][60][61] Kingofaces43 [62][63]
• 29 April 2015 Jytdog reverts [64], [65], by Kingofaces43 [66] [67], [68].

The FOF of Minor4th - (Examples of SQS/edit warring:[69], [70], [71] (3RR series);Removal of large chunk of sourced content and edit warring - it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy: [72], [73], [74]; revert history on Glyphosate: [75]; creates a POV FAQ and adds it to 6 GMO article talk pages, ignores discussion about NPOV, see discussion in this section [76]; removes picture of Justice Kagan from GJP's GA-nominated article to further Jytdog's dispute: [77], see talk discussion here)

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

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

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

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

Gandydancer's comments

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

David Tornheim's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redacted material resurfaced

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

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

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

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

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

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

KingofAces43 evidence

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

• From evidence:

• ...reported the 3RRR violation...: [78].

• Experts

• Fringe:

Kingofaces43 : [79], [80], [81], [82] from this discussion:[83]

• Stalling: [84]

• Bayer:

David Tornheim's Evidence Section called Bayer

Removal of criticism (same WP:Gang): [85]

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

• From workshop:

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

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

Kingofaces43 section

I'll first point out that NativeForeigner and Guerillero did a decent job of trying to strike out a core area. I'd really ask arbs to look over the evidence sections where editors have been specifically named though as NativeForeigner has said this is meant to be the proposed decision at a minimum.[86] 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[87][88][89] and summarized in this proposed FoF from workshop.[90] I bring this up because after the close of evidence, Wuerzele has continued to engage in this behavior during this case (otherwise I wouldn't bring it up with it being "new" evidence):

• Claiming editor is "butchering article" in edit summaries.[91]
• More personalizing content disputes in edit summaries.[92]
• Not allowing new content because an entirely different and unrelated section was under dispute.[93] followed by tendentious tagging described here.
• More accusing others of tag-teaming that happen to agree on a course of action.[94][95]
• Playing "Gotcha" in accusing others of POV.[96]
• Violating 1RR imposed here during the case at least twice here [97][98] and here. [99][100]

• Even accused ArbCom of "regulatory capture"[101] (WP:BUTT).

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

Also, Petrarchan47's FoF currently does not list much evidence or the more problematic behavior at that. Euryalus and Thryduulf have shown concerns over that not justifying the topic ban, so I would direct them to this and this evidence section if they haven't read those yet. Petrarchan47 is also mentioned at a FOF at workshop[102] of engaging in battleground hyperbole at this case such as "Monsanto can do no wrong"[103], casting aspersions about not being critical enough of companies [104], and accusing others of enjoying bullying[105] showing an extremely bad faith mentality. Maybe some of the diffs listed there could be added to the FoF for more clarity, but these should all be very clear issues with Petrarchan's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Likewise for DGG, Salvio giuliano, and Doug Weller, a bit presented at evidence here and here are not included in the FoF, so just making sure you are aware of those two main sections of evidence in your decision. The Monarch example should be pretty telling of the attitude petrarchan injects into content discussion. There's no question that behavior is problematic and has been a long term problem, so I'm open to suggestions that will just simply stop the vitriol directed at editors throughout this case [106][107] and interjection of a strong anti-corporate mindset towards editors (to me seems more like a WP:AXE to grind mentality than reasonable corporate skepticism) if a topic ban isn't appropriate. I unfortunately don't have any other suggestions in this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Responses to new claims

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

1. The first set of diffs (labeled "SQS/edit warring")[108], [109], [110] were due to Prokaryotes claiming there was consensus for something that was in reality a consensus on an entirely different page that was never explicitly pointed out at the time. The edit summaries should tell the actual story there and the problem with hand-waving about consensus rather than pointing to it on a often debated and controversial subject.
2. Diffs for "it looks like KOA simply opposes any edit made by DrChrissy"[111], [112], [113] are evidence of edit warring behavior by DrChrissy and me trying to respond to that by getting them to use the talk page for consensus as seen in the edit summaries in addition to outlined content issues (as opposed to claims of not focusing on content).
3. Additionally, my "revert" history on glyphosate [114] does not show edit warring as portrayed. The only instance where I even had two reverts in the same day was the above incident with DrChrissy (the first revert was a multi-edit string).
4. The FAQ in question had already been created by another editor some time ago and has been uncontroversial seeing lack of discussion since.
5. The accusation that I was trying to "further Jytdog's dispute" is a blatant aspersion with no evidence. I made that single edit to the page well after whatever Jytdog's and GregJackP's dispute was, and the picture entirely unrelated. This claim is also refuted in Minor4th's FoF. [115] Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seeing as Jusdafax has now coordinated multiple editors through a "call to action"[116] to continue evidence discussion about me after workshop close I guess I'll respond to the rest. In response to Jusdafax's claims here, I removed a documentary section agreeing with a previous editor's edit that it wasn't needed, and I also removed a bibliography section because it was uncited material not contributing to the article further. That was made clear in my edit summary, and Wuerzele reverted stating, "restore docu/ biblio sections COMPLETELY deleted by Kingofaces,which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary !" I tried to dismiss that ranting language and focus on the content as Jusdafax linked to on the talk page, but both Jusdafax and SageRad jumped into that conversation going after me for trying to reasonably address Wuerzele's personalization of the content dispute. That's actually a good example of why Jusdafax should be a party in this case, but I (and I assume others) didn't address their behavior in evidence because the behavior of other editors was more problematic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Atsme's claims,[117] most of that (the Griffin article) is out of scope of this case, which is why I've specifically said that Atsme's behavior should specifically be examined at ANI or in a separate case due to different editors being party to such a case and better focus on that topic.[118] Atsme calls that "poisoning the well" [119], which they haven't been able to drop the stick on not seeming to realize I've been saying their behavior would largely get a pass in this specific case. Atsme calling out for sanctions against those who try to deal with their behavior issues is something that has exacerbated the community after Atsme's block at ANI[120][121] and at WP:FTN[122][123]. No frivolous claim of aspersions will stick with that in mind, but we're also not in a position to go more in-depth in the scope of this case, which is why I've only said Atsme's behavior should be deferred to elsewhere. The "group behavior" Atsme refers to are editors individually seeing the problems at FTN and WP:MED and trying to respond. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Minor4th[124] cites glyphosate again like DrChrissy above where I only had two reverts (two diffs are part of a multi-edit string), in response to DrChrissy trying to push in content they knew didn't have consensus. Almost all other cases listed are like this where other editors have tried to edit war in new content as opposed to getting consensus after being reverted. The fact that Minor4th is citing something like, "Glyphosate December 2014 with edit summaries that make no sense: [125], [126]" as evidence where an editor misunderstood basic definitions in the topic (that herbicides are a kind of pesticide) as is somehow trying to blame me is odd at best.

David Tornheim[127] first mentioned a 3RR case were they were chastised for their actions where it was pointed out that I was the one asking people to use the talk page to discuss the new change when people were trying to just edit war the content in repeatedly. Otherwise they cite a few instances where I cite our guideline WP:FRINGE and accused me of stalling because the complete version of a source wasn't quite out yet. Mainly just cases presented there of others trying to edit war in new content that didn't have consensus and now turning around and trying to blame me for trying to respond to that in the spirit of policies like WP:CON and WP:EW.

SageRad[128] linked to this conversation referring to me being "obstinate", yet shows SageRad being the one removing sourced content based mostly on personal views (i.e., the source didn't include other species). I tried setting up a plan for finding more sources to cover other species in that conversation, but that framework of focusing on sources and relevant content seemed to take a backseat there. The Norman Borlaug example[129] was a case where I asked SageRad to refrain from aspersions where they specifically accused me of hounding them[130] after responding to another personal point of view objection (rather than finding other sources to dispute it or even reading the source in question at first) on an article I had watchlisted. Another case of the drama-raising where SageRad is trying to pin me for responding as civilly as reasonable to their poor behavior that is looking to result in their topic ban.

AlbinoFerret[131] is also engaging in some pretty blatant editor painting. The first instance cited I was involved in[132] was from after an edit war breaking out and some talk page dialogue had started. There was drama going on at the talk page, but one of the smaller content resolutions had no opposition so I went ahead with a bold edit and fixed it. No one disagreed with that, so why AlbinoFerret cites my attempts at cutting through the drama to get content people actually agreed on as their first example is odd. The second example [133] is an example of WP:OR and WP:TRUTH in the edit summary by SageRad that I reverted once seeing that the content was unsourced. The fourth example ending in this diff is a case where other editors were trying to edit war in content that had already been discussed without any consensus on the talk page. Again, it's very concerning that AlbinoFerret is trying to paint things this way when looking at the edit summaries and talk page conversations that are more or less in line with WP:CONSENSUS and the spirit of how we handle WP:EW behavior.

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

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

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

Serialjoepsycho's take

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

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

One example [134]. Seriously? You don't know that this is inappropriate?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Newyorkbrad's section

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

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

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

Jytdog's section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roxy's small section

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

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

Clarification as to current state of affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aircorns Section

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