Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

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

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Zeitgeist (film series)

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Robert McClenon

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

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

Statement by Earl King Jr.

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

Statement by AndyTheGrump

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

Statement by Sfarney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jonpatterns

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

Statement by Pincrete

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

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

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

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

Statement by involved non-party Arthur Rubin

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

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

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

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

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

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

Statement by JudeccaXIII

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

Statement by mildly involved Dennis Brown

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

Statement by completely uninvolved Softlavender

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

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by completely baffled Rich Farmbrough

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

Statement by Z1720

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Zeitgeist (film series): Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0>

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

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

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

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

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

• Decline We can hear this later if it's required (I don't think it is currently), but as it stands I think it just obfuscates other dispute resolution mechanisms which are ongoing. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline due to current ANI thread. Only when all other avenues of dispute resolution are tried should we look at this. Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. Community sanctions have not been attempted, meaning that this request is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. To use a crude analogy, the DR process is a progressive dinner. You can't just skip all the prior steps and decide they weren't worth trying. The ANI looks like it might well solve this, but if it for some reason fails, there is always the option to refile here. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Weak decline - community sanctions have been authorized by ANI and should be given a try before proceeding here. I'm not confident they'll work in reducing this drama, but let's see how it goes. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of COIN

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

Involved parties

• Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ca2james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Doc James (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jytdog
• Alexbrn
• Ca2james
• Kevmin
• Cwmhiraeth
• Serialjoepsycho
• Risker
• Doc James
• DGG
• Someguy1221
• Ronhjones

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• COIN July 4, 2015
• July 6, 2015

Statement by Atsme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COIN being used for bullying and an excuse to probe

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

The COIN close

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

Jytdog's enjoyment of impunity as a volunteer at COIN

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

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

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

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

Response to Beyond My Ken

Perhaps I misunderstood the clerks. I thought I was supposed to name all whose names are in mentioned in the case. Not just those who presented an issue. Atsme^📞📧 03:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to DGG

I struck the proj med reference.

Question by Beyond My Ken

Atsme: Do I understand you correctly to be claiming that Jytdog, Alexbrn, Ca2james, Kevmin, Cwmhiraeth, Serialjoepsycho, Risker, Doc James, DGG, Someguy1221, and Ronhjones have formed a "cabal" (your word) to mistreat you, and that you have done nothing untoward whatsoever? BMK (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Non-party Capitalismojo

I've been watching this unfold over a variety of pages. The OP seems to have difficulty with WP:HEAR and understanding explanations of WP:COI. A series of experienced editors and admins including Doc James and DGG have been trying to advise and guide this editor on the COI issue/ puffery issues/ COPYVIO issues. [8] [9] [10] I think they have been remarkably gentle in correcting the OP's improper edits. She has taken this effort as a cabal out for revenge. She particulary has been unable to grasp that there is no outing when she has posted (and re-posted, and re-posted above) her own position as executive director of the Earthwave Society. I'd suggest rather than an ARBCOM case that a strong mentor be connected with the editor, preferably someone who can explain COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AndyTheGrump

As has frequently been noted (see for example the arbitrators' opinions closing the Zeitgeist arbitration request above), the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve issues that the community has failed to resolve elsewhere. As far as I can see, the COIN discussion closed more of less in Atsme's favour, stating (correctly in my opinion) that there was no real COI issue involved, that we don't retrospectively apply a 2014 policy to 2011 edits, and that the appropriate course of action is to assess the Earthwave material by normal external links standards. Neither Atsme's claims of a 'cabal' acting against her in regard to the Racz biography, of other contributors violating COI policy, or anything else mentioned in her statement seem to have been discussed at ANI, or at any other form of dispute resolution. Accordingly, since the community has not had a chance to resolve the issues - or even had them brought to their collective attention - it would seem premature for ArbCom to take the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I describe myself as 'uninvolved', in that I've not been involved in the specific disputes Atsme describes in her submission. If this case is to be expanded per Jytdog to include the multiple other instances where Atsme has been in dispute with one person or another, I'm clearly 'involved' - though there would seem to be even weaker grounds for expanding this case to include such disputes here than there is for accepting Atsme's initial submission. If there is a general problem with Atsme's behaviour (I'll not offer an opinion, given my past disputes with her), it should be put to the community to resolve first - and only if the community can't do so should ArbCom become involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

With regard to any COI I might have, I already took the extraordinary step of volunteering to disclose my RW identity to an oversighter as described here. I'll gladly disclose my personal information privately again to anyone at Arbcom if that would be helpful

With regard to Atsme's claims.....

• Despite Atsme raising all kinds of ruckus and protests, the COIN case about her was closed with a finding of COI by Risker here. She disclosed her relationship with Earthwave Society here in WP, clear as day.

This appears to be retaliation, like her raising concerns yesterday with Alexbrn's COI here, which he has disclosed since forever.

• I suggest that Arbcom consider not accept this case, but instead close it with a significant block for Atsme, as a consistently disruptive editor, who does not understand WP:CONSENSUS and attacks and attacks instead of working towards consensus. Or at minimum, topic ban her from BLP and heath-related articles. This is not happy, but she is so consistently combative that I don't see a lot of choice here. If there ever was a WP:Civil POV pushing case (not always so civil), you have it here with Atsme. I do not believe she is mentor-able within Wikipedia.

• I first encountered Atsme at the G. Edward Griffin article where she disrupted that article from her first edits in Dec 2014 until she finally gave up in March 2015, making 370 edits on Talk per her contribs to that article's Talk page, which included attempts to use sources like naturalnews to insert positive content about a FRINGE medical treatment, amygdalin and remove negative content. Walls and walls making adamant, multicolored claims about policy like this (+4,084)‎ and this +4,967 from near the end. Despite all the drama, the article is not very much changed in content (it was re-arranged some), per this dif spanning the time of her involvement. The core of her argument was BLP, and issues were raised at BLPN here and here, as well as Fringe Noticeboard twice here and here. And RSN here (you can see the kind of sources she was proposing there) At none of which, did her views find support.

• • When she entered that article, I tried to warn her to take it easy and go slow here and here to no avail.

• The next drama was her "COI ducks" essay, which the community found so deeply wrong-headed with regard to the spirit and letter of WP policies that it was snow-deleted here.

• The next drama I was somewhat involved in was another health-related article, Kombucha where she again has been downplaying risks and trying to play up the benefits of an alt-med thing (like this, and adamantly, which led to a temporary topic ban by Callenac for editing warring under DS, which she protested here, casting all kinds of aspersions on him, and doing it yet more at her appeal of the AE close at AN, to no avail.

• Likewise on the Gabor B. Racz which she created and got a GA for, and which is now undergoing GAR, she has stooped to making personal attacks against editors like Doc James, per this, and DGG by naming him here, instead of dealing with the problems in that article - as an editor who I believe she perceives as neutral, Serialjoepsycho, has advised her to do here and here and here.

• That's all. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump the close was correct in finding a COI, but incorrect in saying that the conflicted edits occurred in 2011. If you look at the COIN case, the edits from 2011 did not survive, and the conflicted edits were all from Atsmes' return in 2014ff. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme refers to the Facebook page of the Earthwave Society as her "personal FBsite" above. There is your COI right there - as the founder and Executive Director of Earthwave, that organization is indeed "hers". Her resistance to accepting her COI (which in the big picture of WP, is small, and not a Wifione or Wiki-PR type thing, and has only affected a few articles) and being this combative about it - to bring this all the way to Arbcom - is a snapshot of her attitude in WP generally. Never wrong, and fights like mad for what she is really convinced is True. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reply Risker - many of these articles were created by Jeffin60613, who is no longer active but was a SPA for Westfield shopping centers and appears to have been a paid editor, and were subsequently edited by obviously conflicted editors J at Westfield Labs and Westfield North County. We are just pulling up the edges of the COI editing that has gone on here. That ANI case will ~probably~ go no where, as the editor who brought it chose drama rather than simply talking, but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

With respect to my edits: For the first, July 6, 2015, just what are the errors? I probably did make some typos--I often do. For the 2nd [11] and 3rd, [12] I stand by what I said. I am not surprised to be included here, for I do not automatically support Atsme everywhere, though I have supported her when I think she is right, as I did for some of the material challenged at the Gorski article-- in the very comment complained of here.

I am not to the best of my recollection a member of project med, excellent project though it is. Indeed, I have had sufficient disagreements with some of the regular med editors here, that I normally avoid med articles , except for bios and companies, my usual specialties in all fields. For one thing, I take a considerably more open attitude to the inclusion of articles on alt med people and subjects than most of them--but I take the same strict attitude as they do to NPOV in our coverage on those subjects.

As I see it, the principal problem is Atsme's refusal to accept legitimate criticism and to assert article ownership. As she apparently sees it, her approach to an article is always the right one. I leave it to others to decide if there is any realistic process of her changing. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

I am very involved in another matter (ironically, one that involves a real violation of the same section of the Terms of Use) and will also be traveling in the near future, so I do not expect to make a full statement in this matter. However, I do wish to draw to the attention of the Committee this report at ANI involving Jytdog. Many of the articles involved have been present on Wikipedia for several years before there were any COI edits to them, and shopping mall articles are, often as not, considered to meet the GNG. There is a pattern of behaviour here, not simply isolated to this case. Risker (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Brief reply to Jytdog

The terms of use are not retroactive. I've looked at a handful of them, and in many cases the majority of the article has been rewritten by completely non-conflicted editors. I've just removed a COI tag you put on one of them, alleging that the COI editor was a "major contributor". He made one edit - adding the address of the shopping mall - factual information that is not in conflict. And one edit, which I note still remains in the article, does not justify the addition of a COI tag to the top of the article. This kind of sloppiness has to stop. Risker (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: That ANI link is crying out for a permanent link, but I can never find Bishonen's magic links page when I need it. If someone could make that a permalink, I'd appreciate it. Risker (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done: permalinked to the (presently) current revision, Risker. LFaraone 04:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Risker (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Abuse of COIN: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/0>

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

• obviously, I'm recusing from this. I have made a statement above & I shall give evidence if the case is accepted. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)