Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ARBGMO)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Penwhale (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk)

Case opened on 20:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 19:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 14:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.


Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Contents

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Looie496[edit]

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jytdog[edit]

  • The articles are acutely disrupted, from several angles. My judgement wasn't the greatest bringing all the issues at ANI at once, which overwhelmed the community and led to this Arbcom request. The separate issues are handle-able at the community level, in my view. Just not all at once. A "decline" is a valid option here.
  • If a "GMO" case goes forward, the scope of a case could be agricultural biotechnology.
  • Alternatively, this could be a "Jytdog" case. I have a "fan club" stemming from my work on FRINGE health topics, GMOs, and COI matters, or other things. Some of these hold grudges because of bad things I did that they have not forgiven me for. Some are frustrated POV pushers. Some are both. An arbitration focused on me could resolve this.
  • I request that Arbcom clearly define the scope.
  • I realize that my behavior would be a focal point of any accepted case.
    • Some claim I have a financial COI. I don't, per this. I am willing to discuss/disclose offline, my RL info with any Arbs as yet another extraordinary step to deal with WP:APPARENTCOI. Please consider accepting that offer.
    • Others see a longterm pattern of pro-industry POV pushing. I have worked hard to make and keep these articles NPOV and well sourced, pushing back advocacy from pro-industry and anti-GMO advocates ( the latter of whom are far more prevalent).
    • There are claims of OWN. I do steward the ag biotech articles. I do try to keep them SYNCed (which is important in this complex & controversial topic & which advocates often will not reckon with), and I work hard to keep advocacy out and keep them well-sourced. They are far from perfect and are continually improved per Lfstevens below. There continues to be compromising/consensus-building work on Talk, which is often difficult. We generally have been able to work things out there.
    • I do make editing mistakes; I have made some poor judgements in editing, talking (incivility) and taking drama board actions. I have apologized and retracted where I was able to see that I was wrong. Arbcom will decide if their prevalence means that I should be sanctioned in some way(s). At ANI I have been warned by the community via ANI once (which I accepted and deserved) - not related to ag biotech (during Spring 2015, which was a bad time for me here, now past) and I accepted an iban with CorporateM, which I chose to accept rather than create drama over - again not related to ag biotech. I've never been blocked.

About others:

    • Prokaryotes is disruptive as described here
    • DrChrissy is battlegrounding as described here
    • Petrarchan hounds me as described here
    • Wuerzele spends more effort attacking me for being a shill than working toward consensus like this.
    • Peripheral: AlbinoFerrett and GregJackP (with whom Minor4th is MEAT) are turning wikipedia into a battleground over grudges on issues unrelated to GMOs. There is a third editor, PraeceptorIP, whose work will need to be addressed if SCOTUS Monsanto cases are included (who also made one edit to the GM food article here) which I moved to Pharming (genetics); GregJackP got involved in that, and some Monsanto articles only trying to "protect" PraeceptorIP from my efforts to work with him to address his COI/POV editing. It is a delicate discussion, which i marred by making some mistakes, but which was recoverable... but to which GregJackP has brought a sledge hammer and made a mess of, similarly to Elvey.
    • David Tornheim treats WP primarily as a site for advocacy; SageRad also but to a lesser extent.
  • I requested thatJusdafax be added as a party, per his statement below and his statement with regard to me, that It's time to lance the boil. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Yobol[edit]

Only started editing this area in past two weeks, though have had it on my watchlist for a while.

There appears to be intersecting problems here:

Agree with other editors that there is POV pushing a fringe position regarding the health issues surrounding GMOs, specifically that they are dangerous for human health. The dispute surrounding the "scientific consensus" resembles the climate change or intelligent design debate where there is a science based position being disputed by those with a more ideological based position. While AndyTheGrump's point is well taken, the dispute appears to have largely revolved around health issues, and not the other issues surrounding GMOs.

The other problem area appears to be that a number of editors appear to have specifically targeted Jytdog for sanctions. Jytdog has attracted inordinate amount of attention from editors who have previously been in editorial conflict with Jytdog. That Jytdog has been dragged to ANI so often but still has a clean block log and lack of official sanction speaks to the tenacity of Jytdog's "fan club" as well as the lack of consensus that Jytdog has behaved in a way that warrants severe sanctions.

I think classifying this issue under Pseudoscience as proposed with discretionary sanctions will help improve the area with the first problem, but I suspect that a case may be necessary to get investigate the issues resolving the hounding of Jytdog. The scope of the case needs to be broad enough to investigate both issues, if undertaken. Yobol (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Prokaryotes[edit]

I briefly edited the related pages in the last couple of days. There have been problems when a group of users begun to remove primary sources from peer reviewed journals (here, or here or here), or news via reliable sources (or here even opposing after majority of RFC supports addition), as well as efforts to delete new pages.

  • Additionally there are problems in most of these articles due to synthesis (as outlined here), or because authority statements are removed.
  • Several of the users opposing additions mentioned fringe as a reason, sometimes citing a consensus. However, there is no consensus via the authorities, and fringe view can not be applied in context of a general assessment. The article Séralini affair scope can be considered fringe, but the context should allow the inclusion of the related sources, not stick to opposing views.
  • To resolve the issue we need to allow primary sources for GMO articles, and all authority statements, and need to make clear if the topic involves Food and Crops or if these are separated.
  • Editor Jytdog with reliable support by certain others played the major role in the run up to this Arbcom request, and there are no indication that the edit pattern of that group or behavior will change. In fact the group continues to remove everything which can be considered anti-GMO, reasons are not per WP.
  • Something else to have in mind when judging GMO edits is maybe outlined in this New York Times article. prokaryotes (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GregJackP[edit]

My involvement in the GMO field is via either: 1) legal articles with GMO tangentially related; or 2) a GMO article with a legal case tangentially related. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - example of the first, Pharming (genetics) - example of the second. In both, my sole involvement is on the legal portion of the content.

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

Those who disagree with him are labeled as "fringe", "COI", and "POV." It is behavior that shows the extreme ownership that he feels for these articles, and is not good for wikipedia.

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

I urge ArbCom to accept this case to resolve the conduct issues by Jytdog, if for no other reason.

@Tryptofish:; @JzG:. Both of these editors paint this as a "fringe v. not-fringe" issue, but, as noted by AndyTheGrump, that is an over-simplification of the issue. Pointing at it and posturing so as to limit it to just two sides promotes battleground behavior and should be discouraged. I can see a number of different perspectives here. There are pro-GMO and anti-GMO editors as Tryptofish and JzG indicated. Then there are editors focusing on legal/intellectual property issues, that don't really have a GMO position. Then there are editors who come in completely neutral and end up fleeing the topic because of the conduct issues involved. It's too easy to gloss this over as a two-party issue, it's much more complex than that.
@jps: stated that "the issue is that these sources tend to be either unpublished or published in dubious journals. . . .". He's correct. Any citations for scientific material needs to be cited to reliable sources, and while I'm not sure if there is a ScienceRS like MedRs, there should be. Arbcom should clarify this sourcing.
@RoseL2P:, I concur with her evaluation of Jytdog's conduct.
I'll note that Jytdog has continued his harassment of PraeceptorIP even after this request started, see here.
And is still being rude to COI editors trying to do the right thing, here.

@Tryptofish:, I assume that you mean the hounding by Jytdog, not "of" him, because he has clearly hounded Atsme, PraeceptorIP, Viriditas, anyone that he believes may have a distant connection with an article (while ignoring his own), etc. I would hate to think that you have taken sides on this, such as praising one side's proposal while ignoring another editor proposing the same thing earlier (here).

And Jytdog, here. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47[edit]

Jytdog and the ownership issues at the GMO suite since 2012 need to be the subject of deep investigation, as does the support from the community, including some administrators, that upholds the POV and ignores glaring behavioural issues with Jytdog.

Instead of the false claim that anyone is pushing "pseudoscience" at GM articles, the truth is that Jytdog has constructed and protected a Safety Consensus statement on GMO foods, pasted to at least 6 GMO articles, which does not have support even with 18 references he put together. Proof: RfC. This false construct published by Wikipedia is the subject of this paper (see #3), which names our GMO article specifically and shows it misrepresents science. Editors protecting this claim and other GMO POV-pushing are hostile to science that doesn't support it, hostile to editors seeking balance, and call any questioning of this "fringe". Science that is being disallowed shows that Wikipedia's wide-ranging safety claims are untenable at best.

The suggestion at ANI was that GMOs could fall under pseudoscience by referencing Seralini. I spoke to that here, and suggest a deep look into the Seralini case, and WP editors' responses to it. It may be an orchestrated smear campaign.

@Roches Powerful WP:MEDRS from Krimsky - review of all safety studies since 2008
@Jtrevor99 Correction: Guardian WHO (politics); France "latches on"
@David Tornheim - Corrections: a) The claim was attributed to the AAAS by WP, but came from the BoD (more); b) "Arc de Ciel" aka User:Sunrise (mentioned in your first diff)

Diffs:

  • Comparison of GM foods article before/after Jytdog's overhaul *
  • Spindoctoring Antidepressant : Swaps out reference to "withrawal" * * and reverts W.H.O. source linking creation of new terminology with Eli Lilly: *
  • Collusion, bullying *
  • Referring to MEDRS as "fringe", stating discussions have taken place when they haven't *
  • Jytdog shown he misrepresents the WHO (Sarah SV makes this clear), responds with nonsense * (as does KingofAces *), accuses new editor of misreading source *, admits to using SYNTH/OR * in his Scientific Consensus statement. He has since been forced to amend the statement.
  • Equates GE food with natural/forced hybridization, erasing mention of "natural" food *
  • Refutes Seralini with OR/editorializing, misleading edit summary *, with OR and "weedcontrolfreaks.com" *
  • Removed MEDRS-needed tag from "broad scientific consensus" claim cited to blog *, uses poor source to claim "broad scientific consensus" *
  • Judges source based on POV */*
  • Removed criticism about drug, misleading edit summaries *, *, excused it *, re-added as rebuttal *

Notes:

@ArbCom members, the framing of this case is a non-neutral, irrelevant theory; no anti-GMO faction exists on WP. 'Fringe advocates versus stewards of the project' is an inaccurate, baseless storyline. (Tsavage on "fringe" and the GMO pages: *.)
This case should extend to pharmaceutical articles.

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

I’m an agricultural science editor, and I’ve been involved in this topic for at least two years now. Others such JzG, Beyond my Ken, etc. have outlined the situation pretty well, so my additional cents.

First, there are often content disputes centering around WP:FRINGE. We have numerous statements in the literature that scientific consensus exists on the safety of GMOs. There are small but vocal fringe groups in the scientific community that claim otherwise, do showy press releases (e.g., Seralini affair), and otherwise do things that fringe groups do. The pseudoscience ArbCom case addresses this kind of issue broadly, and the climate change case should detail the very same issues we are dealing with here. Most content disputes in this topic are centered around statements on humans safety (though sometimes other species). The fact that there are peer-reviewed fringe publications out there (similar to climate change) complicates matters and does require some competency on what scientific consensus really means.

The closely tied behavior issues are editors who try to push generally anti-GMO views. Quite a few in that group have a formed a loose gang that now works in numbers against the few remaining other editors in the topic (mostly science editors) both in content and at noticeboards such as ANI. Some came in from involvement in other fringe topics or going after WP:MEDRS editors and joined the fray. Attempts to engage in WP:BRD with these editors often leads to edit warring where requests to go to the talk page or focus on content are ignored. Trying to engage with WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviors in a reasonable manner often results in ANI/AN3 posts with some strong pot calling the kettle black behavior. That behavior coupled with general POV-pushing is extremely taxing for the community, not to mention muddying reputations of editors who try to wade through all the behavior issues to try to work on content.

On WP:ASPERSIONS, one thing I would like the committee to take a pointed look at is the use of the shill gambit in this topic. Myself and others have often been accused of being paid editors, industry supporters, etc. solely because we opposed insertion of content considered to be undue weight for anti-GMO views. This in my view, is the ultimate summation of editors coming in with a strong point of view on the topic, but also a hyper-critical view on anything involving corporations. This results in editors pushing strongly for undue weight, while also clouding their views of other editors not agreeing with them to make a generally neutral editor appear “pro-industry”, “pro-GMO”, etc. It’s a strong mixing of personal editor POV which results in a battleground behavior mostly from one side in this topic, while claims of misdoings for the non-anti-GMO editors tend to be rooted in attempting to deal with these behavior issues above. This could expand the scope of this case to pesticides in general. Recent issues with Adbudctive's behavior[1][2] (though getting better) will be a good example at the evidence phase. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

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

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

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

Some of the editors making statements have spoken in broad terms about two groups of editors: those who POV-push that GMOs are evil, and those that push back. Other editors' statements tend to focus on the conduct of a single editor (Jytdog), and the Committee may find it useful to understand that these same editors are the ones on the opposite side of the POV dispute from that single editor. If this is a full case, there also needs to be an examination of hounding that has been directed at Jytdog. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: I agree with you that there are issues going beyond the GMO health topic, but my comment was arguing in favor of ArbCom starting with a more incremental motion instead of a full case. If there is a full case, then all these things must be examined. And I'd like to think that I am one of those editors who are not strictly in either "camp".
I'm still not sold that we need a full case, but if there is one, I've added myself and seven other editors as named parties.
I suggest that the case name be Agricultural biotechnology (no need for the word "articles"). That way, non-organisms such as Glyphosate are within scope, and of course editor conduct is what is being examined. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
As ArbCom is evaluating the case scope, disruption is getting worse and worse on multiple pages. I suggest that, at the time that you accept the case, you also pass a motion or preliminary injunction that applies DS or the like during the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: the comment about having fewer named parties, just made by JzG/Guy, that would only be correct if one eliminates any consideration of the hounding of Jytdog. A narrowing of the case would be consistent with my original suggestion of DS, but the Committee seems instead to be going towards an examination of all parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:ANI#SageRad. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]

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

I agree with AndyTheGrump's statement here [3] and that the infighting has likely scared away editors from the articles. I participated in an RFC on the GMO Food article, but found the caustic nature of the talk page to be more than I wanted to endure, so I left. I believe there are probably others who feel that its just not worth dealing with the caustic nature, and leave, because of this the articles suffer. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

L235 It appears that several responses have gone way over the 500 word limit. Some over 1000. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on RoseL2P's posting of the links to noticeboard sections. In these sections[4][5][6][7] we find a possible reason for jytdog not facing sanctions, he apologises. The problem is, is that these behaviours are repeated later. AlbinoFerret 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

L235 I notice that one of the editors involved in the case wants the name changed. I dont think that the name or the new ones fits the entire scope of the issue as it involves other pages like Monsanto and Glyphosate. I think a better name would be "GMO and related articles". In any event I think its up to the Arbs and clerks to make these changes. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DrChrissy[edit]

RE: Incivility and disruptive behaviour of Jytdog toward me.

After an AN/I resulting in Jytdog being warned for incivility,[8] he persisted in harassing,[9], edit warring,[10] bogus accusations (User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 8#Edit war warning) and further incivility toward me, e.g. posting in my user-space after I asked him not to.[11][12][13] Jytdog used his TP to attack me by posting diffs with comments[14] linking my name to my topic ban or to subjects which Jytdog deliberately portrays me in a negative light, e.g. "3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler" (my emphasis). These comments were totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Jytdog has banned me from his TP, so I was completely unable to defend myself against these uncivil comments. An admin conveyed my thoughts on this incivility[15] but despite ample time to show good faith and redact the comments, Jytdog has chosen not to.
During preparation of this case -
1) Jytdog followed me to Testing cosmetics on animals. I posted a comment on another user's TP[16] whereupon Jytdog posted a message that misrepresented my edit and then immediately deleted this. First, he posted to a TP he is banned from (a repeat behaviour). Second, this "post-an-inflammotory-edit-then-immediately-revert" to bait editors has been noted by other users, including a warning by an admin.[17].
2) Jytdog prematurely halted discussions which offered a real opportunity of reducing the workload on Arbcom.User talk:Petrarchan47#Dr Chrissy, Jytdog

RE: Incivility and disruptive behaviour of Jytdog toward others.

This pattern of behaviour is immediately demonstrable by looking at his TP Contents box (also see his TP Archives)– and noting the numerous times the words “Bullying”, “Edit warring”, “Abuse”, “Disruptions” appear in the title of threads other editors have raised complaining about his behaviour. Jytdog often pushes his POV by repeatedly deliberately misinterpreting PAGs, e.g.[18][19][20], deleting content and leaving completely misleading and incorrect edit summaries, e.g. “please wait until there are actual reviews on this”.[21] This is often done in tandem with another editor and because of tandem reverts by the two, the content writer is quickly pushed to breaching 3RR whereupon the “gotcha” is launched. There have been several discussions with Jytdog and others that follow him about the (mis)use of primary and secondary sources in science articles, with suggestions that he tags rather than deletes[22], but he insists on deleting first and asking questions later.
Spurious accusations of EW, e.g.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive292#User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog.
I have never edited many of the Monsanto/GM pages being considered here, however, I can provide evidence of Jytdog’s substantial disruption of some pages within this group, but moreover, outwith (e.g. Foie gras and Magnetoception) indicating his widespread disruption to the WP project. It is to me, unfathomable why Jytdog has not received strong sanctions yet. I think AlbinoFerret might have hit the nail-on-the-head; Jytdog apologises…repeatedly (the latest is here[23]). However, I think the time has come that Jytdog stops apologising after the event, and instead learns to treat all editors with the same civility he would expect from them.
Agree with Petrachan47 regarding framing; some of us are neither pro- nor anti-GMO. We are neutral.DrChrissy (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I will echo concerns that were raised several months ago by User:SlimVirgin regarding disruptive behavior and the "Monsanto suite of articles" which would likely end up at ArbCom because of "repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests." I agree that it isn't necessarily the result of a COI, rather it could be the result of simply agreeing with a company or advocating one's own beliefs. [24]. Whatever the reason, it doesn't appear anything has changed, and often results in noncompliance with WP:NPOV which creates behavioral issues. It has reached the point of bleeding over into a number of different areas such as BLPs, agriculture and entomology.

To demonstrate this truly is a conduct issue that adding DS will not resolve, I included the following examples:
  • [25] Jytog's profanity and bullying
  • [26] He becomes outrageous to those who disagree
  • [27] He admin shops

There are many more incidents. Atsme📞📧 14:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Further disclosure: I filed an ArbCom case against Jytdog's behavior for his abuse of COIN in the recent past, [28], [29]. The case was denied because I failed to seek other means of DR first. [30]. I followed the committee's advice and participated in a 3-0 discussion with Tryptofish, [31]. As a result, Jytdog extended a half-way apology, [32]. I further demonstrated my long standing declarations on the TP of subject fish articles. He apologized further, [33]. I felt a degree of renewed faith, [34]. Sadly, his disruptive behavior returned. I filed an AN/I against three disruptive editors which were ignored while the focus switched to a boomerang initiated against me. The initial attempt failed and we were all slapped with a trout by Georgewilliamherbert [35]. To this day, not one diff was provided to support any of the claims against me. Admin shopping followed the close, [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Intentional or coincidental, Bishonen was provoked into action [41], [42], [43]. Jytdog joins in, [44], and closes immediately after Bishonen's block [45]. Jytdog commended this same admin in the past for blocking an editor he desperately wanted blocked after other admins refused to oblige him, [46] (also see diffs above). Jytdog becomes obsessive when he targets an editor as he has done with me. During my block, Bishonen finally advised him to stop posting on my TP, [47], [48], [49]. Atsme📞📧 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The definition of verifiability is well-defined on the user page of Someguy1221, and it make sense that it would apply here as well: In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles. Atsme📞📧 21:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th[edit]

If the scope of the case is limited to GM related articles, I should not be a party to the case - as I have not edited any of those articles or their talk pages. I am entirely neutral on the topic - I have nothing against Monsanto (they were a major client of my former firm, but I was never involved at all); I am not pro- or anti-GMO. I am part of no cabal, I do not promote FRINGE or PSEUDOSCIENCE and as far as content goes, I support the overall scientific community. Presumably, I was added to the case because I have opposed Jytdog in the AN/I, which Jytdog and Tryptofish would likely characterize as me "hounding" Jytdog.

This is not an of science vs. fringe/pseudo-science. This is a behavior issue, centered around Jytdog and his extreme OWNERSHIP of the "Monsanto suite" of articles. A close look at his edit patterns in Monsanto/GM articles will reveal nothing short of ADVOCACY and POV pushing. His activist editing cannot be missed or ignored. While it is true that most scientists consider GM foods safe so far, Jytdog pushes his non-neutral POV wayyyyyyy beyond this. Jytdog's months-long pursuit to include a SYNTH/OR statement of "broad scientific consensus" is nearly pathological. he keeps losing but he never gives up - he just forum shops and opens more RfC's and refuses to accept consensus against him. What's ironic is that he often erroneously accuses others of SYNTH/OR when he is the most tendentious abuser of those policies when it comes to his agenda. Minor4th 16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI - happening now on Glyphosate, a microcosm of the dispute: [50]

Minor4th 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a rather stark example of Jytdog's misuse of policies and guidelines to bully others over content disputes: [51]. He actually says it's COPYVIO to move material from a sandbox to article space. This happened today after Jytdog edit warred to keep out info he didn't like on Glyphosate and then got the page protected. Minor4th 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax[edit]

Seeing as The Committee is 7-0 on accepting this case as of this posting, I urge the members to take as wide a view as reasonably possible of the overall GMO/Monsanto/glyphosate topic, consisting of dozens of articles in total, as well as long-term editor behavior going back years.

On August 5, 2013‎ I made my first edit in the area, to the Glyphosate article. In my edit summary, I noted that the sentence in the lede I strongly objected to, namely "glyphosate more closely approximates to a perfect herbicide than any other" (as an unattributed quote) was WP:UNDUE, and I stated in my edit summary that "it comes off as a public relations statement and is deeply unencyclopedic."

My deletion was reverted, I reverted it again, I was again reverted and a third editor agreed with me and struck the sentence again, at which time the article was page protected for three days.

That led to this exchange on my Talk page, as well as this discussion on the Glyphosate Talk page. As can be seen, I felt slimed by Jytdog on my Talk page, and did not see fit to discuss further. Final result: my deletion stood. But the incident left a bad taste in my mouth, and I walked away, choosing not to substantially edit on glyphosate for the next two years.

I ask concerned parties to contemplate the events I point out. Jytdog, the editor who had controversially merged the Glyphosate article with the "Roundup" (Monsanto's brand name for their glyphosate herbicide) article, had been editing the article(s) for about a year and was fine with the statement as it stood in the lede until enough light was cast on it so that it was revealed as unencyclopedic and not replaced. Again, think about that.

This one example I am familiar with is a tiny part of the whole, and is the type of thing that needs to be examined across the "suite" of articles in question. This POV editing is both subtle, and at times not so subtle, in terms of behavior and content. Many of the edits Jytdog adds or deletes are obvious improvements, but I believe that he mixes in a strong POV supporting Monsanto's GMO's and herbicide products, and as Petrarchan47 correctly and brilliantly asserts in the statement above, is all centered on the unproven and unencyclopedic claim that Monsanto's products are "safe" which can't be known one way or another at present and may not be for several generations. Think DDT, and tobacco.

I submit that Jytdog is the lead actor in a Wiki-drama, including abusive, bad-faith editing just in the past several weeks, that has gone on far too long. I feel I should have done more to stop this, but now this matter is before Wikipedia's Supreme Court. Thanks for taking on the case; may justice be done. Jusdafax 13:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: A relevant discussion regarding Jytdog's unilateral addition of me as a Party, only minutes after posting this, is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Jusdafax 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim[edit]

All of the GMO articles have been owned by Jytdog and pro-GMO editors (e.g. KingofAces), since about 2013 biasing the material pro-GMO since then, and attempts to balance it are immediately reverted by Jytdog and supporters. Jytdog assumed control of the “suite” of GMO articles here. In 2014, he said: “A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up...” (here). I explained with diffs in this response. There, I point out that Jytdog bites new users who he perceives as “anti-GMO” accusing them of being WP:SPA (example). I was no exception: he threatened that things would get “ugly” here, if I didn't retract mention of this article about pro-GMO researcher Pamela Ronald.

Jytdog says here that his lede's and organization are “essential -- to retain these explicit guideposts.” Many of the ledes were rewritten to read more like PR press releases, using weasel words, ommission and other tactics to mute criticism of GMO's and bolster pro-GMO arguments (e.g. paragraph 2 of Genetically modified food controversies, from edits like this). A look at Jytdog's total edits show his dominance over the articles: 2375 edits to the top 6 articles he is involved in (4 GMO articles, Glyphosate and Monsanto) and hundreds more to other biotech/GMO articles. here.

Any attempt to change an article to not be pro-GMO or is respectful of those who criticize GMO's is immediately reverted [diffs-TBA]. Anyone questioning GMO technology is pejoratively an “opponent” [diffs-TBA] or anti-GMO [diffs-TBA]. Any WP:RS that shows problems with GMOs is immediately deemed to be WP:Fringe or advocacy [diffs-TBA]. Why? Because it does not reflect these editors' agenda, not because it is unreliable.

The recent RfC here that challenged the manufactured WP:OR “scientific consensus” statement, shows the kind of double-standards the pro-GMO editors use: They happily quote positive aspects of GMO's from the WHO, AMA and FAO statements, but ignore negative statements that contradict their position from the exact same sources (here).

Jytdog and his supporters use double-standards in declaring articles “advocacy”--pushing for the statements by the AAAS and AMA that were part of a pro-GMO campaign to successfully stop labelling propositions in a number of states here, yet scientists expressing concerns about GMO's are silenced, even if their work meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS, that this group insists is required of the GMO articles, despite the fact that the regulation of GMO's is a political issue, not medical advice—the purpose of WP:MEDRS. Despite the fact regulations of GMO's vary widelfy among countries, anywhere from complete bans to the very lax regulation of the U.S., the lede's of the GMO articles omit this (e.g. Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetically_modified_organisms). Wikipedia deems GMO's safe based on the flawed “scientific consensus” (which is WP:OR) and hence has determined that the regulations of all these other countries is not warranted and should be glossed over. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wuerzele[edit]

  1. The scope of this hearing appears to be settling on GMO articles. I want to point out that besides article titles with the terms "genetically modified", the topic includes pages about the pertinent chemicals, their regulation and manufacturers, at a minimum, so when I use the term GMO I have all that in mind. The latter are the pages I have been editing, and where I first encountered jytdog. I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris' point that for a “complete picture” the case would have to extend beyond. This dispute extends into at least two more major areas: the WikiprojectMedicine, with a pharmaceutical “suite of articles” (Glaxo Smith Kline, Sandoz etc), + their legal problems, toxic substances like PCB’s, some of which I edit and his work on WP:MedRS, and "scientific consensus" which has become instrumentalized as a “weapon” beyond its purpose. The other large area is the WP:COI field (guidelines) and the WP:COIN. jytdog has opened WP:COI cases on editors he doesn’t agree with (e.g. SageRad), suspicious for instrumentalization. I am not suggesting to extend the scope, but want the Committee to realize the magnitude of this dispute.
  2. History of the dispute: I thank David Tornheim for researching what began before I joined WP, and the 2 diffs re historical beginning in his statement. Thanks to RoseL2P for listing diffs, which show how many people were brave enough to go to ANI with jytdog (a tip of the iceberg of those he interacted with negatively). My personal experience of the dispute began after Jytdog removed info I added in my fourth ever edit on WP on Syngenta and has continued ever since.
  3. Who advocates which point of view: jytdog and Kingofaces edit closely aligned, which first looks like magical coincidence, supported and defended by alexbrn, JzG, Beyond My Ken, Resolute (per their statements above), but also Formerly98, Edgar181 and others arguing the POV that “GMO”-science, -food, related chemicals are safe to put it simply. jytdog will take issue with, revert, and if this does not suffice, attack and threaten editors in edit summaries, on talkpages, those editors who add info that could be perceived as negative or critical, esp. toxicology, environmental health/ecology, history of regulation, international views (particularly EU), and regulatory gaps, like myself, Prokaryotes, GregJackP, Petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, DrChrissy, Littleolive oil, Montanabw, LesVegas, Jusdafax, Gandydancer, SageRad and David Tornheim (all stated above) and occasionally SlimVirgin, Factsearch, DePiep, HughD, Tsavage and Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH). He has driven away from that area: EllenCT, Viriditas and Jrtayloriv and likely more. These are serious content editors, some for a long time, whom I respect as fair, AGF editors and have never had a problem with.
  4. Uncivil and/or deceptive behavior beyond the above: WP:BITE, specifically targeting/exploiting an editor's personal attributes/ nationality or whatever he considers a weakness, gaming the system and providing false WP:EDIT SUMMARY to cover up or make discovery for the casual reader more difficult- often used by Kingofaces. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SageRad[edit]

Behaviors by a certain category of editors are very very bad, seriously out of line far too often, and something needs to be done. Dialog is absolutely impossible in many cases, with many other editors. There is a huge lack of integrity and editors are gaming and forcing their agendas into pages. I've been editing in this topic area for about five months now, and i see a battleground mentality. I see ideological polarization and agenda-based editing happening. The whole topic area is a toxic editing environment. There is a sore lack of integrity in dialogue. There is severe Wikilawyering going on. Some editors act like the own whole articles, and even act like they own Wikipedia itself. They act like the saviors and protectors of Wikipedia, as if there are unwashed hordes of simpletons who wish to mess it all up. They are consistently condescending, and act like anyone who disagrees with them on content must surely not understand "how things work around here". They have become like an army of flying monkeys, to impose a pseudoscientific ideology upon Wikipedia, which attempts to co-opt science itself, and pretends to have a window on "the truth" more than mere mortals like you or me, or anyone who uses their heart and mind and science and wishes to amend an article to be more balanced. They think they own the entire topical area that has to do with agrochemicals and the human food supply. They are seriously a problem in terms of objectivity and balance and the working of Wikipedia. There are checks and balances in Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, but these have been co-opted and subverted by this army of flying monkeys. It's really not cool. I'm glad this simmering conflict is coming to a head. I hope with all my heart that we can stand up with integrity, and see what is what, call a spade a spade, a hoe a hoe, and an agenda an agenda, and get this place cleaned up and real. We need integrity around here. This is important.

Note that Robert McClenon's newfound desire to punish people who speak up is a result of my request for an uninvolved editor to close the RfC that was closed by a biased editor, JzG (though JzG disputes such bias, it's clear to me and many others), and constitutes a strong-arming intimidation against me for asking for an unbiased RfC close. More deeply twisted stuff. Back in June he wanted my user page deleted because i said what i saw. He's hated me for a while.

JzG/Guy seems to be pretty combative and to make many personal attacks against me in dialogues such as this dialog (e.g. [52] [53] [54]) and apparently has profiled me here and further revealed here which seems to be a clear violation of WP:OUTING (and i do not confirm the allegations). I'd like to ask arbitrators to consider him involved at this point. The way he has been hounding and denigrating me is pretty troubling and intimidating for an admin to do.

Jytdog's been pretty bad during most of my time here in creating a toxic environment. Lately, Pete/Skyring has become a serious contender for most obnoxious editor for willful blindness and leveling unfounded accusations, as in [55] where he's pushing a POV synthesis and yet accuses me of pushing a line. He's toxic and mean.

And even further hounding and harassment and slander by JzG and Pete. They're double teaming me now. It's ridiculous. Help. These are mean and unethical actions and they're ruining my ability to be a productive editor. SageRad (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

I see that the ArbCom is about to accept this case, and only have a few comments. First, the following case currently at WP:AN illustrates how divisive the issue of genetic modification is, with pro-mainstream-science editors (characterized by their opponents as pro-GMO editors) and anti-GMO editors, and incivility and tendentious editing on both "sides", when there shouldn't be sides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_closure_review_for_RfC_at_Monsanto_Legal_Cases

A review of the background will show, first, that the requesting party for the closure overturn, an anti-GMO editor, has a history of being disruptive and divisive, but, second, that the community is deeply divided, and that rational discourse is not possible, and will not be possible, in my opinion, until a few divisive editors are removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I ask the ArbCom: first, to accept this case; second, to identify divisive or uncivil editors on both sides (pro-mainstream-science and anti-genetic-modification) and take appropriate action (topic-bans or site-bans); third, provide new discretionary sanctions applying to the entire area of agricultural biotechnology (not merely as pseudo-science) to allow future divisive and uncivil editors to be sanctioned; fourth, identify this case as Agricultural Biotechnology; fifth, allow me, although previously uninvolved, the status of a party in the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

  • (Cross-posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Pseudoscience:_Clerk_notes.) For the purposes of maintaining order, I recommend that the arbitrators have us clerks merge the two requests to WP:ARC, so the Committee can open a full case if needed, or resolve the matter by motion or clarification if they so choose. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone, I'll be enforcing the word counts in a few hours. Editors giving statements significantly over the word limit will be notified. After 24 hours (or at the discretion of any clerk), the statement will be trimmed to 500 words (or another, at the discretion of any clerk). Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Quick reminder, replies count towards the word limit. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @GregJackP, John Carter, AndyTheGrump, DrChrissy, Atsme, RoseL2P, and Jtrevor99:@Resolute, Olive, Guy Macon, Roches, and NE Ent: With the authorization of arbitrators at clerks-l, I am removing the "uninvolved"/"non-party" statements from your section headers, as well as the word counts. It makes opening and managing the RFAR more difficult, and more importantly, creates a window for conflict and disruption, and is not in any way helpful. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @AlbinoFerret: To my knowledge, the Committee is working on, among other things, deciding a case name, and that is part of the reason we have not been given directions to open the case yet. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that Jytdog was given an word limit extension to 650 [56]. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm doing another round of enforcement on this request. I would like to remind everyone that there is a 500-word-per-statement limit that includes all replies and anything else in the statement. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GMO articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0/0>[edit]

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

  • For the record, I have asked that the comments made at ARCA be moved here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I am thinking something needs to be done to stop disruption in this area; I haven't yet made up my mind, although at the moment I'm leaning towards accepting a case, for, at first glance, it appears to be the most efficient way to deal with this issue. That said, I'd like to remind everyone that statements here can't be longer than 500 words; if your statement is longer than that, please trim it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Salvio. We can dispose of a case request by motion if it turns out that it's appropriate. So far as what should be done here, awaiting additional statements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. I think that a case focused on the GMO topic area will be the best way forward here, although it does need to be better defined in scope than that. Regarding Jytdog, I'm not immediately seeing extensive misbehaviour in areas unconnected with GMOs or topics that fall within the pseudoscience and fringe science sanctions area, and our experiment of splitting Collect and American Politics into separate cases was not a resounding success, so I think it best to examine the behaviour of all parties in this topic area now without prejudice to discretionary sanctions elsewhere if deemed appropriate, or future arbitration if these together don't solve things (although I hope they will, obviously). Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    Accept echoing Thryduulf in pretty much all points. Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept Looks like this is the only way to resolve it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept in line with the reasons above. Yunshui  07:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept LFaraone 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept and expressly reject the requests for JzG to be named as a party (the last thing uninvolved administrators doing the wiki's work need is an arbitration case). AGK [•] 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction[edit]

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
Passed 7 to 0 at 10:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

2) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Standards of conduct[edit]

3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, positive contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration cases[edit]

4) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

5) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. Editors are however reminded that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser.

Passed 10 to 1 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a battleground[edit]

6) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics, with numerous editors engaging in poor conduct, including battlegrounding and edit warring.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog[edit]

2) Jytdog has engaged in edit warring [57], has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct. [58] [59] [60]

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog & DrChrissy[edit]

3) For some time, Jytdog & DrChrissy have been engaged in an oft personalized dispute. [61] [62]

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy: Existing restrictions[edit]

5) DrChrissy has a community editing restriction which states they are "topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." [63] Editors have voiced concerns that some of their edits within the locus of this case may violate their restriction. [64] [65] [66]

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy: Edit warring[edit]

6) DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring. [67] [68] [69] [70]

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad[edit]

9) SageRad has cast aspersions [71] [72] [73], added unsourced content [74], and articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case [75] [76]

Passed 8 to 2 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele[edit]

10) Wuerzele has displayed a battleground mentality, [77] [78], edit warred [79] [80], and engaged in incivility. [81] [82] [83] [84]

Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.

Amended by motion 7 to 2 with 1 abstention at 14:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

1RR imposed[edit]

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog & DrChrissy iban[edit]

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

Passed 8 to 2 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy topic banned[edit]

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog topic banned[edit]

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog warned[edit]

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad topic banned[edit]

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Passed 8 to 2 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele topic banned[edit]

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention at 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments[edit]

DrChrissy topic banned (January 2016)[edit]

DrChrissy (talk · contribs)'s topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions reworded (January 2016)[edit]

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

Passed 7 to 2 with 1 abstention by motion at 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Enforcement actions[edit]

  • Unblocked early because of reasons to believe the block is no longer needed to prevent topic ban violations.  Sandstein  20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)