Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 313: Line 313:
And again and again, the line that has been drawn between POV is skewed towards a view that sees neutral as a supportive position rather than a neutral position.
And again and again, the line that has been drawn between POV is skewed towards a view that sees neutral as a supportive position rather than a neutral position.


**Does anyone think that Monsanto is not in some way controlling or at least contributing to its own articles?
These points underpin what has brought us to this point, where what is at stake may be larger than our own WP world.


===Statement by Opabinia regalis===
===Statement by Opabinia regalis===

Revision as of 18:23, 11 September 2015

Requests for arbitration

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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 15 November 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 15 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 15 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

GMO articles

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by Looie496

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jytdog

  • 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, including articles about companies, pesticides, GM Food, etc.
  • 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 result in their satisfaction, in them being sanctioned, or some mix.
  • I request that Arbcom clearly define the scope, should a case go forward.
  • 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:

    • Acute: Prokaryotes is disruptive as described here
    • Acute: DrChrissy is battlegrounding as described here
    • Chronic, low level: Petrarchan hounding as described here
    • Chronic, low-level: Wuerzle spends more effort attacking me for being a shill than working toward consensus like this.
    • Peripheral: GregJackP is turning wikipedia into a battleground over a grudge on issues unrelated to GMOs. There is a second 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. Whether this is addressed depends on the scope of any case that is accepted.

Statement by Yobol

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)[reply]

Statement by Prokaryotes

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)[reply]

Statement by GregJackP

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. GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish:; @JzG:. Both of these editors paint this as a "fringe v. not-fringe" issue, but, as noted by AndyTheGrump, that is an over-simplification of the issue. Pointing at it and posturing so as to limit it to just two sides promotes battleground behavior and should be discouraged. I can see a number of different perspectives here. There are pro-GMO and anti-GMO editors as Tryptofish and JzG indicated. Then there are editors focusing on legal/intellectual property issues, that don't really have a GMO position. Then there are editors who come in completely neutral and end up fleeing the topic because of the conduct issues involved. It's too easy to gloss this over as a two-party issue, it's much more complex than that.
@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.

Statement by Petrarchan47

A quasi-consensus can also be claimed for the idea that Jytdog and the ownership issues at the GMO suite since 2013 need to be the subject of deep investigation, as does the support from the community that upholds the POV and ignores glaring behavioural issues with Jytdog. Instead of the false claim that anyone is pushing "pseudoscience" at GM articles, the truth is that Jytdog has constructed and protected a Safety Consensus statement on GMO foods, pasted to at least 6 GMO articles, which does not have support even with 18 references he put together. Proof: RfC. This false construct published by Wikipedia is the subject of this paper which names our GMO article specifically and shows we are (thanks to Jutdog) misrepresenting science. Editors protecting this claim and other GMO POV pushing are hostile to science that doesn't support it, hostile to editors seeking balance, and call any questioning of this "fringe". Science that is being disallowed shows that although the number of studies finding harm is small, it is significant enough to make Wikipedia's wide-ranging safety claims untenable at best.

The suggestion at ANI was that GMOs could fall under pseudoscience by referencing Seralini. I spoke to that here / +, and suggest a deep look into the Seralini case, and WP editors' responses to it.

@Roches Powerful WP:MEDRS from Krimsky - review of all safety studies since 2008.

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 that GM food...is safe to eat" claim cited to blog *, uses poor source to claim "broad scientific consensus" *

@Jtrevor99 Correction to recent comments: Lancet on Glyphosate/non-Hodgkins Lymphoma *, Guardian

Statement by Kingofaces43

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 I’ll just add on my two 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 very hard. 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 these editors or other 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 (and potentially politics) 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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 agree very much with recent statements by JzG/Guy and Beyond My Ken.
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.
About the case name: The case name should be revised from "GMO articles" to either "Genetically modified organisms" or, per Jytdog, "Agricultural biotechnology" (I prefer the former). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

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

I'd love to see discretionary sanctions against those convinced of the wikipedia cabal being sold out to whoever we are all supposed to be sold out to today, such as jps proposes below. On a slightly related point, and I would welcome any input here, I think the time may have come to question whether we should perhaps change WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV, or at least ask for community discussion of them, to deal with those points where religion and pseudoscience, and, perhaps, fringe or non-majority science, interact. It could also deal with the interactions between mainstream science, "pseudoscience," religion of all sorts, and those areas of the social sciences which sometimes discuss the positions and support of these varied camps. Particular areas of concern, and I guess in this instance I am thinking only theoretically, but others might be able to name specific examples, is the possible question where some scientists declare themselves to hold the majority or truly scientific opinion, and other scientists say that the first group overstates their own position, with perhaps some significant, maybe even majority, of non-scientific or perhaps academic-but-not-science-academia support for the second position, that the "science" of the mainstream or majority scientific position isn't as mainstream or majority as it claims. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting Tryptofish's comment above, I agree the best title would be "genetically modified organisms articles" or similar would be the best title, because I think "GMO" is, as per GMO (disambiguation), an abbreviation for several other entities, including the Glenn Miller Orchestra and the Greater Milwaukee Open, so the full words are probably preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlbinoFerret

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

I agree with AndyTheGrump's statement here [14] and that the infighting has likely scared away editors from the articles. I participated in an RFC on the GMO Food article, but found the caustic nature of the talk page to be more than I wanted to endure, so I left. I believe there are probably others who feel that its just not worth dealing with the caustic nature, and leave, because of this the articles suffer. AlbinoFerret 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commenting on RoseL2P's posting of the links to noticeboard sections. In these sections[15][16][17][18] 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)[reply]

Statement by jps

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

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

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

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

Statement by AndyTheGrump

I've had no real involvement with GMO articles, as far as I can recall, but I'd just like to add my voice to those pointing out that this isn't just a 'pseudoscience' issue - there are multiple reasons for opposition to GMOs, many of which have nothing to do with the natural sciences as such, and it is a gross oversimplification to present this as some sort of battle against a fringe driven by irrationality. The debate also involves a complex interaction of economics, politics and sociocultural issues, and proper encyclopaedic coverage needs to take this into account - something that the current battleground behaviour has made a distant prospect. If ArbCom takes on this case, I would suggest that they consider the first priority to be ensuring that measures are taken to ensure that the topic be given the broad encyclopaedic coverage it merits, rather than allowing it to be dominated by faction-fighting AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrChrissy

My main involvement here is the incivility and disruptive behaviour of Jytdog.
After raising an AN/I against him which resulted in a warning for incivility,[19]], he has persisted in harassing[20], edit warring,[21] bogus accusations (User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 8#Edit war warning) and further incivility toward me, e.g. posting in my userspace after I asked him not to.[22][23][24] Just three days ago. Jytdog used his TP to attack me within a discussion he was having with a third party. Jytdog posted a series of diffs with several comments[25] which link my name to my topic ban or other subjects which Jytdog portrays me in a negative light, e.g. "3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler" (my emphasis). But, 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. I asked an admin to convey my thoughts on this behaviour which she did here.[26] Jytdog has had ample time to show good faith and redact the comments, but has chosen not to.

Update: Just hours ago, Jytdog clearly followed me to Testing cosmetics on animals. Surprising behaviour, given the current concerns about him. I posted a comment about this on another user's TP[27] whereupon Jytdog posted a message that misrepresented my edit; he then immediately deleted this. Two issues here. First, he posted to a TP he is banned from (he does this with several editors) and second, this "post-an-inflammotory-edit-then-immediately-revert" behaviour has been noted by other editors, including a warning by an adminand has been warned by an admin[28]. I believe it is done knowingly to bait editors.

Jytdog’s unacceptable behaviour is directed at multiple editors in multiple subjects, e.g. spurious accusations of EW, e.g.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive292#User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog. This pattern of behaviour is immediately demonstrable by looking at his TP Contents box (also see 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.[29][30][31], deleting content and leaving completely misleading and incorrect edit summaries, e.g. “please wait until there are actual reviews on this”.[32] 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[33], but he insists on deleting first and asking questions later.
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, several considerably outside the group (e.g. Foie gras and Magnetoception) indicating his disruption to the WP project as a whole. 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. However, I think the time has come that Jytdog stops apologising after the event, and instead learns to treat all editors with the same respect he would expect from them.

Statement by Atsme

I will echo concerns that were raised several months ago by User:SlimVirgin regarding disruptive behavior and the "Monsanto suite of articles" which would likely end up at ArbCom because of "repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests." I agree that it isn't necessarily the result of a COI, rather it could be the result of simply agreeing with a company or advocating one's own beliefs. [34]. 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:
  • [35] Jytog's profanity and bullying
  • [36] He becomes outrageous to those who disagree
  • [37] He admin shops

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

My diffs must have caused alarm, so I've been added to the list even though I don't edit GMOs. GF editors, many of whom are reputable content creators, typically end-up in the nets of advocacy editors as by-catch. Further disclosure: I filed an ArbCom case against Jytdog's behavior for his abuse of COIN in the recent past, [38]. The case was denied because I failed to seek other means of DR. [39]. I followed the committee's advice and participated in a 3-0 discussion with Tryptofish, [40]. As a result, Jytdog extended a half-way apology, [41]. I also demonstrated my long standing declarations on the TP of the subject fish articles. Jytdog apologized further, [42]. His apology gave me a degree of renewed faith, [43]. Sadly, his reprehensible behavior returned so an iBan to prevent him from interacting with me may be appropriate. He poisoned the well and attempted to discredit me without one diff to support his claims after I filed an AN/I against two three disruptive editors. The editors I filed against weren't satisfied when their boomerang attempt failed initially and Georgewilliamherbert slapped us all with a trout. The opposition did nothing but cast aspersions, not one diff was provided to support any of their claims. Admin shopping followed the close, [44], [45], [46], [47]. Intentional or coincidental, they provoked the same admin Jytdog commended in the past for blocking an editor he desperately wanted blocked after other admins refused to oblige him, [48] (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, [49], [50], [51]. Atsme📞📧 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

GMOs are a bête noir of the environmental movement, being the approximate analogue of climate change to fundamentalist Conservatives. The science shows no credible evidence of risk, the few studies that purport to show risk (e.g. Séralini) display motivated reasoning if not outright fraud. It's a standard example of science vs. deeply-held belief, like climate change or young-Earth creationism. In Wikipedia, and indeed in the real world, belief and science are not equivalent and should not be treated as such. It's not pseudoscience, though the trappings of science are often used by those with a philosophical objection to GMOs, so the pseudoscience DS can't justly apply. There is no doubt that the extremely persistent anti-GMO editors would welcome the removal of Jytdog, thus allowing them to drive Wikipedia content towards their POV in peace. As always, resisting long-term POV pushing induces burnout.

Atsme exemplifies the problem by portraying the science perspective as "agreeing with a company", when actually it's following the evidence. Editors who oppose the anti-GMO POV are pro-science, not pro-Monsanto. There si disturbing evidence of the "pharma shill gambit" being played by anti-GMO editors. Anti-GMO activists are fixated on Monsanto (hence also glyphosphate), it's Us v. Them to them, whereas to the scientific community it is purely about the evidence.

Petrarchan further exemplifies the problem by advocating two sources as grounds for entirely changing the framing of safety. One of these states that the research shows GMOs to be safe but excuses this because the studies are tied to the industry, the other is by an anti-GMO group and starts by citing a fraudulent study by Séralini.

  • There was an RfC on the scientific consensus: [52]
  • Anti-GMO editors continued to agitate, so a second RfC was necessary: [53]
  • This was interpreted as no consensus for the statement of scientific consensus, a willful misreading of the close, and thus turned into a demand for the statement to be removed completely: [54]
  • The proposed replacement sentence was:
While GMO Proponents, such as the AAAS[1] and AMA[2] and Pamela Ronald[3] claim there is a "scientific consensus" regarding the safety of GMO technology and GMO foods, published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals challenge this claim of a scientific “consensus”[4] and report a lack of sufficient study of GMO safety.[5]

That egregious violation of WP:FRINGE also exemplifies the problem, using WP:WEASEL words to cast the overwhelming scientific majority as "pro-GMO", putting scare quotes round consensus, and framing the minority of holdouts as "published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals", thus emphasising the reverse of the actual scientific view. Such framing is unacceptable on Wikipedia as it violates WP:NPOV.

The AAAS are an internationally respected scientific body, they are not pro-GMO, they are pro-science. The AMA is an internationally respected medical body, they have no dog in the fight at all. Pamela Ronald is an individual scientist, we do not mix and match bodies of international standing with individuals in this way. The anti-GMO sources are nto called out in the same way, merely portrayed as "peer-reviewed" - these are also the sources promoted by Petrarchan.

The anti-GMO crows are going to keep demanding until they get what they want, and what they want is not in line with policy. But it's a content matter. I advocate the extension of discretionary sanctions to this area and see how that works out. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lfstevens

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

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

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

Statement by RoseL2P

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


This is just the tip of the iceberg, there is much more to be found if one has time to dig through the archives [55]. What is most striking to me, is the fact that there appears to be no action taken against him (apart from an inconsequential interaction ban and repeated warnings) despite the length of evidence presented in some of these reports. I can't decide whether incivility or stealth edit warring is a bigger problem here. This user seems to be regular participant over at WP:AN/3RR and often succeeds in getting some new user blocked [56][57][58][59][60][61][62], but each time he's reported he always remains unsanctioned [63][64][65][66][67][68]. It takes more than one person to edit-war, so it looks to me like he's permanently WP:GAMING the system by reverting without crossing the 3RR limit. -RoseL2P (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

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

Statement by Cla68

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

FWIW, I just read through all the ANI and other threads that RoseL2P posted in her section which made something glaringly obvious. As with other cases involving controversial topics in WP, WP's administration was frequently requested to help resolve the problems involved here and spectacularly failed. The incompetence, buffoonery, and general idiocy evident in those threads as WP's administrators proceeded to stumble all over each other in completely failing to address the problems presented to them would be laughable if it didn't have as much precedent as it does. This case serves to show that one of WP's major problems is that its admin corps can't, apparently, see any forests for the trees because they have their heads jammed so far up their arses. Why can't WP's admins effectively deal with problems like this? Well, many of them allow their political biases to influence their decisions, many of them treat established editors differently than newbie editors, they don't take complaints seriously unless they're presented in a certain way, which only veteran editors know how to do, they want to avoid making decisions that would require any major follow-up on their part, and, finally, they simply don't have adequate skills in critical thinking and problem solving. Sad, sad, sad. What's sadder is that if ArbCom accepts this case, only the involved editors will face sanctions. The incompetents who currently make-up WP's regular ANI patrollers and have access to those "block" buttons will escape censure. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by alexbrn

I edited at the March against Monsanto article back in 2013 and that gave me a taste of the toxicity of this topic area, causing me to generally steer clear of GMO-related articles since.

Very broadly: what I think I'm seeing here is a number of editors who appear zealous in pushing an anti-GMO & conspiracist POV. Jytdog is one of several editors working hard against this to hold the neutral line and, as an effective editor, has earned himself a number of loosely-aligned "enemies". This group has now grown in number sufficiently that they seem to think they can get action taken against Jytdog: and this has resulted in much drama, not least at ANI - there's a kind of "March against Jytdog" if you will.

Some important things are at stake here. Is Wikipedia a respectable publication that adheres to the best of human knowledge, or does it bow to popular misconception? How can we support editors who uphold Wikipedia's aims, and how far should we indulge those who would undermine them? I think an arbcom case would help to clarify where the lines are drawn, see how editors stand in relation to them, and issue guidance and/or enact sanctions to improve things in the future. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jtrevor99

Though my experience with Jytdog and the articles in question is limited, I will point to interactions with Jytdog and others 18 months ago here and here as verification of some of the points Jytdog has raised. At that time, I attempted to rectify what I believed to be very one-sided, inflammatory, and defamatory statements (WP:YESPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:BALASPS) against Syngenta within the Syngenta article, written by authors who I believe had fervent anti-GMO or anti-biotech agendas. I felt the Syngenta article presented Tyrone Hayes' side of a long-running dispute with Syngenta, but omitted coverage of Syngenta's defense, and any facts that call Hayes' viewpoint into question. When I tried to rewrite to reduce bias, it was repeatedly reverted by Binksternet and others, devolving into a double 3RR and edit war. Jytdog stepped in to restore order and, over time, worked with all parties to create the current text, which sticks to undisputed facts only and does (relatively well) present both sides. In short, he did precisely as he claims above: worked to strike a balance without advocating for one view or the other. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also find FMK's interpretation of Rose's comments convincing. Repeated write-ups, and exonerations, of Jytdog proves only that he has many opponents, in part due to the controversial topics he often works on here at WP; and that, while he can have an abrasive personality at times (particularly when others show similar incivility towards himself or other editors), his actions are not deserving of more than censure. He has stepped over the line or made poor choices on occasion, but who amongst us never has done so? Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax Your comment regarding glyphosate safety illustrates the problem well. (JzG's statement, too, summarizes the problem well.) You state that claims of glyphosate safety are unencyclopedic and POV, despite the vast majority of relevant current scientific literature supporting that position. You also compare glyphosate - which has little valid evidence of nonsafety - with DDT and tobacco - which have ample evidence. You justify this position with your belief that its nonsafety will be proven in the future, an untenable position that by its very definition is POV. Based on this view you and others repeatedly revert statements and literature citations regarding glyphosate's safety, bringing WP's articles out of line with established scientific evidence, which Jytdog then corrects. You then attack Jytdog for those corrections. Yet you claim that Jytdog, not yourself, is POV? Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above, I'd like to note something Jytdog had to cut due to space. Immediately after edit-war protection on Glyphosate expired, a user resumed the war by adding a reference to Seralini's highly controversial study on safety. No mention of, or link to, the controversy was made; instead, Seralini's scientifically contested findings were stated as fact. There are hundreds of examples of this behavior I could cite. I can understand Jytdog's frustration and occasional "lashing out" as he constantly fights what he (and I) believe to be an attempt by numerous authors to bias WP articles in favor of the anti-GMO viewpoint. My point: all involved authors, not just Jytdog, need to be a focus for this arbitration. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

Reading the Sept 5 ANI was the first I have looked at this entire dispute, and my distinct impression is that it was little more than a case of gang warfare. As JzG points out, this is the same old battle. A small group trying to protect the project vs. a larger group trying to eliminate roadblocks preventing their POVs from taking over. In this case, to the point where a couple of editors made dramatically bad faith suggestions of "short" (i.e.: 30-60 day) "cool down blocks" for an editor with a clean block log "just to hammer the point home". I find on initial read that I support JzG and BMK's positions the most, but Andy's view deserves merit also since the overall debate does go beyond the basic science vs. fringe issue of GMOs in isolation. I am a bit worried about the suggestion this be handled by motion. This seems to be complex enough to warrant a full case rather than just swinging a proverbial flail around and (topic) banning whatever targets it randomly hits. Resolute 16:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

My concerns, and my opinions, of course:

    • To explain my position which may have been misunderstood: What is at stake is that a supposedly neutral encyclopedia has the potential for placing itself on a world stage in terms of its position in this case on GMOs. WP has a perceived house POV on some topics, unfortunately noted in the press on several occasions. No POV, and by that I do not mean either pro or any con anything, is supported by our 5 Pillars, and as we've seen in the past, with less contentious topics, we have the potential to impact beyond our "walls". I am not suggesting that the arbs take a position on GMOs. (I wanted to make sure I am not contributing to marble loss in our arbs.)

Research on GMO can only be considered pseudoscience if the science\ research is poorly conducted or non existent, but is not pseudoscience if considered fringe.

GMO articles include social and economic aspects which are not related to science.

GMO research and the nature of GMO will tell with time unlike much other research. For example, what will be the long term impact of those organisms that cannot reproduce. Because of this it is imperative that WP not take a position in any way which could both impact GMO and have a larger impact.

Im my experience, Jytdog's comments are laced with assumptions which constitute personal attacks . However, I hear he is a good editor in other aspects. As long as editors are encouraged to be the gatekeepers of certain kinds of articles, their behaviours are underpinned with implied support. We need good editors but those editors have to be aware they are damaging people and environments in their undertsandable quest to "protect" articles.

WP has become adept at releasing (nice word) experts in favour of competence including a nobel laureate. WP competence is not a replacement for expertise in a topic area. Further we need experts and new editors, and we need those who are competent to support, and nurture experts even if they disagree with them. I'd add that an editor who is truly expert in an area can become pretty frustrated quickly if treated with out respect. Some editors know this and bait those experts until they break, then call for sanctions sometimes citing incompetence. The encyclopedia anyone can edit is not the encyclopedia anyone can edit if they're competent. All editors are incompetent in some areas and at some time. I find it frustrating to see editors with tens of thousands of edits calling for newer editors to be sanctioned for incompetence.

And again and again, the line that has been drawn between POV is skewed towards a view that sees neutral as a supportive position rather than a neutral position.

    • Does anyone think that Monsanto is not in some way controlling or at least contributing to its own articles?

Statement by Opabinia regalis

I mostly edit biology-related articles and have some of these on my watchlist, but am not involved in the current dispute.

Echoing others above, this is a classic civil POV-pushing case. Several editors have been making the GMO topic area difficult by being unable to effectively search the literature or interpret what they find, by lacking key background knowledge about evaluating relevant sources, and by hounding and harassing other editors - most notably Jytdog - who do know how to do those things and who are working to ensure that the articles present scientific consensus. Probably as a result of this dynamic, Jytdog has made some errors lately, especially getting bogged down in side issues on the legal articles. (IMO Jytdog's opinions of PraeceptorIP's work, and Jytdog's presence in COI disputes in general, are well out of scope here.)

Wikipedia dispute-resolution processes have a history of putting "content disputes" in a black box. I'm commenting here mainly to emphasize that these patterns of misunderstanding or misreading sources for POV purposes, even if they are the result of good-faith efforts motivated by sincere belief, are behavior problems in and of themselves. They are worse than the kind of problematic behavior that attracts attention at ANI - cursing and shouting and "incivility" and so on - because they have the potential to damage content rather than just causing internal drama. The GMO/Monsanto articles are at the center of the current dispute, but there are recurrent disputes with overlapping participants elsewhere in the "alternative"/fringe/pseudoscience space. Without addressing the underlying behaviors, we'll get that weird effect of agitated tedium that comes from a two-month arbcom case, and then the problem will just migrate to a new topic anyway. I think discretionary sanctions are a total bog* and even I think they are needed here, ideally accompanied by some very broad topic bans. Many of the problem editors do work productively in other areas, and the GMO articles would benefit from tools for effective management of POV-pushing behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC) *By which I mean, it is easy to get bogged down in all the associated paperwork; they create distractions by encouraging wikilawyering over scope; and I think that subjecting specific content areas to special rules that are opaque to new or casual editors should be approached very conservatively.[reply]

Statement by Geogene

Regarding this diff given by Petrarchan47 [69], I can't find the claim in the (very primary) source. All it seems to say is that the terminology seemed to change after a conference held in 1996, the conspiracy theory stuff (implying that Eli Lilly et al did it) doesn't seem to be in there...which makes the stuff Jytdog removed look like POV and OR...and accusing him of "spindoctoring" on those grounds looks like an assumption of bad faith. If it helps, here is the WHO document in English, linked to the most relevant page, which still doesn't support the content. [70] Geogene (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roches

The internet has lots of places where you can read unsourced, subjective discussions about how GMO foods are going to be the death of us all. This is the one place that is sufficiently high-profile that it can educate everyday readers on the scientific consensus about GMO foods. Since WP is intended for a general audience and the scientific literature is not, these articles can provide rational arguments that counter the many blogs and sites where people present evidence that supports their personal POV.

I read some of the cases involving Jytdog and I think that editor is acting primarily in good faith, but tends to cause offense by removing the work of other editors who have made a substantial effort to prepare content. This is a WP:OWN ownership issue, but not on Jytdog's part. Every article is a collaborative effort. Once posted, no content has an owner, and any editor may change the article if the are acting in good faith to improve it.

It has been proposed that the ability to effectively search and interpret the scientific literature is a prerequisite for making quality contributions to this article. I agree. There is a lot of work in the scientific literature; some is good, some is bad, but overall a consensus does emerge. Good scientists continually challenge their own ideas, and an honest paper that reflects the consensus will clearly state where further work is needed. Bad science is marked not as much by an adherence to a political view as by overconfidence in the author's work; thus, bad science doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny. Also, good scientists allow their own views to change. So editors who believe they have found a source that makes a powerful anti-GMO statement should set up a talk page discussion. It can then be read by several others, and, if the paper does really make that statement, the original editor or somebody else can edit the article.

What I've just said, in essence, is that important issues need review by multiple people with relevant experience. Concluding, this is an important enough issue that it should be reviewed by WP at all levels; there should be recommendations on which specific editors should participate and how editing should be done, to ensure that the article gives reliable and objective information. Roches (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

I read the ANI thread.

There's this canard that someone "behavior" and "content" issues are somehow orthogonal, when in fact they're often interleaved. While it seems likely at the end the agricultural technology issue will end up under DS -- not important whether it's as its own heading or classified as the pseudoscience area -- given the pent up animosity displayed at ANI it would be a bit much to just dump the mess on AE admins. The community will be better served if you take a case to do the unraveling of the relative magnitudes of the policy violations of the key players and establish editor specific findings and sanctions to "reset" the conflict before sub-contracting management of emergent issues to the DS enforcement community. NE Ent 00:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Unless the arbs have lost their collective marbles they're not going to rule on the current status of scientific debate over GMOs. So there's no point in making arguments in that direction.

This leaves us with conduct -- the traditional remit of Arbcom. In this regard it is relevant that many (not all) of those on the "anti" GMO side (for lack of a better term) are energetic and tenacious proponents of various novel and imaginative concepts, and have displayed much the same behavior when dealing with those issues. That doesn't make them wrong with respect to GMOs, and in fact I agree with many of their points on the topic, but that's neither here nor there. What it means is that the case will have to extend beyond GMOs in order to build a complete picture of the conduct of the parties. If the case is confined strictly to the GMO arena the battle will simply move on to other fronts and Arbcom is likely to see many of the same parties back here in another context.

Statement by LesVegas

I am glad the Arbcom is open to looking at applying DS to GMO articles. However, I have serious doubts that much of the poor conduct noted will get resolved without accepting a full case here that looks at individual editor behavior. For instance, Jytdog routinely edits articles already under DS's and his behavior is just the same there as it was in these diffs. When he engages others in what should be talk page discussions, he resorts to personal attacks. There is rarely substance to his arguments, and I'm afraid that's because he is severely deficient in understanding policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. See this diff here for evidence of how Jytdog just doesn't understand the very basics of Wikipedia editing. Since he believes it's reasonable for editors opposing him to "recuse themselves" and since he thinks it's reasonable to delete high quality sources simply because he disagrees with their conclusions, since that is his "starting point", how must he behave when editors have serious disputes with him? Recently I had to file an RfC on MEDRS because editors like Jytdog believe in stereotyping all sources simply because of the country they come from, instead of examining them on a case-by-case basis as we all should. It's sad that today we even have to dispute things like this. In my estimation, if behavior isn't examined now, Arbcom will definitely be looking at behavioral problems here in a few months after putting the topic under DS's, just as Arbcom is having to do with E-Cigarette. LesVegas (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

I have been troubled by the behavior of many of the parties involved here. This issue is not science versus pseudoscience or pseudoskepticiam; it is mostly about bad behavior. The lengthy ANI thread provided dozens of diffs showing the less-than-ideal behavior on all sides, but what concerned me the most was the tactics used by Jytdog to attack just about every single person who said anything against his behavior—and his behavior was often very bullying in tone and attitude. While I also think it is important to hold to clear standards on sourcing, NPOV, SCIRS and so on, the tone I'm seeing has gotten very personal and gone well past the topics at hand. While I respect the work that the science-based editors do to keep articles free of fringe theories, some of the content they are shutting down is better described as "new", "disputed" or "controversial" than "fringe." It is appropriate to describe the controversies up to a reasonable point.

I'd compare this to the Climate Change issue more than the Pseudoscience issues in that there are competing claims and a lot of politics with a great deal of money at stake. On the other hand, comparing Climate Change to the GMO issue, there is far less settled science and a lot more controversy - no IPCC equivalent for GMO research at this point. The other problem is that a lot of "science" is industry-funded, making the results of dubious value, but a lot of the opposition research is not very scientific in its design and the results are largely anecdotal. We have a significant "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" situation here.

One thing that ArbCom should look at in this process is the proper application of WP:RS MEDRS and SCIRS to articles with news and political aspects; news and political issues are, by their nature, very different in sourcing from scientific evidence but news sources on the controversies may be valid material to include. For example, a statement like "Issue foo has been controversial, as reported in [The New York Times] when blah, blah, blah occurred"(reliable news source) would be entirely appropriate in a GMO article, and to exclude such content on the grounds of MEDRS or SCIRS is, at best, concerning. Obviously any actual scientific or health claims need to be backed by rigorous sourcing, but what I am seeing in this and related articles is a literal interpretation of the sourcing policies to exclude the broader political and historical context. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Cas Liber

If y'all take this case, y'all need to examine how editors are using sources and take appropriate steps if editors are found violating sourcing policies. 'nuff said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Minor4th

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.

Diffs will be incoming later in the day.

Statement by Coretheapple

I just noticed this rather interesting case, and have some observations:

I'm acquainted with people on both sides of GMO and have no opinion on the underlying issues. Nor, as far as I recall, have I edited the GMO articles. [Actually I have, see update below] My personal views tend to fall a bit on the skeptical side, re the anti-GMO claims. It seems to me that Arbcom needs to stay away from content issues, and in that regard I notice the prominent role played in this by Jytdog, whom I encountered many months ago in BP when I was new to Wikipedia and wet behind the ears. We were, more or less, on the same side, except that it was hard to tell. The reason it was hard to tell was that his personal conduct was so off-putting: condescending and antagonistic.

At about the same time, just by coincidence, he and I were indeed on the same side in another article (I forget which one - I'll go back and look). He was so condescending that he made working on that article intolerable for me, being new and all that. Just noticed that the article was Hydroxycut and the talk page shows only pleasant exchanges. My apologies for the memory lapse. The problems that I had with him were solely at BP.

At BP he became such a "pill" in general, starting up useless and unnecessary talk page and user page discussions, behaving in an insulting manner, that I asked him to remain off my talk page, a request that still stands even though he occasionally disregards it. When Jytdog found that he was not "getting his way" on the BP talk page, he left in a great huff and said he would never darken its door again. His tendency to clutter talk pages with time-wasting chatter continues to this day. I haven't followed the GMO page or pages to any extent, but I would suggest that Arbcom focus on the underlying user conduct issues regardless of what the arbs' sentiments may be on the underlying content issues. Jytdog may be right on the science, I have no opinion. But he needs to work cooperatively with other editors and in my experience he has not shown any willingness to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to amend my statement above, I was reminded that indeed I was an active editor on a GMO-related article March Against Monsanto about two years ago, which I had forgotten. Also, while I'm here, I wanted to respond to some comments made by Cla68 above. I think it's a big mistake to sweep off all the editors who have an interest in these GMO articles, so that "neutral" editors (i.e., those without much interest in the subject matter) can weigh in and make it perfect. Unless the behavior is egregious, that is. Coretheapple (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

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 further 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 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, and may justice be done. Jusdafax 13:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

GMO articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0/1>

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=680569112"