Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.

Preliminary 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.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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.
 * 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,, 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.


 * Petrarchan: See this and this followed by this, and especially this). Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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))

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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.


 * . Both of these editors paint this as a "fringe v. not-fringe" issue, but, as noted by, 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.


 * 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.


 * , 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.

, 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Petrarchan47
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.


 * http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf
 * http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/ *(Jytdog is currently trying to delete the page for this non profit, which calls his work into question)

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 */*


 * Said nothing when in the midst of this, associate* did this


 * 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. ( on "fringe" and the GMO pages: *.)
 * This case should extend to pharmaceutical articles.

Large areas of content are being controlled, sometimes with brute force, by small handfuls of people. Organized groups sharing a POV have disrupted the democratic process on WP to a disastrous degree. We have DS for those problem editors who add fringe, but I would argue that we also need to provide support for independent editors who see obvious advocacy/malfeasance favoring powerful industries. Using the proper routes, it took me many months at BP to get the slightest change. We need a better way. The foxes are guarding the hen house.

I adamantly disagree with JzG: "Wikipedia is a reality-based project: where a question is open to scientific testing then the science wins." The reality is that advocacy, teamwork and bullying rule the GMO suite.

The following evidence barely scratches the surface.

On the Fringe Patrol
The 'fringe patrol' has had a noted deleterious effect on the Project:
 * Sandy Georgia: "that we only have this problem with Quackwatch says something about who/what is dominating the Medicine Project":
 * SG: "MEDRS needs to stay rational for the rest of our medical articles; not fall prey to what is overtaking the entire Wikiproject Medicine":
 * WAID: "self-anointed quackbusters every bit as bad as the woo-pushers"

With regard to GMO science, "Quackwatchers" aren't necessarily the pro-science/evidence warriors they claim to be:

Jytdog

 * Like Kingofaces43, violates WP:OWN, ignores PAGs and uses OR to reject reliable sources, changing his reasoning throughout related discussions.
 * Jytdog falsely blames me for his own "fringe" edit during his last ANI:
 * Mean-spirited:
 * Tears Honey to shreds:

Genetically modified foods

 * 19 July 2012 - Sunrise, SPA and others arrive; Jytdog arrives in August  (See Albino Ferret for the rest.)


 * Jytdog prefers his version, calls this a "complete mess":


 * My suggestion for a resolution will be based on these comments from Tsavage: (I will suggest the roll backs should not end at GMO proper. For instance, Taylor was more clear and balanced before, and is now used as a defense.)

Michael R. Taylor
BLP of ex-Monsanto lobbyist, current US Food Safety Czar


 * Cites puff piece 8 times (of 22 sources); all criticism in 1 sentence


 * Cherry-picking, excludes nuance (source also says "alarming naïveté on Mr. Taylor’s part...seriously damaged [FDA]s credibility"):


 * Adds praise, falsely implying multiple parties agree:


 * Adds long blocks of text based on primary sources


 * Admits to violating WP:PRIMARY:


 * Removed "conflict of interest" category:


 * Threatened me for ambiguous reasons

Tryptofish
Admits to using noticeboards to defend Jytdog, reserving honest critique for later.

Regarding spurious allegations of me being a "fringe" or other type of advocate, there has been no evidence to support these claims because none exists.

Further corrections: My first edit to BP was a year after opening my account. The BP article is seen as unbiased since my involvement. My history shows I am here to build articles; Tryptofish is the first to claim otherwise. I was not attracted to the March Against Monsanto out of an alignment with the protest. I didn't expect or desire friction.   What a few call "adding fringe”, the community sees as writing an encyclopedic article.

Claims about GMO sources
Claims about human health require MEDRS sourcing. "Scientific consensus" must meet WP:RS/AC. The RfC found there was no support for the GMO safety consensus statement in the sources Jytdog has presented; the sources are being misused. Contrary to Trypto's claim ("mainstream scientific consensus that these foods are no more dangerous than other foods") as we discovered in the RfC, the sources being used to support this actually say:


 * "EC/EU report says the main conclusion is that "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies"


 * The WHO says: "GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods."

Besides WP, the AAAS BoD stands alone in claiming there is a consensus on GMO food safety. The BoD has been called out for misrepresenting science on GMOs. Monsanto is very interested in getting a pro-GMO message out, and recent FOIA records indicate that the AAAS has been willing to help. Tsavage notes that the AAAS' wording is almost identical to Monsanto's:

Tryptofish is incorrect in his assessment of the science. Further, he categorizes anyone questioning the consensus statement and its sourcing as "anti-GMO" and points to a single source to discredit their argument. However, Sheldon Krimsky (Tufts) has a long pedigree (including the AAAS) and after a review of all studies available, wrote An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment. Domingo 2011 in a review of recent studies showed half found harm. Domingo is editor-in-chief of the same journal that retracted Seralini. These are mainstream, reliable sources, but neither is mentioned in the GMO article.

Labeling those who express any doubt as "fringe" seems undue considering that over half of the EU has just opted out of growing GMO crops.

Re Opabinia regalis' comments
Your interpretation of my activity is inaccurate. In response to your highlighted quotation: although I misread Artifax Mayhem's comment and may have the dates wrong by a few years, the distinction I made between natural hybridization and GM is apt; making this distinction is not a sign of advocacy or scientific illiteracy, nor of an inability to properly use sources.

Only 2 sources on the web state "scientific consensus" exists for GMO food safety: WP and the AAAS BoD. Jytdog and JzG push this non-WP:MEDRS source, an anti-GMO-labeling position paper, as the sole source directly supporting "scientific consensus" in WP's voice, against WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Science that is MEDRS-compliant (and does not support the consensus claim) is being ignored. A 2011 review by Domingo (IF 5.297), is rebuked by JzG and written off, along with a 2015 review from Sheldon Krimsky, as "minority viewpoint[s]" by Jytdog.​​

I am not pushing any sources (or fringe/pseudoscience). The only sources I used at the GM page are reliable, but were quickly reverted and remain absent.

Silver Seren

 * Adds conspiracy theory to Kevin Folta talk page, does not provide requested support:
 * At BP talk, voices fringe perspective on adding criticism:


 * @Silver: and the source for the "chemtrails"/MarchAgainstMonsanto claim?

Alexbrn

 * Alexbrn threatens with DS for quoting AAAS scientist:


 * Alexbrn protects fringe claim of death-by-Kombucha, threatened DS, warns me for edit-warring after one 'revert':


 * Alexbrn forced to change claim:

The claim was so tenuous that after the community joined the discussions, mention of "death" was moved from the Lede, and was relegated to One woman was reported to have died after consuming kombucha though the cause of death was not unequivocally linked to the drink.


 * Re Sandy Georgia, history:

Preliminary 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 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 (though getting better) will be a good example at the evidence phase. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Aspersions and personal attacks
I've had problematic interactions more outside the core GMO articles. I'll enter my userpage as evidence (mostly how I handle WP:EXPERT) and how I edit when I'm actually creating content, which should show issues with editor slinging around pro-agribusiness accusations here.

Abductive
Incivility, edit warring, and refusing to use the talk page at sulfoxaflor. Started off edit warring in loaded language such as future registrations of a pesticide would be "quashed", calls the previous version "corporate marketing" as I remind them to use the talk page, followed by justifying their edit warring with, "I see you are involved with arbcom. Stop.". Accused me of pro-industry stance and being a corporate shill.

The next three days I continue asking them to come to the talk page through both edit summary and talk page with only edit summaries for responses. At this point, they finally post briefly on the talk page before edit warring again. This was reported at AN3 where they were blocked for 3RR (previousy blocked twice for this), but it took four days and more edit warring from Abductive for any action.

Wuerzele
Extremely combative editor with more history than could be listed here. This long rant followed my first comment after edit warring broke out over a vs. an language. I wasn't around for the edit warring or the start of talk page discussion, but that diff shows how pent up Wuerzele is editing when someone uninvolved in the dispute comes in. Many aspersions of "brother at arms", gang, etc. when I previously tried to direct them towards discussing content. Huge failure to WP:FOC there.


 * Another FOC failure with accusations of editors with "known pro agrobusiness bias" political agenda, etc..


 * Edit wars when content is removed with WP:MEDRS concerns claiming removal is gaming the system and pro-industry editing.


 * Seems to pop up in the articles every now and then, but involvement almost always results in personal attacks. Was recently blocked for edit warring at Kevin Folta and being the "least constructive to resolving the issues" at the article.

EllenCT
WP:HOUNDING is the main issue here. My first interaction with EllenCT was at neonicotinoid where she asked for an example of a review article in the field. I provided a basic most recent review just as an introductory read and a long list of more in-depth reviews I thought would be good for content discussion, respectively. EllenCT sprang on the first source because it had industry affiliations (never was any proposed content from the start) and hasn't been able to let go of that,, accusations of COI,  etc. This ended up at ANI warning her to stop the aspersions..

I later asked her to stop with the hounding and bury the hatchet (I did, contrary to her vendetta statement), which only resulted in "I will not be bullied into unquestioning acceptance of an extremely pro-industry point of view by threats and innuendo", and continued COI aspersions as a bludgeon in content disputes, not to mention she even called me a "paid shill" here at ArbCom.. Good example of an editor who refuses to acknowledge warnings to stop harassment, repeatedly misrepresenting editor comments, and where discretionary sanctions related to aspersions would be helpful.

Prokaryotes
Resorts to shill gambit arguments on talk pages.

SageRad

 * An WP:SPA in this topic with 75% of talk page edits in this general topic (50% in the core). Most of their other edits in other articles pertain to PCB's. Came in as advocating for content on glyphosate and gut bacteria and calling the removal of that due to weight concerns a propagandist agenda. and raising “alarm calls”
 * Cites free speech in a WP:TRUTH,WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS fashion often attacking editors in the process (e.g., King of Scoundrels):.
 * Accuses others they disagree with of not genuinely here for Wikipedia.
 * Gaming the system on edit warring.
 * Adds unsourced material then demands others find sources for the content when removed.
 * Warned and blocked by Guy/JzG under discretionary sanctions for pursuing a personal vendetta against David Gorski for being banned from subject's blog (related to glyphosate and other fringe topics). Block conversation shows a general inability to acknowledge their own behavior problems (i.e. it's them not me or claiming others are on drugs) and refusing to drop the stick when the rest of the community decides it's time to move on.
 * Focuses on editors on article talk pages and lashes out when asked to focus on content.
 * Tendency to accuse other editors who have edited in a topic area for a long time of hounding. Warned specifically for hounding Jytdog after complaining Jytdog was hounding him instead.
 * Recent incident at Norman Borlaug during this case where they primarily disputed whether a particular famine even occurred (e.g., "assumed famine"), but later at RSN said they never intended that.. The severity of the famine (eventual result) couldn't be discussed when SageRad was disputing whether the famine even existed.

More could be listed, but this is overall raising drama behavior we've seen from SageRad since day one.

Petrarchan47
Advocates for WP:FRINGE points of view related to GMOs with cherrypicked sources against fringe guideline. Too many instances to document easily in this large case, but searching Petrarchan47 in this RfC a few times is more than enough to establish the POV. This is in contrast to the mountain of sources specifically stating there is a consensus on the safety of GMOs with the nuance of saying currently on the market, as safe as non-GMO, etc. (e.g.,). I'm hoping we can find a method to deal with editors who advocate for a no scientific consensus similar to climate change deniers in related ArbCom cases.

Battleground behavior: Came to Monarch (where I've edited in the past), added images, I removed (one being low quality). I had pointed to Petrarchan to previous talk page conversations on images in the article, but they then came to this case page, and accused me of hounding them (later changing it to questionable reversions), and more general drama raising behavior.. Also seems to be regularly very pointy whenever edits from Jytdog come up at article talk such as calling them messy.

DrChrissy
Topic banned from human medicine related articles in addition to alternative medicine due to edit warring, tendentious behavior, and battleground behavior. Warned many times for testing the limits of their ban, and specifically by the admin imposing the topic ban.. The admin admonished claims editors are playing "gotcha" with DrChrissy stepping on the line of their topic ban so often, and said DrChrissy whould have been blocked for violating the ban if they had gotten to it earlier. It didn't take long after the ban for DrChrissy to move to GMO topics where they knew Jytdog edits, but was warned by the topic banning admin to stay away from the topic rather than antagonize the situation.

With edit warring, a common trend is to insert new content (often based on a primary source) only to have it reverted. Instead of going to the talk page to attempt consensus-building, they edit war it back in, and add in more primary sources after the initial reverts while not using the talk page (summary here). This set of examples happened during this ArbCom case where I tried to get them to the talk page rather than only revert. Overall, a clear trend of being warned many times by patient people, but DrChrissy instead takes that to mean they've done nothing wrong as evidenced here at ArbCom. 

Jytdog
The biggest content contributor to the topic in terms of raw article and talk edits.. The controversial nature of the subject makes him a lightning rod for those trying to insert different points of view. Outbursts as others outline that really do need to be reigned in (interactions bans), but I've always viewed these as symptoms of dealing with all of the above editors and their behavior issues and ANI not being effective for banning advocate and disruptive editors.

AlbinoFerret
Not involved in this topic per se, but has been following many editors here at noticeboards that pointed out advocacy issues resulting in their topic ban since they were topic banned from e-cigs.. Not sure what the best course of action is for editors like this in this topic.

Kingofaces43
My edits have come up in discussions about edit warring here. In pretty much every incident I've come into, I've worked to get editors to the talk page and discussing rather than just edit warring despite solely reverts on their part. That has been noted at an AN3 closure.. If I make a new change myself, a revert to that brings me to the talk page making my intent to stick to WP:BRD clear quite often rather than the revert button.

Preliminary 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.

The disputes in this content area go back at least to May 2013 (see Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1). 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)

Core of the dispute
The most contentious issue of dispute centers on the safety of GM foods. In the lay public, there is a widespread perception that these foods may be dangerous: example. However, there is a mainstream scientific consensus that these foods are no more dangerous than other foods, and there are no credible reports of anyone being harmed by eating them; sources include: AAAS source 1, AAAS source 2, AMA source, WHO source, NAM/IOM source, and EU source (AAAS page, AMA page, WHO page, NAM/IOM page, EU page). These sources are all mainstream scientific consensus according to WP:MEDRS. Critics of GMOs typically cite this paper. However, the Author details on page 5 identifies most of the authors as coming from advocacy groups: ENSSER, CRIIGEN, EcoNexus, CU, Navdanya. A recent RfC about how to write about this source material ended in "no consensus":. Some editors will claim that the RfC yielded a different consensus and they will represent the dissenting source as mainstream.

Edit warring
Edit warring has been a major problem. Examples, all too typical, from a single page, Glyphosate, on a single day, September 14, 2015 (while this case request was open), before it was full-protected:
 * Prokaryotes reverts Yobol:
 * Jytdog and DrChrissy:, ,
 * GregJackP, Jytdog, and DrChrissy:, ,

Jytdog
Jytdog seeks help. Jytdog primarily edits to uphold NPOV per (see also  as regards the "shill" claims), and most of his WP:COIN work is appreciated:, but there have been numerous ANI and other disputes. See the closing statement here, and pay close attention to the closing admin's accurate description, including that Jytdog indicated that he would try to address issues, something you will not find in some other parties. Jytdog sought advice:
 * from : ,
 * from me:, , ,
 * also:

Not that earlier conduct cannot be examined, but in order to assess whether there are still problems after seeking that help, my following evidence will focus on more recent conduct.

Contrary to caricature, Jytdog is usually helpful and friendly to editors who are misguided about COI, NPOV, etc., even when they in turn are hostile to him. Examples:
 * Working with editor who is an academic expert:, , , ,
 * Editor making seemingly promotional links:, ,
 * Editor making disruptive medical edits:, , , ,
 * Editor confused about sourcing issues:, , ,
 * Editor who ends up thanking for explaining his mistakes:, ,
 * Editor who is confused about using talk pages:, , ,
 * Editor starts out furious, ends up giving barnstar:,, , ,
 * Editor very confused about sourcing:, , , , , , , , ,
 * Editor objecting to revert: ,

Still problems with rapid reverting (see ), and the incident at User talk:GregJackP (see Minor4th's evidence).

Also, a bad habit of rapidly self-reverting or redacting after making an error that will offend other editors. Self-reverting is usually a good thing, but this sometimes comes across as insincere and bad faith:, , ,.

DrChrissy
I have edited with DrChrissy on animal welfare-related pages, and they are an excellent and valuable editor there (diffs on request), so I don't want us to lose that. But following their topic ban, they developed a grudge against Jytdog and followed him into GMO pages:, and the two seem to be irreversibly hostile to each other:.

Atsme
Atsme is a friendly editor who is recognized for good content work on fishes and other topics:, and she rarely edits GMO pages. Following a messy COIN case she has become anatagonistic towards Jytdog, and vocally sides with editors who oppose him:,.

Petrarchan47
Began editing about Deepwater Horizon oil spill and moved to GMOs/Monsanto, entirely WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW, pushing WP:FRINGE views about science and assumption of bad faith about editors:, , , , , and even on this case page (context: ). You'll hardly find any contributions that aren't like these.

Prokaryotes
Extensive WP:RGW, WP:BATTLE, and WP:CIR issues. Note carefully the inappropriate use of italics and superlatives here:,. More broadly, and in case scope, see issues in:, and the way this ANI case was opened (including "none (sic) neutral), also and . Note lack of self-awareness in: , , and.

GregJackP
Former ArbCom findings:,.

Similar conduct moved into content:, and discussion: ANI case, as well as discussion on these case pages: ,.

Minor4th
Former ArbCom findings:,.

Similar conduct moved into discussion here: ANI case.

SageRad
This characterization of Nature Biotechnology is clearly a fringey mischaracterization of a mainstream source. Otherwise, please see evidence from Kingofaces43.

Wuerzele
See, where Wuerzele incorrectly attacks (on WP:BLP grounds!) a source by one scientist who defends another scientist who is the subject of the BLP page. Also this comment:. Significant POV-pushing and assumption of bad faith, located mainly on pages about agricultural chemicals; see Kingofaces43's evidence.

David Tornheim
See closing statement at: (and observe how Atsme and Petrarchan47 interject themselves), followed subsequently by significant issues at:. Note: and.

AlbinoFerret
Does not edit in content area, but combative at ANI case.

Preliminary 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Given discussions ongoing at ANI and elsewhere, I might suggest that perhaps the committee place some sort of temporary sanction on some of the relevant articles until the close of the case. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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)

I agree with AndyTheGrump's statement here 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)

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 's posting of the links to noticeboard sections. In these sections 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)

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)

Involvement
My edits to the area are 19 neutral notices on talk pages about the arbcom case. one removal of an "and" and responses in a RFC.

Kingofaces43
Misstates a voluntary walk away from a topic, that is not at issue here, as a topic ban. Also misrepresents my activity on the noticeboard. I am active on some of the boards as many community members are. The sections I have commented on are varied depending on where I can best help and my time. I do not follow specific people around. This is a prime example of ABF. Another example of ABF on the same topic is on Jytdog's talk page. Where he tries to show a pattern that doesnt exist, looking for a situation to fit a preconceived problem. That flowed onto 's page.

Tryptofish's section
Core of the dispute What is missing is that the multiple sources are a syntheses to make the claim. None of the sources make the specific claim but bits and pieces.

Edit warring I find it interesting that Jytdog was the only editor that reverted 3 times before the page was protected. Trying to get his preferred version vs other editors.

Jytdog is usually helpful section
Only one example deals with pages that are relevant in this arbcom case.

There are problems even here. Editor starts out furious, ends up giving barnstar: This diff shows Jytdog's inappropriate use of a edit warring template for 1 revert.

Jytdog
Requires others assume good faith

Apologies
 * 
 * 
 * Im sorry
 * I see my fan club has come out to play here. CorporateM, I am sorry for bothering you, and I will not interact with you going forward, unless you ask me something. My apologies for upsetting you.

3RR violations
 * 9/1/2015 IP removes some of the same content     Yobol involved  Kingofaces involved
 * 8/29/2015
 * 5/4/2015 Kingofaces43 also revered
 * 3/28/2015
 * 6/21/2013
 * 6/1/2015 warns against edit warringagaineditor is now blocked reverts again Additions appear to be referenced.

Stops at 3 reverts
 * 11/14/2014/ removed by anotheraddedreverts next set of edits on the 19th
 * 9/14/2015 While the case request was open Asks for protection Continues to revert Article protected

Editing statistics
Jytdog

Jytdogs percentage of edits to the core GMO articles are SPA like. He is far and above all editors when the pages are looked at as a group. Only 3 of 28 articles and 4 talk pages is he not the top editor, in those pages he is usually in the top 3.
 * Monsanto 247 edits and 80 reverts, 35% reverts. He has made 14.28% of the page edits, and 23.98% of the talk page edits.
 * Undid edit that is backed up by the source. Talk page post does not address the "organic" edit.
 * Removed that it was the military who used a chemical made by Monsanto, backed up by source added.
 * Removed information on actual usage of a chemical made by Monsanto.


 * Genetically modified food 348 edits 97 reverts 27.8% reverts. He has made 4.39% of the page edits, and 18.29% of the talk page edits.
 * Shows ownership by reverting edits of others, citing consensus.
 * Removed sourced claim.
 * Removed section on the pesticide used on the food, backed up with high quality source.


 * Genetically modified food controversies 87 reverts, 17.4% reverts. He has made 22.94% of the talk page edits.
 * Glyphosate 350 edits 55 reverts 15.7% reverts. He has made 17.41% of the total edits to the page, and 22.25% of the total edits to the talk page.
 * March Against Monsanto 93 edits 15 reverts 16% reverts. He has made 6.68% of the page edits and 4.69% of the talk page edits.
 * Genetically modified crops 233 edits 51 reverts 21.8% reverts. He has made 28.92% of the page edits, and 42.31% of the talk page edits.
 * Genetically modified organism 162 edits 62 reverts 38% reverts. He has 3.61% of the page edits, and 19.65%of the talk page edits.
 * Organic farming 156 edits 28 reverts 17.9% reverts. He has 4.02% of the page edits, and 8.61% of the talk page edits.
 * GlaxoSmithKline 139 edits 14 reverts 10% reverts. He has 6.36% of the page edits, and 15.3% of the talk page edits
 * Séralini affair 108 edits 26 reverts 24% reverts. He has 15.45% of the page edits, 26.12% of the talk page edits.
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms 102 edits 8 reverts 7.8% reverts. He has 37.09% of the page edits, and 21.62% of the talk page edits.
 * Atrazine 65 edits 9 reverts 13.8% reverts. He has 8.58% of the page edits, and 28.66% of the talk page edits.

Yobol
 * Genetically modified organism 5 edits all reverts. No edits to the talk page.
 * Organic farming 14 0f 15 edits are reverts. 8 edits to the talk page. 9 of the reverts don't match up to the talk page dates.
 * Séralini affair6 0f 8 edits are reverts. 3 edits to the talk page in one section.
 * Genetically modified food 12 of 15 edits are reverts. No comments to the talk page.
 * Genetically modified food controversies 3 edits all reverts on different days. 3 edits to the talk page all on one day.
 * Glyphosate 11 edits all reverts. 20 comments on the talk page but they don't all line up with the reverts. 15 of the 20 comments are on one day he didn't revert.

Kingofaces43

He has edited most of the core articles/talk pages. While not high in percentages per page, he has the second highest number of articles and talk pages edited.


 * Monsanto 9 of 14 edits are reverts. 40 edits to the talk page, 23 of which are in a section on splitting the article. None of the reverts match up with talk page dates. 18/Feb/2015 Reverted sourced information with no reason.
 * Genetically modified food 5 of 6 edits are reverts. 82 talk page edits. only 1 revert can be matched up to talk page.
 * Genetically modified food controversies 5 of 7 edits are reverts. 19 edits to the talk page, 11 of them in a section about creating a FAQ's. only 2 of the 5 reverts can be linked to talk page comments from Nov 2014.
 * Glyphosate 11 of 12 edits are reverts. 53 edits to the talk page. 25/March/2015 2 reverts that remove claim cited to the WHO saying its to recient. 1/May/2015 revert is removing historical EPA findings, cant match to talk page comments. 24/May/2014 reverts applying WP:MEDRS to animal studies, not on human health.
 * Genetically modified crops 3 of 4 edits are reverts. 8 edits to the talk page, none line up with the reverts.
 * Genetically modified organism all 12 edits are reverts. of the 9 edits to the talk page, one a revert, only 4 edits match up to 3 reverts, all on the same day.
 * Organic farming 8 of 9 edits are reverts. 1 edit to the talk page. 8/April/2015 reverts edit to one with a dead link that is still in the article. 5/June/205 reverts sourced edit about 3D printers making small farm tools as WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * Séralini affair 2 of 4 edits are reverts, one was a self revert. of the 15 edits to the talk page none like up with the revert. 3/Oct/2014 reverts "with cometary by the authors" with a citation as WP:PROFRINGE.
 * Atrazine 7 edits all reverts. 22 edits to the talk page
 * Sulfoxaflor 13 of 18 edits are reverts, 66.6%. 26 edits to the talk page. 17 are on 9/14/2015, which deal with using a company source on its own product.

Preliminary statement by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
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:


 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36.
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_40

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, [ http://www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by DrChrissy
RE: Incivility and disruptive behaviour of Jytdog toward me.


 * After an AN/I resulting in Jytdog being warned for incivility, he persisted in harassing,, edit warring, bogus accusations (User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 8) and further incivility toward me, e.g. posting in my user-space after I asked him not to. Jytdog used his TP to attack me by posting diffs with comments 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 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 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..
 * 2) Jytdog prematurely halted discussions which offered a real opportunity of reducing the workload on Arbcom.User talk:Petrarchan47

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., deleting content and leaving completely misleading and incorrect edit summaries, e.g. “please wait until there are actual reviews on this”.  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, but he insists on deleting first and asking questions later.


 * Spurious accusations of EW, e.g.Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive292.


 * 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).  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)

Evidence - Jytdog's continued incivility toward me
Most of my evidence pertains to continued incivility by Jytdog toward me, despite him receiving a warning about this on March 29th 2015. For brevity and the convenience of the ArbCom, I will consider all his incivility toward me before the warning as “stale” and will present only evidence of his uncivil behaviour subsequent to his warning.

Ignores my Talk Page ban

 * I bar Jytdog from my Talk Page, however, he subsequently posts to both my Talk Page and my Sandbox.

Rudeness (belittling a fellow editor)

 * Jytdog repeatedly questions my competence.


 * Jytdog very rudely describes my edit as “…ludicrous content that RNA is a small molecule…” The expert source I was using for my edit states “It [the RNA molecule] is a small molecule…”.


 * Jytdog spuriously describes my edits as “disruptive”.


 * Jytdog  falsely claims I violated WP:COPYVIO by moving material from a purpose-generated article sandbox, even though I correctly attributed the move.


 * Jytdog’s edit contains both a belittling comment and edit summary "you (really) need to read 3RR one day"


 * Jytdog uses his Talk Page to attack and belittle me. In a discussion Jytdog was having with a third party (I was totally non-involved), Jytdog provided a series of diffs with comments. Several of these comments deliberately link my name to my topic ban or other subjects which Jytdog portrays in a very negative light, but, these comments were totally unnecessary and irrelevant to the subject matter 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.  Jytdog has had ample time to show civility and redact the comments, but has chosen not to.


 * Jytdog issues false warnings about my allegedly breaching 3RR.


 * Jytdog makes the derisory comment "No, it belongs here, … and [you] continue to bring poor sources".

Wikihounding

 * Within 12 hours of my editing Magnetoception, Jytdog follows me and makes his first ever edit on the page (which is clearly outside his stated editing interests) by immediately deleting a large section of content I had just introduced into the article. I reinserted revised content, but this was again deleted by Jytdog.
 * Within 65 minutes of my editing Testing cosmetics on animals, Jytdog follows me and makes his first ever edit on the page (again a subject well outside his stated editing interests).

Intimidation

 * “Last chance to back away from this”.


 * Directed at both a fellow editor and I.


 * Jytdog harasses and intimidates me on my own Talk Page by opening this thread and leaving threatening and intimidating comments. Other independent editors commented that Jytdog’s behaviour was harassment or otherwise inappropriate.

Vexatious attempts to get me blocked or extend my topic ban

 * Sept 3rd. Jytdog posts on my Talk Page, “I am asking Adjwilley or TenOfAllTrades to block you for violating your topic ban…”.  Clearly, Jytdog requests a block as a punitive action rather than preventative.  During the discussions, one editor wrote “What I find disgusting here is the sense that editors [Jytdog] are just waiting to get rid of someone just waiting for him [DrChrissy] to make a mistake.” For information, this request for a block by Jytdog led to no action other than a minor modification of the wording of my topic ban by the admin that imposed it.


 * Two days later (Sept 5th), clearly bearing a grudge, Jytdog went WP:Forumshopping to AN/I for punitive action and posted "I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan" (Jytdog’s boldening).

Uncivil edits deliberately made but then self-reverted with a delay

 * Jytdog falsely indicated I was calling an edit of his “disruptive” when I was not; He reverted this 4 minutes later. He was warned against such deliberate uncivil postings followed by delayed self-reversion by an Admin just 3 days earlier.

Deliberately misrepresents edits

 * In response to a posting where I indicated that Jytdog had “followed” me, he misrepresented this by stating I had said he was being “disruptive”.

Disengages from dispute resolutions with me

 * Petrarchan47 kindly offered her Talk Page as a forum for Jytdog and I to settle a dispute (despite having already found it necessary to ban Jytdog from her talk page). The section is here.  Jytdog immediately showed his large-scale WP:Ownership attitude of multiple articles in wide-ranging subject areas.  Jytdog twice disengages from my attempt at dispute resolution  He disengages in the demonstrable knowledge that it would mean this miniscule, 2-editor skirmish would soak up the hard-pressed time and effort of ArbCom, indicated by his closing comment “See you at arbcom”.


 * Jytdog withdraws from dispute resolution, then re-enters the discussion but disengages again.

Closing reminder
I would like to remind ArbCom that this behaviour by Jytdog is not historic, rather, it is behaviour exhibited during the last few months subsequent to having received a warning about his uncivil behaviour.

Rebuttal of other editor's comments

 * User:Kingofaces43 claims to provide evidence that my topic ban was "...due to edit warring, tendentious behavior, and overall battleground behavior." This is incorrect. Neither of the two closing statements by the admins actually state why I received a topic ban - this "evidence" is therefore simply a statement of Kingofaces43's own opinion.  Kingofaces43 also alleges that I have tested the limits of my topic ban.  I have not done this deliberately.  Allegations of me violating my topic ban are a consequence of my topic ban being so broad and the obvious attempts of several editors to play "gotcha" using highly contorted interpretations of my ban.  This has been noted by independent editors (diffs can be provided).  It is entirely noteworthy that no action has been taken against further to my ban me despite these allegations.  Kingofaces43 also claims I have edit warred but provides only evidence that I have offered a new source of content after a single attempt to re-instate other related material - a perfectly normal approach to editing.
 * Comment by User:Alexbrn: In agreement with my "co-accused" User:Atsme, I am dismayed at having to defend myself about a jocular thread on my talk page. The Borg metaphor was not rude, defamatory, or directed at a single individual.  It was not incivil but was perhaps childish, or simply not funny. Of much greater concern is Alexbrn's comment that he believes one of us (Atsme or myself) has an undisclosed COI.  Atsme has recently gone through a grueling COI and as a consequence was outed.  Therefore, Alexbrn's comment appears to be accusing me of having an undisclosed COI.  This is the second time Alexbrn has suggested this in a "drive-by comment".  I hope that when ArbCom find no evidence of COI, Alexbrn will return to this page and apologise for his spurious accusation. DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary 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. . 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:

There are many more incidents. Atsme 📞📧 14:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytog's profanity and bullying
 * He becomes outrageous to those who disagree
 * He admin shops
 * Further disclosure: I filed an ArbCom case against Jytdog's behavior for his abuse of COIN in the recent past,, . The case was denied because I failed to seek other means of DR first. . I followed the committee's advice and participated in a 3-0 discussion with Tryptofish, . As a result, Jytdog extended a half-way apology, . I further demonstrated my long standing declarations on the TP of subject fish articles. He apologized further, .  I felt a degree of renewed faith, .  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  .  To this day, not one diff was provided to support any of the claims against me. Admin shopping followed the close, , ,  , , .  Intentional or coincidental, Bishonen was provoked into action , , .  Jytdog joins in, , and closes immediately after Bishonen's block .  Jytdog commended this same admin in the past for blocking an editor he desperately wanted blocked after other admins refused to oblige him,  (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, , , . 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)

Evidence by Atsme
Following are a few examples of off-wiki links to help shed light on why so many editors are concerned over Jytdog's biotech advocacy/stewardship of GMOs; further noting that Monsanto extends into pharmaceutical (medical) and ag-tech. My intent is neither accusatory nor begrudging, rather it’s to help end the disruption. Perhaps now is the time for Jytdog to disclose to ArbCom (privately) his RL id, name, job title/position, academic funding, and area of funded research so they can make an informed COI determination. It's not unlike what Jytdog has demanded of others.
 * Academics paid to support GMOs
 * Small number of WP editors with a major influence
 * Jytdog supports BIO’s advocacy and education
 * Jytdog says academic science is cut-throat.
 * slides and text analysis of pharmaceutical companies
 * Pharma Brand WP Analysis and Influential Editors

Jytdog's posturing against editors who disagree

 * His disappointment over this:
 * Jytdog re: canvassing
 * Castigating CM
 * CM responds
 * Jytdog - Kingofaces interaction
 * Same concern
 * Yobol, Jytdog, KingofAces teaming
 * Callanecc notes tag-teaming by Yobol, Jytdog, et al
 * Jytdog takes Nyttend to task
 * Nyttend responds
 * Nyttend, cont.
 * Civility warning
 * Striking
 * Editors Jytdog wants TB

WP:AVDUCK and WP:POV_railroad
I’ve included the following to demonstrate patterned behavior, how events unfolded, and the influence of Jytdog and team before/after my block by Bishonen. My only purpose for bringing this to the attention of ArbCom is to demonstrate the patterned behavior involving the same group of editors who have managed to exert more POV influence over WP by OWNing large suites of articles than what most perceived possible.


 * The close for WP:AVDUCK, admittedly the essay got off to a rough start. First 2 were deleted, 3rd survived.  AndyTheGrump, jps, Jytdog and Quack Guru won’t drop the stick.
 * Explain need for clarity re:MEDRS perceived as policy, not a respected guideline:
 * Former opposition supports KEEP
 * Barnstar from opposition
 * Hard line skeptics won’t drop stick
 * A month later I tried to edit for clarity.
 * Project Council Guide, section Advice pages: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope...
 * AndyTheGrump reverted, called it an attack.

Disruption and bullying by ATG, jps, and Quack Guru.

 * My explanation
 * Quack Guru includes ATG's essay as a section in AVDUCK rather than linking to user space
 * Contrary to his allegations, I supported link.
 * ATG reverts, threatens to do it again

JPS made mockery of essay

 * JPS reverts - "I LIKE IT"
 * Added long caption about Monty Python & The Holy Grail to image of a scale
 * JPS PAs
 * JPS adds Humor Category
 * JPS reverts - aww... but it's relevant!
 * JPS taunting edit summary
 * JPS's controversial philosophy on edit warring

AndyTheGrump's disdain for the essay

 * Won't drop the stick
 * More misconceptions
 * Taunting

Disruption escalated, I filed at AN/I
Their disruptive behavior went unchecked. In typical gang-like fashion, they made me the target of their hostility toward AVDUCK. This same patterned behavior by the same editors occurs often in the periphery of GMOs, the nexus between medical, pharmaceutical, ag-biotech, etc.
 * The AN/I case, Aug 1, 2015
 * Aug 1, 2015 Bishonen casts aspersions, and creates a chilling effect regarding DR in general by referring to my ArbCom case (COIN abuse) as “vexatious litigation”. She further castigated me for (1) questioning Alexbrn's COI declaration at COIN, (2) filing the AN/I against 3 disruptive editors, (3) my "retort to jps", and (4) a 2014 ANI where I was wrongly accused of being a SPA in violation of BLP policy.

Interaction between AndyTheGrump and Bishonen during ANI but prior to the block
Bish’s involvement was outside her admin capacity; demonstrates bias, favoritism, and double standards. Appearances indicate she may be a "go-to" admin for blocks other admins won't execute – as in my case, no supporting evidence. (correlates with Jytdog diffs in my initial statement).
 * AndyTheGrump stealthily recruits Bishonen, links to:.
 * Bish responds.
 * ATG back again links to: my response to JPS (meant checkuser)
 * Bish's condescending remark re: Monty Python post by JPS
 * ATG alerts Bishonen yet again.
 * Bish pings me in response, explains the ping was a courtesy not an invitation
 * Disappointment over his failed aspersions
 * Suggestive of POV_railroad per unsupported allegations at AN/I
 * My response to Bish with diff to ATG’s hateful comment: - You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better. His comment cut deeply.
 * Taunting
 * Bish ignored the PAs
 * My response after unfair treatment
 * Bish misinterprets yet again, tells me to not post on her TP
 * My response to her diff-less allegations at AN/I
 * Explain ATG's behavior.
 * ATG response
 * Initial close, Aug 4, 2015 Georgewilliamherbert: ‘’Failure to identify actionable disruptive behavior…’’

Bish takes action
Please note that my only reason for including these diffs is to demonstrate how the events unfolded, and Jytdog's inappropriate involvement which further serves to dispel the allegations that I have been antagonistic toward him.
 * Bishonen's accusation
 * Example notice
 * Explain to Thomas
 * 7:27 AM Aug 6, 2015 Response to Bish was defensive/emotional for which I later apologized.
 * 7:31 AM Aug 6, 2015 Within 4 minutes of my post, Bish reopens the AN/I, and blocks me
 * Pings GWH but he did'nt respond
 * Appears to flaunt her power: As for your claim just above that I'm somehow "involved" and can't sanction you because I have supposedly "demonstrated ill-will", I repudiate it.

Jytdog (involved) closed Bishonen’s block at AN/I, pours fuel on fire

 * gets involved
 * Bish responds
 * Jytdog prods more
 * Bish further explains
 * Callanecc's initial explanation of a-Ban he imposed.

I appealed Bishonen's block. Jytdog and team quickly descended on my TP, holding true to their patterned gang-like behavior to inflict irreparable harm to my reputation and credibility.

Jytdog poisons the well against me
I ask the committee to please keep in mind that the sweeping damnation of me by Jytdog and others lacks a single diff to support their claims.
 * ,, , , , , Uninvolved editor responds to haranguing

AVDUCK activity during my block, discussions of another MfD
The events that transpired clearly demonstrate the manner in which the same team players operate across WP. Opposing editor gets railroaded, blocked, they descend upon targeted article.
 * Undeserved reputation as a disruptive editor
 * KingofAces supports Mfd
 * Alexbrn's disdain
 * KingofAces also takes advantage of block
 * A neutral voice
 * ATG battleground
 * Admin's opinion
 * Jytdog labels and alleges in typical fashion

My 6 Atrazine edits

 * Formerly 98 reverts
 * Jytdog reverted
 * Jytdog whitewashing
 * Jytdog self-reverted
 * Jytdog whitewashing
 * Kingofaces supports Jytdog.

Catalyst for the unwarranted labeling
I stopped editing Griffin in February but the undeserved label I now wear as a believer in the shill fallacy and/or advocate of fringe/PS, remains.
 * Correct BLP vios
 * Yobol reverts
 * Carrite says it's a biography
 * Allegations
 * I agree
 * "clap trap"
 * Aspersions
 * Callanecc's advice]

Different goals, different views of the world

 * ,, Different goals re: GA/FA,

I've made mistakes. I've apologized when I was wrong and tried not to repeat them. I've had past disagreements with a few editors when mole hills looked like mountains. We managed to work through our differences. I know that GF collaborations are based on give and take and respect for WP's 3 core content policies. I'm a good student and a good teacher, but as Einstein so wisely surmised, I'm not young enough to know everything. Atsme 📞📧 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn allegation
I'm a bit dismayed at having to defend a little humor on the TP of DrChrissy which was nothing more than a parody based on Thoroughbred racing's Triple Crown. The races had just taken place when I created the parakeet on a prickly pear (cactus) banner. In fact, Alexbrn's allegation is so off-base, I'll let it speak for itself. Atsme 📞📧 16:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish innuendo
Re: his paranthetical comment, re: David T.,  (and observe how Atsme and Petrarchan47 interject themselves), attempts to make it appear that I've done something inappropriate by participating in an AN/I discussion. The reason for my participation there was to help resolve issues, not create them. Ironically, the diffs actually support much of the evidence I've already presented. Atsme 📞📧 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by JzG
This seems headed for acceptance (possibly even before the WP:DEADLINE). As a procedural point, if this comment is accurate I think it the list of parties is likely overly broad. As a first step it would seem prudent to prune this to the list of editors who have a significant long-term history in the area. Anti-GMO partisans are now asking for me to be included due to three edits to, primarily removing poorly sourced material, and closing an RfC with a result that doesn't give them everything they want (only most of it). This is bunker mentality, and if this is like most other articles where we see bunker mentality it's probable that a hard core of people might have dragged in some on the periphery who have simply been trying to control the problem. At a minimum I think a count of edits in the contended area should be drawn up.
 * I AGF in respect of AlbinoFerret and do not think Atsme or DrChrissy are really involved either - they were probably drawn to the dispute only because they have a history of butting heads with Jytdog. RoseL2P shows credible evidence of problematic editing by DrChrissy, but in an unrelated area. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuller statement by JzG
In my view there are three sides to this dispute:
 * Anti-GMO editors, who are usually also strongly opposed to corporatism in agriculture and Monsanto in particular, linking the article, , and others.
 * Pro-GMO editors, who are asserted to exist and be editing in contravention of WP:COI guidelines and community mores - I cannot think of an example but I have no doubt that one must eventually be produced.
 * Science advocates, whose interest is in promoting science as the correct tool for assessing questions of fact. This is asserted to be "pro-GMO", but this is a fallacy: science is not pro-GMO any more than it is pro-gravity, pro-electricity, and policies and guidelines such as WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and past precedent such as WP:ARBPSCI suggest that this is the correct view per Wikipedia policy.

It is illuminating to compare the individuals involved with the various partisans in disputes over global warming, where the science advocates are in exactly the same position of defending science against ideologically motivated non-science, and where a few, at least, of the anti-GMO editors align with the pro-science editors.


 * is an activist (see this talk page comment linking his off-wiki activity as SageThinker; also as SageRad). While apparently knowledgeable on the risk of glyphos[ph]ate, he shows a tendency to misperceive his own opinion as neutral (e.g. comments at Talk:Vani Hari, representing his view as "demanding integrity" despite obvious consensus that he is wrong. He has personalised the dispute, e.g. this attack and this shouty comment, representative of his passion for his cause. SageRad is here, in my view, to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, specifically the fact that Wikipedia represents the cautious scientific view rather than an absolutist message preferred by partisans.
 * has a history of disputes with Jytdog, the details are a matter of record. Atsme has shown particularly strong evidence of the "shill fallacy", long-running bad blood with Jytdog, and other markers for involvement in this case but I do not think she is one of the GMO partisans as I think this has its roots and focus in another area entirely.
 * is, like Atsme, inclined to advocate fringe medical claims and is topic banned from biomedical articles. Any involvement with glyphos[ph]ate / GMOs is arguably a violation of that topic ban, and the case statement by RoseL2P shows distinctly POV editing at, but again, I do not see DrChrissy as one of the partisans re GMOs though GMOs have become a locus for ongoing dispute with others.
 * does not seem to me to be involved in this area either, being primarily active on articles related to e-cigarettes.
 * surprises me by sticking his head above the parapet. His case statement is a textbook example of the problem at hand: casting pro-science edits as "pro-GMO", asserting ownership, demanding "respect" towards anti-GMO views, when actually that would demand giving parity between ideology and science, something Wikipedia explicityly does not do.

There is an obvious and important difference between those who are argumentative in promoting a non-neutral agenda, and those who are argumentative in maintaining article quality and WP:NPOV. The difficulty is of course that everybody always perceives themselves as defending NPOV.

Here are some ANI cases with Jytdog as party. Notice how the same names keep cropping up regardless of topic area: It goes back a way:
 * ANI, March 2015
 * ANI, September 2015
 * ANI, March 2015
 * 3RR, August 2015
 * 3RR, September 2015
 * ANI, May 2015
 * ANI, May 2015
 * ANI, April 2015
 * ANI, August 2013

Wikipedia is a reality-based project: where a question is open to scientific testing then the science wins. It is clear that some editors with a strong POV have decided that their POV is the only correct one, and that anyone who stands in their way is a shill for Monsanto. The one common thread is.

Jytdog is not a saint. There is evidence of edit-warring, especially revert-warring; there is incivility; I am seeing some evidence of WP:OWN and most of his many thousands of edits are to GMO-related articles. Solid and neutral contributions to articles on fringe science topics may obscure an issue in that area. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by RoseL2P
It seems very clear that Jytdog has a disproportionately larger number of ANI reports filed against him compared to all other editors. This user seems to be regular participant over at WP:AN/3RR and often succeeds in getting some new user blocked, but each time he's reported he always remains unsanctioned. It takes more than one person to edit-war, so it looks to me like he's permanently WP:GAMING the system. I can see a consistent pattern of tag-team reverts by Jytdog and at least one other editor, User:Alexbrn. Here are some examples from three sample articles:

1. BlackLight Power


 * IP 84.106.11.117 adds content (19:01, 09/12/14)
 * Alexbrn removes content (19:03, 09/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 adds content (19:26, 09/12/14)
 * Jytdog removes content (22:17, 09/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 (07:56, 17/12/14)
 * Alexbrn removes content (08:14, 17/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 removes content (13:23, 17/12/14)
 * Alexbrn restores content (14:00, 17/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 removes content (22:58, 17 /12/14)
 * Jytdog restores content (23:15, 17/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 adds content (08:44, 24/12/14)
 * Jytdog removes content (15:58, 24/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 adds content (15:01, 25/12/14)
 * Jytdog removes content (15:03, 25/12/14)
 * IP 84.106.11.117 adds content (15:16, 25/12/14)
 * Alexbrn removes content (15:20, 25/12/14)

2. Foie gras


 * DrChrissy adds content (15:43, 12/03/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (15:46, 12/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (16:05, 13/0315)
 * Jytdog removes content (16:21, 13/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (00:13, 14/03/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (04:20, 14/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (10:11, 14/03/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (10:12, 14/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (10:28, 14/03/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (10:45, 14/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (10:50, 14/03/15)
 * Jytdog removes content (19:23, 14/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (11:57, 15/03/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (12:27, 15/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (13:14, 15/03/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (13:15, 15/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (21:29, 15/03/15)
 * Jytdog removes content (21:31, 15/03/15)
 * DrChrissy adds content (23:25, 19/03/15)
 * Jytdog removes content (23:45, 19/03/15)

3. Michael Greger


 * Sactasia adds content (18:12, 03/09/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (18:16, 03/09/15)
 * Sactasia adds content (19:04, 03/09/15)
 * Jytdog removes content (19:04, 03/09/15)
 * Sactasia adds content (19:12, 03/09/15)
 * Jytdog removes content (19:17, 03/09/15)
 * Samcarecho adds content (11:21, 12/09/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (11:25, 12/09/15)
 * Samcarecho adds content (11:44, 12/09/2015)
 * Alexbrn removes content (11:45, 12/09/15)
 * Samcarecho adds content (12:14, 12/09/15)
 * Jytdog removes content (13:58, 12/09/15)
 * Samcarecho adds content (15:37, 12/09/15)
 * Alexbrn removes content (16:02, 12/09/15)

It's fairly obvious that their strategy is to "share" their reverts amongst themselves, so both appear not to have overstepped the 3RR limit on any single day. The Editor Interaction Analyser shows many of their edits logged within hours or minutes apart (some separated by less than 60 seconds), which, together with the evidence presented above, strongly suggests a disruptive pattern of tag-team editing that extends beyond GMO articles. RoseL2P (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Guy/JzG - Have you noticed that this RFC, which you recently closed to much controversy , was started by the same editor that you recently warned and blocked ? This does not necessarily mean that you are involved, but it does give off the impression that you may be. I suggest you consider stepping back for a few moments.
 * @DrChrissy and Jytdog - Since both of you have carried over your disputes from Foie gras to Glyphosate, I endorse Tryptofish's proposal for an injunction to apply temporary DS during the case. RoseL2P (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

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

Preliminary 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)
 * 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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 &amp; 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)

Comment
I applaud who has had the stamina to sift through past edits and produce a lot of pertinent evidence and represent it fairly.

To add to Trypto's assessment of Jytdog's usually excellent contributions, I would also mention WP:WHYMEDRS, an essay which brilliantly explains the basis for our medical sourcing guidelines and which exemplifies his willingness to put considerable effort into explaining difficult concepts to newbies.

I fear however that WP:CGTW applies here. Jytdog has been provoked into some regrettable comments which he has often needed to retract. To remain unprovoked would however require the patience of a saint.

As an illustration of the environment see how and  snigger about "pricks" and fancy themselves in battle with the Borg collective. Is this really what Wikipedia editing has come to?

Reviewing edit histories I have – irony of ironies - some concerns about a possibly undisclosed COI from one of the participants here, and will email arbcom separately to avoid outing.

As a meta-comment I fully endorse 's comment in this section that even back in March "multiple RFC/Us are long overdue on several editors". The absence of RFC/U has meant that obviously problematic editors such as many of those listed here have been allowed to run riot and the community has lacked the instruments to deal with it (ANI proving ineffective as usual). Hence the drama has escalated and is now here. I note also that it appears Jytdog has not edited WP since September. If, as appears might be the case, one of our best contributors been driven away by the way this drama has been allowed to escalate while the POV-pushers "triumph", then I think that is something the Project as a whole will need to reflect on thoughtfully. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Jtrevor99
Though my experience with Jytdog and these articles is limited, I point to interactions here and here as verification of some points Jytdog has raised. I attempted to rectify what I believed to be one-sided and defamatory statements (WP:YESPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:BALASPS), written by authors I believe had anti-GMO, anti-biotech agendas. I felt the Syngenta article presented Tyrone Hayes' side of a long-running dispute, but omitted coverage of Syngenta's defense, and any facts calling Hayes' viewpoint into question. When I rewrote to reduce bias, it was repeatedly reverted, devolving into a double 3RR and edit war. Jytdog restored order and worked with all parties to create the current text, which sticks to undisputed facts only and does present both sides. In short, he worked to balance without advocating for any one view. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I 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 edits; and that, while he can have an abrasive personality (particularly when others show similar incivility), his actions are not deserving of more than censure. He has occasionally stepped over the line, but which of his opponents has not? Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax Your comment regarding glyphosate safety illustrates the problem well. (JzG also points this out.) You state claims of glyphosate safety are unencyclopedic and POV, despite a supermajority of relevant 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 nonsafety will be proven in future, an untenable position that by definition is POV. Accordingly, you and others repeatedly revert statements and citations regarding glyphosate's safety, causing WP to contradict/misstate 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)

@Petrarchan47 See [|here]. Your link focuses on 2,4-D, not glyphosate; on glyphosate, IARC is a single exception to scientific consensus as my link explains; appropriately, my link also notes how strongly anti-GMO advocates (including some countries like France which ignore scientific evidence while policy-making) have latched onto IARC's findings, ignoring strong scientific consensus and problems with IARC's methodology. Monsanto is being scientifically responsible by requesting retraction of a junk, biased study (per independent scientists, see my link). Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Related to the above: Immediately after protection on Glyphosate expired, a user resumed the edit war by adding a reference to Seralini's highly controversial safety study. 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. All involved authors, not just Jytdog, need to be a focus for this arbitration. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
At this time, I am not planning to provide any evidence. I believe JzG and others have adequately demonstrated through evidence that, while Jytdog's personality has been abrasive and he has frequently made his posts or actions rather personal, he is an extremely good and prolific editor who has done a remarkable job of maintaining a pro-science, pro-objective evidence stance in the face of an onslaught of anti-GMO advocates utilizing fringe, biased or misinterpreted/misquoted scientific results to support their edits. Those advocates, in turn, have used many of the same tactics - personal attacks and the like - as Jytdog - and, as the evidence shows, frequently were the initiators.

Preliminary 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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 automaticalluy 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?

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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.

Evidence from Opabinia
Two primary threads here: 1) numerous editors misusing and misunderstanding sources in the GMO area, often for POV purposes; 2) Jytdog's frequently aggressive and disputatious interactions with those who disagree with him.

Misuse and misunderstanding of sources
A simple problem hard to describe in arbcom format: Jytdog and Kingofaces43 understand the science and know how to read the scientific literature; most of their "opponents" do not. Samples only; entire evidence page could be used explaining these errors.
 * David Tornheim: long, repeatedly revised, SYNTH-y comment in GMO RfC:
 * Petrarchan47: Hybridized foods have been around thousands of years, but GMOs were born in a lab in the 90's pushing this source: this is language of advocacy, scientifically inaccurate, representative of this editor's approach.
 * Long thread at Talk:Glyphosate, Prokaryotes credulously adds disputed source with a co-author whose prior work in the area has been discredited; see also DrChrissy defending it with "published by Elsevier"
 * SageRad WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, misunderstanding of how review articles work in this WT:MEDRS thread
 * LesVegas, representative example, edit summary Monsanto, Merck or the Marlboro Man - read the whole thing, or the whole thread; it's pure POV-pushing
 * DrChrissy, on this page and followup here regarding "small molecules": this is a simple misunderstanding that could have been settled easily if the topic area weren't so dense with interpersonal conflict

Arbcom may be about conduct, not content, but persistently misusing sources is a conduct problem, whether the reason is sincere misunderstanding or cherry-picking for advocacy purposes.

Jytdog's interactions with others

 * Idiosyncratically personalized and emotive language:
 * To Tornheim: ugly, icky, and profoundly un-wikipedian ANI/
 * To Petrarchan47: just icky AN/
 * To GregJackP: ugly retaliatory behavior ANI/
 * To Atsme: just filthy Jytdog's talk/ and again at Risker's talk/ (note the topic is Jytdog's unreasonably aggressive pursuit of Atsme regarding a very minor COI issue)
 * Not limited to GMO or fringe topics: ignorant...exploitative and cynical unrelated issue at WT:CHEM


 * Lack of self-awareness gives appearance of self-serving behavior:
 * Accuses others of personalizing despite the above, e.g. this thread/
 * Proposal at WT:TPG that citing redacted comments should be considered unacceptable (see Tryptofish's evidence on Jytdog's self-reverting)
 * Frequent half-apologies, representative example I had followed Atsme down the petty-hole at Risker's talk


 * Pursuit of personal disputes in unrelated contexts, e.g. GregJackP's retirement, unrelated to disputes with Jytdog:
 * Abusive comment, worse , self-serving half-apology , another attack/complaint
 * As I said here I would've blocked him had I seen the second post, and I hardly ever do that.

IMO much of his behavior is provoked and borne of frustration (outbursts like are a symptom, not a problem); however, it's polarizing, alienating, and distracting, and spreads disputes throughout loosely connected topic areas (see JzG's noticeboard links for others pursuing Jytdog, and Minor4th for Jytdog pursuing others).

Preliminary statement by Geogene
Regarding this diff given by Petrarchan47, 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. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that the Committee will include a look into "shill gambits" and whether they're a contributing factor in the subject area(s). Geogene (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele
Accused me of hounding himself and SageRad here. I did interact with SageRad at the two other articles he mentioned in the accusation: Housatonic River and P. Robinson Fur Cutting Company, but I thought those were productive (though my initial concerns weren't valid, so it was an instance where I wasted the other editor's time). No interaction between Wuerzele and myself appear in the Intersect Contribs tool for any of those articles. Researching his accusation, I find that I had had another interaction with SageRad in the Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine) talk area in a manner that seems to me perfectly civil (looks like we found agreement). It also looks like I entered that conversation after having been kindly pinged along with a bunch of other people here. I don't see Wuerzele there either, and I'd forgotten that entire discussion. Looking into this further, I note that Wuerzele recently left a message on SageRad's talkpage in which he tells SageRad that this is "war (yes, war)" and that Wikipedia is rigged at every level by powerful COI interests. Trying to perpetuate this (literal) battlefield mentality in new users isn't helpful. I'm happy to stay away from all environmental science areas until this gets sorted out, but that's voluntary: I'm not under any such topic ban, and I'd rather not be told where I can and can't edit. Geogene (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary 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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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)

Full statement by LesVegas
Jytdog has been out of control for some time. As I have interacted with this editor, I can honestly say very few others come close to his bullying and incivility. Here are just some of the diffs I have found while reading various discussion page topics. I hope this editor's conduct can be taken into account during this case. Since he owns the GMO topic and since his behavior is the main reason for the filing of this Arbcom case (I doubt seriously we would be here if Jytdog was editing with good behavior) all of this seems pertinent. As a side note, I have noticed a tendency amongst editors who feel some sort of self-righteous justification in breaking policies, anything from harassment and incivility to disruptive editing, all because they feel they are "defending" Wikipedia from another point of view than their own. Ideally, it would be a healthy thing for Arbcom to comment that nobody is above the law or allowed to break civility or any other policy because they feel they occupy a role as defender of a topic. Many cases like this could be avoided with a hard statement that such behavior is always wrong. LesVegas (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Gross Incivility, POV pushing, and Harassment











Other incivility diffs

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Off wiki harrassment, advocacy for Quackwatch and other weird behavior

1.

2.

3.

Preliminary 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)

Behavioral issues
I'm sympathetic to a blowup in the wake of BAIT-ing, but here I see a pattern of bullying and intimidation that goes beyond WP:NAM and protection of an article or topic. It is a mentality that any dissent is an attack that bothers me here. Jytdog seems to be the one most often taking point, but Kingofaces43 and others do sometimes contribute. Montanabw (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The latest ANI that led to this case showcased the tendency of Jytdog to immediately attack almost anyone who disagrees with their views and suggest remarkably strong sanctions be levied. It troubled me that as each person weighed in, each was summarily attacked to varying degrees and a stunning number of people added to this case by Jytdog.
 * this ANI stood out to me when Jytdog listed numerous diffs as evidence against another user, when, taken at face value, most appeared to mostly be examples of a straightforward, if intense discussion.
 * A cursory ANI search indicates that this dispute has been gong on since at least March, and the consistent incivility of Jytdog keeps being raised.one example
 * POINT-y AfD here:
 * There is a line of severe incivility that was crossed. The now-infamous "ignorant F--k" comment may have been a meltdown on Jytdog's part, but it is exhibit "A" for the zero-to-80 approach that comes up when a discussion opens on topics related to GMOs, including alternative healthcare, the organic movement or related issues.  To his credit, there was an apology.

May have more to add later. Montanabw (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Casliber
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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary 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. Minor4th  16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI - happening now on Glyphosate, a microcosm of the dispute:

Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 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: . 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.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad Elk v. United States (May 2015)
Good Article created by GregJackP, not related to GMO, but illustrates a pattern of Jytdog's behavior found in GMO topic


 * Jytdog edit wars out an entire section of GA:


 * After edit warring, Jytdog escalates by templating GregJackP for edit warring:


 * Having failed to "win" the content dispute in the article, Jytdog tries to win the same dispute on the OR Noticeboard:


 * Simultaneously, Jytdog tries to get Greg's GA reviewed and delisted:


 * points out that Jytdog is forum shopping:


 * Jytdog denies forum shopping, but removes his GA review:


 * I interject a suggestion on rewording in an attempt to mediate the dispute - note that I was not taking sides and made suggestions directed at both GregJackP and Jytdog:

Bowman v. Monsanto (June/July 2015)
SCOTUS case involving Monsanto patent rights. Example of Jytdog's more nuanced pro-Monsanto editing behavior.


 * Jytdog slow edit wars -- repeatedly removes notable, sourced commentary criticizing the court's decision (i.e. commentary not supportive of Monsanto's position):, ,, ,


 * Jytdog repeatedly reverts in his POV/OR conclusion and cites a source that does not support his addition:, , . Talk page discussion is here: link


 * Jytdog templates PraeceptorIP for canvassing GregJackP when Greg was already deeply involved in the discussion


 * Finally having exhausted his options for winning the content dispute, Jytdog adds a POINT-y tag to the talk page:


 * A month later (July 2015), after the article had been stabilized and nominated for GA by GregJackP, parachutes in and removes a photo from the article (which admittedly resulted in an all-out war between Kingofaces and Greg):  . Whether or not by coincidence, Jytdog had just lost in his attempt to get rid of BlueBook citation style (related to footnotes he didn't like): .  This is one example of what I believe to be tag-teaming or acting in concert towards disruptive ends by Jytdog and KingofAces43.

In re Alappat (July 2015)
Federal Circuit patent case


 * After his dispute with PraeceptorIP on Bowman v. Monsanto, Jytdog follows PraeceptorIP to In re Alappat and adds and  tags:  Praeceptor had been the only editor on the article, and it had not been edited in almost a month. This is an example of Jytdog retaliating against an editor when he does not get his way - he follows the editor around and continues disputes from article to article.
 * The article is improved with citations over a period of 10 days and the tags are removed.
 * Jytdog edit wars the tags back in:  but templates GregJackP for edit warring:
 * The article was again improved and additional cites added over a couple of days:, so I removed the tags with the edit summary "rmv tags after article improvement":
 * Jytdog POINT-ily reverts the tags back in:

Gross incivility/hounding directed at GregJackP (September 2015)

 * Upon GregJackP's retirement, Jytdog leaves a nasty comment on GJP's talk page. Jytdog had previously been banished from the page: Vandalizing a BLP article after an on-wiki dispute with the article subject is among the most ugly behaviors possible in WP. Your WP-head has been in a bad place and I am guessing you woke up to that. If so, it is good you at least walked away; there is some honor in taking the toxicity elsewhere. There is more honor and good in acknowledging you've done badly and trying to do better. But yes, at least take the toxicity away.


 * Jytdog is warned on his talk page by admin Opabinia regalis, noting Jytdog's behavior is "mean-spirited" and "gravedancing":


 * Jytdog is warned on his talk page by admin Drmies, including a block warning:


 * Admin Drmies also warns Jytdog on GregJackP's talk page:


 * After being warned 3 times by 2 different admins. Jytdog returns again to GJP's talk page with an even nastier comment, later claiming he did not see the admin warnings: (excerpt) GregJackP - do stay away until you get your head on straight. If you love content, write content and stop making WP a battleground. So toxic.


 * Only after pushing the incivility to the point that he is about to be blocked, after he has had his say despite numerous admin warnings, Jdog issues a lukewarm apology: I thought about this more and I hear you both; it was bad taste for me to post there at all. I should have exercised self restraint and didn't.


 * Note: Jytdog was completely uninvolved in the issues that led up to GregJackP's retirement. His gratuitous nasty comments can only be considered hounding and battlefield.


 * Note: Jytdog has a pervasive pattern of evading sanctions by apologizing or striking through comments after he intentionally violates policy and draws block warnings.  I believe this is a tactic that has allowed him to knowingly violate policy for years - the belated apologies are meaningless because he returns to the same behavior, perhaps directed at a different editor or on a different article. It is harmful to WP because it causes a severe battleground atmosphere that persists long after Jytdog "apologizes."

Casting aspersions

 * Jytdog accuses me of battleground behavior in an article I never edited and claims I did the same to him - which I didn't. Accuses me of being a meat puppet.GregJackP and his meatpuppet Minor4H have been doing almost-as-ugly crap to me (the same sort of sheer battleground hackery as they laid on RJensen but of course not directed to my RW identity).


 * Jytdog again accuses me of being a meat puppet and references my "appalling" behavior that does not exist. I don't believe any of you understand the ugliness of the way gregjackp and his meat puppet have treated me. With the exception of exactly one - exactly one - set of interactions - GregJackP treated me like dogshit, and sought out opportunities to treat me like shit in articles and drama boards. His behavior and that of his meatpuppet have been appalling and it is galling

Long term disruption (2013-2015)
Sample diffs of Jytdog's long term disruption:
 * Jytdog's reversion history on Glyphosate from 2013 to present
 * Jytdog's noticeboard history ,,,,
 * Battleground behavior/comments: (2013), ,
 * Faulty 3RR allegation while involved in content dispute: (2013)
 * Proposing a clear BLP violation of an opponent's article in this discussion: (2014)

Administrator
During this case, JzG has participated in battleground behavior in this topic area, including edit warring. JzG should no longer be considered an "uninvolved" admin in this topic area.
 * Glyphosate (led to 2nd page protection during case):, .,,
 * Vani Hari: ,,,,,,
 * Kevin Folta:, ,, JzG's talk page participation: link
 * Note Guy makes contradictory arguments about self pub responses to criticism when discussing Vani Hari compared to Kevin Folta

Battleground/edit warring during the case
Several edit wars and battles have broken out among the parties to this case while this case has been pending. One is referenced in my preliminary statement, others are linked in the above section re: JzG, and now this series involving Kingofaces43 and a suspiciously new, yet Wiki savvy, account : <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Coretheapple
I'm acquainted with people on both sides of GMO and have no opinion on the underlying issues. I did actively edit March Against Monsanto a couple of years ago, as I felt that it was too skewed toward the Monsanto POV, but I haven't revisited the subject matter since then, 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 Hydroxycut and our contacts there were quite civil. However, 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 eventually 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 over the past couple of years, 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.

In response to Cla68's comments 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) 14:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC) updated to trim, consolidate and remove boo-boos, Coretheapple (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up statement by Coretheapple
As I indicated above, I have had no adverse contacts with Jytdog in the GMO articles. I notice that this arbitration is titled "genetically modified organisms," not "Jytdog." So therefore, unless I hear otherwise from someone at arbcom, I see no point in rehashing problems that I've had with Jytdog elsewhere. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary 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 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. Jus da  fax   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. Jus da  fax   14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Gandydancer
Over the years I've watched WP turn further and further towards what I consider to be a male-dominated information resource. I'ts been frustrating and I don't know what to do about it. I'm finding it harder and harder to edit in areas that are important to me, areas that as a woman I feel I have a lot to offer. High on my list is the environment and the effects of chemicals that I believe to be affecting my children, grandchildren, and the children of years to come. It is already quite difficult to enter negative information into many of our chemical articles and stay within the WP quide lines for RS, but there is a constant push from Jytdog, Kingofaces43, and a few others to apply WP:MEDRS to our chemical articles as well, even when there is no direct human effect.

On my user page I have a Chris Hedges quote in which he suggests that "corporations" have come to control every area of our lives, and I suggest that there is every reason to believe that Wikipedia needs to take care to see that our encyclopedia is not taken over as well. Selective use of facts, selective use of WP policies and guidelines, and the way that wording is framed in our articles can be used to bias our environmental articles. I believe it to be dangerous when just one editor, Jytdog who considers himself to be the "steward" of Monsanto's many articles, including even far-reaching articles such as the Precautionary Principle article, is found to be the top editor almost without fail. Looking at the talk page for this article where I feel that Jytdog used very poor judgement and the Monsanto legal cases article where he argues against including several West Coast class action cases, I believe that there is good reason to believe that his "stewardship" needs to be considered.

I also believe that we need to look at the way that most of our alternative medicine articles are now labeled pseudoscience and have drifted so far from what most of our readers consider to be safe and effective ways to deal with many health issues. We also need to look at the March Against Monsanto article which turned into over 11 pages of talk because it was felt that Wikipedia needed to correct the marcher's belief that GMOs may cause physical harm (which I tend to doubt). I'm finding more and more of this sort of paternalistic attitude these days. (I hope that I have not drifted too far from the scope of what this hearing is meant to address.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Anmccaff
I have had a remarkably similar experience with Jytdog on articles on various commercial diets; his edits on the Scarsdale Diet, in which he google-dredges cites, and then disavows his own chosen cite, (a rather good one, and the only really decent one in the trawl) is inadvertently hilarious. Should this go here, fleshed out a bit, or form a separate Arb request? Anmccaff (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: please feel free to correct format issues here.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by David Tornheim
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)

Introduction
Jytdog. Despite claiming to have no COI with GMO, Jytdog supports Pro-GMO advocacy (off-Wiki) and advocated against GMO labels off-Wiki  and has a job in in biotechnology

His Pro-GMO slant was easy to identify when he first introduced himself. He said this:
 * Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true.

A simple examination of our article (Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetically_modified_organisms )shows he is mistaken. In that same diff, he referred me to this article which directly contradicts what he said. Perhaps he thought I was too lazy to read it. I challenged the misrepresentation here, but he never owned up to it. Instead, he got angry and said “you don't understand how WP works”, that I did not understand sourcing, that “you appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about” and threated that things would get “ugly”if I was not more careful. Later, like a child, he took his marbles and went home, deleting everything he had said to me. 

This is not acceptable not-neutral mature behavior of a person who is the self-appointed “steward” and owner of the GMO articles.

Biased Ledes in GMO articles
In simplifying the lede to Genetically modified food controversies, Jytdog deleted one of the most important facts about GMO's:


 * Across the globe public perception of GMO technology varies widely. These national differences have led to differing regulatory regimes. Some countries permit it, while others ban it.

When I tried to address this problem, Jytdog vigorously opposed changes to the lede he crafted. The removal of this information and the refusal to put it back to me is a clear sign of COI editing. Although Jytdog always maintains his neutrality, it is edits like this that show his support of GMO technology and refusal to include criticism and basic facts about it.

Jytdog and COI
Jytdog is active on the COI boards. Very convenient if someone accuses him of COI on the GMO articles. He appears to have written some of the COI policy. . He has been accused of misusing his powers at COI:, See also:. (COI tag added: . Jytdog removes 18 minutes later before resolution:, )

On Jimbo's page, I pointed out the double-standards used to for GMO proponents and GMO critics. (sligthly revised for this forum):


 * Indeed. Just consider the BLP of Pamela Ronald, a scientist which is filled with blogs and other sources from the University where she works that are doubtful RS. Apparently, she had indeed edited her own page, mentioned on the talk page here
 * I am a research scientist working in the field of plant innate immunity for several years and have been managing the Pamela Ronald page. I sent the page to Professor Ronald for some feedback and if she wanted to edit anything. I believe she made some minor edits...
 * Note that no mention of  this article of her withdrawn papers is cited in the Controversy section, and I have good reason to believe that any attempt I would make to add it would be vigorously opposed.  Now compare that to the prominent GMO critic   Jeffrey M. Smith's Wikipedia page which has this quote:
 * Bruce Chassy, a molecular biologist and food scientist, wrote...that Smith's "only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party."
 * And the movie mentioned in the Wikipedia article high point here of course was deleted too. His page at one time was as long as Ronald's (see for example, this old version. Virtually anything written by or about him by supporters is categorized as WP:Fringe or from "activists" or "advocates", so no voice for anything like that. So does a GMO proponent's puffery get the same treatment as a GMO critic?--quite unlikely...

Trypotish and Aircorn worked together to get the movie delisted:, ,

BIASED EDITTING by Rejecting Sources
To prevent negative material from being included on any GMO article, editors will make up any excuse to reject the source. Common techniques:

(Note: There are many more examples of each of these, but I ran out of time including them.)

Primary Source
Blanket rejection of any primary source:

from:
 * Jytdog: “this remains a primary source and we should not use it anywhere in Wikipedia” .  Response:

Fringe

 * Kingofaces43 :, , ,  from this discussion:
 * numerous instances in this RfC:

Stalling

 * “There is no deadline”: ,

Advocacy/Activists
,. This was in response to this scientific review article in the appropriate field. Jytdog and other will insist on review articles (secondary sources), but they reject them as the work of “activists” if they do not agree with the findings. Guy/JzG agreed:.
 * numerous instances in this RfC:

Experts
OR:. When asked for sources, none supplied.

“we are competent; you are not”:  response:

“a basic understanding of how scientific evidence is assessed is required…”

Misc.

 * SlimVirgin notes Jytdog retaliation against me and others:


 * Jytdog's bias agaisnt GMO criticism, using OR:


 * I strongly agree with and have observed issues mentioned in Wuerzele's Item 3 of his/her statement here

Tryptofish:
 * involved:

Removal of GMO Criticism: Aircorn:

Competence in Science
I have been identified as “anti-GMO and opposing "pro-science" editors” by Guy/JzG, et. al.

Unlike the so-called 'pro-science' editors, who claim expert knowledge of science which is impossible to verify because of annonymity, I use my real name, and I have both a Masters and Bachelors of Science in Engineering.

Imbalance of Article vs. Talk
I have many edits on the GMO talk pages and almost none on the GMO article pages. The reason for the imbalance is that it was clear to me early on that Jytdog's WP:OWN and supporting WP:GANG meant that it would be impossible to balance the article's obvious bias. Any attempt at balance would be met with tendentiousness, stalling and stonewalling. It is a severe problem and I wanted anyone who wanted balance to understand what is really going on on those pages.

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

When I reported the 3RRR violation, Jytdog supported KingofAces43:.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (revised:  11:27, 12 October 2015(UTC) and 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

Preliminary statement by Wuerzele

 * 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 ' 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. ), 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 for researching what began before I joined WP, and the 2 diffs re historical beginning in his statement. Thanks to  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, , ,  (per their statements above), but also ,  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, , , , , , , , , , ,  and David Tornheim (all stated above) and occasionally , , , ,  and . He has driven away from that area: ,  and  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)

misleading edit summary
“dealt with chlordimeform sourcing” = euphemism for deleting a WP:RS and rewriting which looked like whitewashing. I had assembled IARC ref in my 4th ever edit.

August 2014 Agent Orange [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agent_Orange&type=revision&diff=622626690&oldid=622626390 removed content based on unverifiable sources (references were too brief to find). ] wrong. ref was complete, even archived, ref name="va-03-2010" the other ref had been orphaned in an edit war; one just needed to search for it in prior versions. ref name="last-ghost"
 * 2/2015 add USDA when in fact there was an extensive copyedit, most importantly removing "due to the increasing prevalence of glyphosate resistant weeds" with its WP:RS.
 * 8/15 on Monsanto"fine dont care" for deleting whole paragraph, and next diff "simple fact instead of any kind of story" for replacing detailed sourced content with sales figures +ref.

WP:Incivility mostly to WP:BAIT,WP:Civil POV pushing
 * wrongly accused ‎ on Agent Orange. editor restored information backed by reliable sources, which had been removed without explanation. After jytdogs first reversal he started eloquent discussion. Since counterarguments were false, wrong accusations WP:Copyvio, "removing almost a year of work by other editors", he reinserted them, but was reverted twice more with help of Kingofaces and warned. exchange shows many hallmarks of jytdog:false accusation, pushing to the point of breaching civility and tag team reversal. editor even started Rfc. He left WP since.
 * wrongly accused, reverting and belittling me [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid&diff=next&oldid=634030503 you seem to be confusing the reference name with the reference itself. there is no in-line reference here] was plain wrong. there was an inline ref and it was from "Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data". 24d.org (Dow AgroSciences, Nufarm Ltd. and Agro-Gor Corporation. he appeared to prevent me from tagging that.
 * wrongly accused user:EllenCT to be disruptive about neonicotinoid ANI didn’t go anywhere, but she stopped editing there.
 * wrongly accused and angered longtime respected chem editor user:DePiep on glyphosate, sought a block for violating WP:NPA by making unfounded accusations of COI 26 March 2015. De Piep got blocked x48h [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked]
 * accused me 13 April 2015 of "misconstruing" and wrongly attacked me w "stupid editwarring"(I did not – another user editwarred, I reverted the addition of an error) on my user page, then on article talk page correcting his false attack by writing "others editwarring". I asked him to retract the incivility by mixing in inaccurate information he provokes responses. Instead, reverted "restored back to last stable version", an inaccurate editsummary, was a simple revert i.e. he never discussed why he wanted sourced statements gone, no WP:FOC.
 * Vindictive, opposing RfA 23 sept 2015 after she posted preliminary evidence on this page about him.
 * Banned from numerous user pages (Coretheapple, Dr Chrissy, Viriditas, mine and likely more that I am unaware of)

WP:PRIMARY Dogmatic removals, never tagging WP: PRIMARY allowed when serving his WP:POV
 * on neonicotinoid 4/2015[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neonicotinoid&diff=prev&oldid=659781736 removed content based on WP:PRIMARY sources] --I reverted per WP:DONTBITE and wp:primary, kingofaces reverts me, Gandydancer reverts, then jytdog reverts her, I revert jytdog while discussing, jytdog reverts me, I rephrase, add results, in edit conflict, which kingofaces reverts- so the Nature study remains out of the article to this day.
 * reverted on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid June 2015 negative effect on male fertility  fails MEDRS when I challenged him that it looked like tendentious editing, he reverted me 20 June 2015 with more paternalistic tone we don't include content about health based on primary sources per MEDRS, but 14 h later  added source to his credit.
 * sept 2014 reverted content on neurotoxic mechanism of action
 * jytdog confused primary/industry reference with a reliable source when he removed my tag for third party ref needed.

WP:COI and WP:COIN
 * Opened cases on editors he doesn’t agree with SageRad 20 May 2015, suspicious for instrumentalization.
 * 18 April 2015 06:36 I posted a comment re WP COI guideline. someone posted Education noticeboard, and jytdog replied to it with the odd edit summary "damn german". given native speaker disclosure on my userpage, I read this as a personal attack.

Kingofaces43
Diffs below cannot be separated into categories usually showing more than one of these behavioral problems:
 * 1) WP:disruption by removing statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. #WP:Tendentious editing
 * 2) using misleading edit summary, presumably to dodge scrutiny
 * 3) overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines eg WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT.WP:AGF, avoiding to focus on content,
 * 4) judging content, such as WP:fringe, without providing evidence
 * on Glyphosphate "Seems fine to keep in the body for now per WP:RECENTISM with discussion in sources still ongoing about the WHO's statement. Best to give it some time. misleading edit summary ('Seems fine to keep in the body for now' implies KEEPING, ie moving it to body, but he deleted De Piep insertion of March 2015 WHO report re carcinogenicity citing WP:RECENTISM which is WP:JUSTALINK
 * 2,4D 28 June 2014 Discuss in talk if and how some content should be re-added. Removed an entire section WP:RS section on dioxin impurities Notability. I reintroduced a single RS sentence which he fought tooth and nail, claiming no WP:consensus, as another editor started to believe him solely because King kept reverting me. Called edit WP:FRINGE, though sourced by EPA, WHO and UNEP.
 * commented on Talk 2,4D Reversion of Update by continuous accusations harping on numerous side issues, but failed to engage on the central one: Dioxin contamination was in the article for a long time with an old source. when I added a source suddenly the whole section was deleted. At the end of the talk page he explained his use of "we", which comes across as pluralis maiestatis, as his way of addressing me. This is obviously false. The plural of you (singular) is the same word.
 * Neonicotinoid 21 July 15 Remove unreliable source for scientific content. Specify chemical. Kingofaces43 removes a Guardian source, but leaves the WP:primary, which the Guardian referred to (and which is subscr only, reason to add newspaper sources). on 26 July 2015 I reinserted the WP:RS of Guardian, warning he was edit warring, instead of discussing.
 * Neonicotinoid 26 July 2015 I inserted "An author funded by Bayer", which Kingofaces didn’t want to be mentioned. King reverts with "will need discussion and consensus per WP:STATUSQUO", but also adds: "A later study found the analysis was confounded with other co-occurring insecticides" in poor English ("concomitant use of" would have worked) and editwars to keep it.
 * on Monsanto removed 2 sections of biblio and documentaries "Agree that some are definitely fringe....aren't needed or adding much..happy to discuss" invoking WP:FRINGE I stepped in restore docu/ biblio sections COMPLETELY deleted by Kingofaces,which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary. On Talk:Monsanto kingofaces is unfriendly sounding, belittles my edit summary as "ranting". procaryote wrote he’s been bullied on his user page.
 * re-introduced bad source with misleading edit summary: "Restore sources with better attribution per WP:BLPSPS". INstead of discussing on talk, he editwarred and twisted WP:BLPSPS and was insincere writing "happy to discuss" in editsummary (lipservice). I started discussion

JzG
poor decorum for an administrator.

WP:Tendentious editing = disruption WP:Civil POV pushing =misrepresenting others or other discussions, labeling, to incriminate or belittle and discredit their opinion. uses pluralis maiestatis like jytdog, kingofaces
 * removed WP:RS which he orphaned, instead of correcting it with arrogant (don't see where it was nuked, feel free to bring it back with the original if it's reliable edit summary)
 * 14 September 2015 onTalk:Kevin Folta defended Kingofaces, replying "Rubbish. Wikipedia allows for statements by individuals to be sourced from their own self-published work”. Either he mixed up sources or deliberately made a strawman argument diverting to Folta's own blog, which was not the issue I raised.WP:Uncivil to call my communication 'rubbish'
 * sarcastic to SageRad in revertAlways nice to hear editors' opinions of what constitutes "top quality", but we go by peer-reviewed publication ? twinkle abuse, since no WP:vandalism.
 * sarcasm on talk:Kevin Folta inappropriate
 * false accusation on glyphosatereverting me sentence was correct and WP:RS
 * on Glyphosate 5 Oct 15 deleted with sarcastic edit summary citing essay stub he just created (‎Endocrine disruption: remove primary study in animal model. I think we should have a WP:IOANNIDIS policy.
 * referred to teaching moment, lectures others and saying editor is net drain to the project

WP:Primary argument
 * on Glyphosate reverting IARC monograph ref, then re-reverting editor in tandem with Kingofaces.


 * on Glyphosate 5 Oct 15 re-reverting. "Reverted to revision 684268644 by Kingofaces43: Yes, actually they are, because the article is bvecoming bloated and we need to start using broader and more summary statements. (TW)). no vandalism. And "Reverted to revision 684275942 by Kingofaces43 (talk): So you go for one older primary source? No.(TW)"

Preliminary statement by EllenCT
I endorse Wuerzele's claim that User:jytdog and User:Kingofaces43 are extremely difficult to work with. They are both vindictive and hold vendettas. I respect the work that Jytdog does and am willing to give him a pass to some extent, but I'm convinced that Kingofaces is a paid shill, because, for example, when I asked him for "literature reviews supporting the contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD" he produced which is not a systematic literature review, and which states, "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." Bayer is known to be a prolific astroturfer on that topic. At Kingofaces indicates that he uses Bayer's neonicotinoids professionally. Kingofaces declined to specify his job title (after claiming that he had special professional expertise) or characterize his experience, even without any personally identifying information.

However, I have not edited GMO articles in the past year and am unfamiliar with any of the current disputes mentioned in this case. EllenCT (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by DePiep
I am not an Involved party. I arrived here because pinged me. I had a quarrel with March 2015, ending at ANI. Re-reading that dispute, and reading the posts here, I see a behaving pattern by Jytdog that would merit this case be accepted.

The pattern is this. Early in a discussion, Jytdog resorts to WP:-caps claims like NPOV, FRINGE, COI, POV, OWN. From there, it is black/white and there is no way back any more to ask questions & discuss towards a consensus. Also, these approaches by Jytdog often introduce irrelevant personal notes bordering PA. I note that Jytdog does not look for dispute resolution at all. No proposal, no looking for a meeting point. Even on this page, I read no awareness of their behaviour being possibly problematic (it even occurs to me that Jytdog is consistently evading these points).

As for the possible-COI refuting by Jytdog, I am not convinced. This route does not allow for scrutiny, or sound checking. We also don't know how thorough the investigation by that person was. Since the stakes in RL GMO are high (and so the involved means), I'd expect a better check except for 'my word on it to one other'.

As this request is to improve our Wikipedia, I add that because of this battling way of doing disputes like by Jytdog (including the one I mentioned), I have lost a considerable about of fun in editing, and so have reduced my editing into a semi-retirendness level. This is a direct consequence of current dispute resolution at WP. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the analysis by/at quite disturbing, showing a gaming of the system. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by SageRad
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.  ) 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 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)

JzG profiles and outs me (incorrectly i may add)
Evidence for JzG continuing to attempt to profile and out me is even present in this very evidentiary hearing where he writes, " is an off-wiki activist" -- both not true and ad hominem profiling. Wikipedia is a place where a person is to be judged on the content of their character, evidenced by their words and actions, not on caricatures assigned by others or by outside research. I am a skeptical inquirer in all things, and an advocate for the least biased description of the universe to be woven into the encyclopedia. His WP:OUTING of me (incorrect though it is) has now been picked up by others such as Roxy the Dog and repeated, and now i am profiled by this aspersion. Not cool. Against Wikipedia spirit and guidelines. SageRad (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG edit wars in topic area to push a POV
,, with discussion going against his agenda on talk page.

JzG being generally onerous, bullying, strong-arming
Many things like this.

Contentious agenda-oriented editing by Kingofaces43
In this discussion and this edit Kingofaces43 appears to be pushing an agenda and editing in a contentious way and then misrepresented the conflict gravely on the Reliable Sources noticeboard.

Preliminary statement by Abductive
This case request came to my attention due to the actions of User:Kingofaces43 at the article on Sulfoxaflor, a pesticide. As can be seen at the article and its talk page, User:Kingofaces43 states that the New York Times and the New Scientist are not good sources for an article on a "scientific" subject, and that User:Kingofaces43 somehow knows better than they do about the truth, and what represents "consensus". He also uses a primary source by a Dow Chemical employee and claims that it is independent and secondary. I find a troubling pattern of using Wikipedia to advance a position, and wikilawyering, by User:Kingofaces43. I myself find it galling to argue on the "side" of people who are against GMOs, since I believe that such anti-scientific moral panic is unjustified. However, through all my years of editing Wikipedia, I have come to recognize when something is "fishy". When a user makes arguments that always seem to lead back to the removal of dissenting content, and the silencing of dissenting voices, Wikipedia suffers. Most disturbingly, Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality will suffer if it comes out that industry has been manipulating Wikipedia for its own ends. Abductive (reasoning) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Preliminary statement by Robert McClenon
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)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the assertion; for example, your assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Forum shopping during case request
After an arbcom clerk dealt with a personal attack during the case request phase, Jusdafax attempted to forum shop the issue to Wales's talk page. NE Ent 10:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing
I'll keep this simple. I've had involvement with SageRad, Wuerzele, and Gandydancer in the past. They are POV-pushers, plain and simple. They exist to push their POV, usually based around anti-corporatism. My most recent involvement with the people discussed in this case has been on the Kevin Folta article.

For the topic of this case, however, i'll just focus on SageRad, who made several comments on the talk page of the aforementioned article showcasing their POV.


 * Here's them on scientific skepticism.
 * A side remark (claimed to be facetious) on the topic.
 * Suggestion that anti-vaccine stances are not FRINGE.
 * SageRad on what "skeptic" means
 * SageRad claiming science is pushing an agenda

I think all that says enough. Thank you for your time. Silver seren C 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Petrarchan47
Apparently the "evidence" against me is a 2 year old comment and a statement I made about the Organic Consumer's Association. The latter statement was based on things the OCA has deliberately shared themselves. And, here, the evidence you want. Not sure how this fits the topic of this, but I guess you brought it up?

(I might as well share this one too, they shared it yesterday, claiming Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a brainwashing campaign.) Silver  seren C 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The OCA on Homeopathy
 * The OCA on Vaccines
 * The OCA on Breast Cancer

General statement
I have been an occasional editor on articles articles related to Genetically modified food for 2+ years. I may have enough edits in the area to be considered 'involved' by some, and have no problem with being described as such. My view on this case is in line with Short Brigade Harvester Boris' preliminary statement; a ruling on the status of scientific debate over GMOs is outside the scope of what arbitrators should be expected to do, and as such the focus throughout this case should be on conduct issues. There are numerous conduct issues already cited by others in the evidence section.Dialectric (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence: The scope of Jytdog's involvement
In Jytdog's Preliminary statement, he writes ' I do steward the ag biotech articles.' The degree of this stewardship is remarkable: For each of Genetically modified food controversies, Monsanto, Glyphosate, Genetically modified food, and Genetically modified crops, Jytdog has the largest number of edits by far, exceeding the next most active editor by over 100 edits.

Jytdog has 686 edits to Genetically modified food controversies. Edit counts show that he has made more edits here than the next 5 most active editors combined.

Jytdog has 606 edits to Monsanto. Edit counts show that he has made more edits here than the next 10 most active editors combined.

Jytdog has 353 edits to Glyphosate. Edit counts show that he has made more edits here than the next 5 most active editors combined.

Jytdog has 349 edits to Genetically modified food. The 2nd most active non-bot editor has 109 edits.

Jytdog has 223 edits to Genetically modified crops. Edit counts show that he has made more edits here than the next 10 most active editors combined.

Lack of detail on safety testing and regional bias
Despite the relevance of the matter, and the alleged scientific expertise of the editors involved, the following articles ,,, fail to properly detail how safety testing works, how products are approved, how regulatory mechanisms function, what regional variations exist (European regulation is markedly different from the US - where the industry is essentially self-regulating and has done most of the safety testing itself - Europe has traditionally erred on the side of caution and upholds a case-by-case approach).

In fact, the one GMO related article that had made a start on this had its heading changed from "Safety assessment" to "Public perception" and content changed. We can easily deal with all key points factually, and do so without entering into WP:FRINGE but any content that details assertions relating to GMO food product safety should explicitly mention the role of the Cartagena Protocol (precautionary principle), Codex Alimentarius, and substantial equivalence in establishing said safety of GMO products. There is a strong US bias in how these matters are addressed across all relevant articles.

Resistance to changes despite well supported argumentation
The one time I tried to tackle the relationship between substantial equivalence, safety testing, and scientific consensus, on the Genetically modified food controversies article, and despite providing multiple solid secondary sources to support the argument, it was a struggle to actually edit content.

At the same article I also tried to address what was clearly a case of citation overkill on the scientific consensus statement, and again, was met with surprising resistance to change.

The lead of same was also, at one point, gutted of any mention of substantial equivalence, and appears to have sat unchanged (it suited a certain bias) for 4 weeks, until I noticed and reverted (which was not challenged).

Comparison with climate change denial in an effort to stifle critical inquiry
It is unfortunate, but there exists a remarkably myopic (and unscientific) intellectual arrogance amongst certain editors when it comes to GMO subject matter. They insist that those who question GM technologies must be either scientifically illiterate or are engaging in WP:FRINGE (others have highlighted this above). Additionally, certain editors (many claiming to have scientific specialisms) suggest that those critical of GM technologies are somehow undifferentiated from those who deny climate change. An example of this arising can be found in the discussion here

This is actually a ludicrous association fallacy, and it’s a ploy to discredit editors who are more critical of content. We need to be very careful here in how we approach accusations of WP:FRINGE usage across GMO related articles.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.