Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop

Redaction clarification
I see that you have redacted some information from the page in Minor4th's section, but Minor4th's sections are still there. Can editors still comment on these sections and are they still part of the case? AlbinoFerret 18:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you can -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just making sure. AlbinoFerret  19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the reasoning behind these sweeping redactions? Jus  da  fax   08:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, the nature of revision deletion makes it look, in the edit history, like a huge number of comments were removed, but this is actually not the case. The only actual redactions were from two comments here. I made a reference to something at some other websites, and Guerillero made a reasonable determination that it should not have been displayed, and I apologize for my error in judgment. Nothing else has been hidden. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish engaged in OUTing is what happened, and it got REVDEL'd at my request. It was more than an error in judgment, Tryptofish.Minor4th  18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For what's worth, I was also putting together an email to ArbCom about the best way to approach the redacted subject and other non-outing evidence a bit before Tryptofish's post. Even the non-outing evidence is concerning, but there's a lot stuff to dig into that isn't related to this case. ArbCom would seem to be aware of the general issue at this point though. It's extremely tricky to deal with these kinds of issues without outing, so I hope the arbitrators can discuss among themselves how the underlying issue may or may not affect editor actions in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, my thanks to Guerillero. At first look, Tryptofish has strayed into sanctions territory, and given our close working relationship in the past I never thought I would say this, but if I have the facts right, this is blockable. Apology? Faugh. Jus  da  fax   03:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you do not have the facts right. That's a pity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's unfortunately a lot of posturing in this case that I hope ArbCom takes notice of both on the case and talk pages when it comes to the mentality of different editors. For those interested in what actually happened (without the redacted info), Tryptofish summarized the events really well here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I want to suggest a "thought experiment" to the Arbs. Look at what the discussions are like on the Workshop page. Then think about how you would react if you were interested in editing content in a topic where the editing atmosphere is like that. Perhaps you would identify a point where you would begin to find yourself losing your temper momentarily. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It's not quite at the point of people demanding a lifetime ban from all WMF projects for failing to use an edit summary once, but some of it is not far off. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've nailed it, Tryptofish. It is a highly toxic environment for all involved parties, of which the Workshop itself is proof. Everyone is busy fault-finding in each other; and Jytdog's self-imposed hiatus during these proceedings may indicate that he has given up due to the constant attacks and lack of support. (We won't know until/unless we hear from him.) Escalation is evident; prior to around July 1 those involved were able to work together relatively well, despite content disputes, using existing WP processes. After that I see an uptick from everyone, and trying to determine "who started it" is nonproductive when all are acting unprofessionally, and when such behavior would continue were other editors to fill the same positional roles. Certainly, Jytdog has made poor choices, but so have his counterparts, and after considerable reading I cannot help but think I too would have snapped if I had continued to fight a tidal wave of pseudoscience and advocacy for years. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And I kinda feel like I've been nailed (smile). For anyone willing to spend some time going through the muck, read all the way through the talk archives of Talk:March Against Monsanto, and see how things unfolded over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked again at the Workshop page, and it looks like two opposing camps lining up to vote (not !vote) their respective party lines. I'm about to go away for a week, and believe me, I'm looking forward to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm curious too since we have some people just voting and others showing why something is true or is needed. After tonight, I'm not sure if I'll be around until after the close of the workshop either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to duck out as well, I think. There's a massive amount of material to go through, and I cannot think of anything constructive to add that hasn't already been stated. The "proposed solutions" I just posted are a bit...unusual, but even if they are not adopted hopefully they will help us collectively come up with something useful. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Since thought grenades are suddenly a last minute topic, I'll toss out a firecracker for contemplation. Think about showing a 13 yr old student, or entire 7th grade class how TPs on WP are used to discuss article content, and you stumble upon one where Jytdog has demonstrated his exasperation. Another thought - how do we know who any of these editors really are except for those of us whose RL identities have been probed and/or spotlighted or voluntarily provided? How can we be expected to blindly AGF when we're seeing articles being whitewashed? We do know our universities are receiving grants to paint pretty pictures so unless we know for certain we're not dealing with an advocacy or an editor who is fighting for a research grant what exactly can we do to avoid suspicion when we're seeing the signs? It isn't an easy problem to solve regardless of how much thought you put into it. Money talks rather loudly and so do POV advocacies, but let's not forget the grassroots writers and editors who simply want to churn out accurate GAs and FAs and insist on getting the facts straight. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Atsme 📞📧 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ex: "A new international effort led by Cornell will seek to add a stronger voice for science and depolarize the charged debate around agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)....Supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" (Aug. 21, 2014)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Findings of Facts
Participants, if you list a finding of fact on the workshop page against an editor in particular, I think it helps the ArbCom out if you link to the specific sections of evidence that support your proposed finding. Or, you can list the diffs directly in the finding statement. When the ArbCom drafts their proposed decision, they usually try to list the specific diffs in their findings statements. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking of findings of fact, I thought some of yours had merit. But I hadn't seen the punchline, which was your ludicrous "proposed remedies." I feel like something of a sucker dignifying your proposals, but I guess there's no point in striking them out at this time, as I do agree with you but I think that your aim was disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Coretheapple, my proposals are serious, based on my 20 years working in organizational management, both in the US and Japan, which have different management styles. If you agree that the core problems I identify are valid, then please propose alternative solutions that will be more than just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cla68 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that a person of your vast experience in management would realize that your proposals would not be taken seriously. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Status of my email request
, I have not heard back from you in response to my email request to submit as evidence the email that was previously approved by the sender for use as part of my evidence in the COIN case. Please advise. Atsme 📞📧 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Our bad, thanks for ping. Checking right now. NativeForeigner Talk 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about hatted comment
The drafting Arb hatted this accusation. Now it has re-appeared at ANI. It looks like editors are continuing to attack this editor to get them blocked; would this be allowed when reference to it has already been hatted?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would assume what is being discussed is the question of sockpuppetry, which might be seen as not exclusively falling within the scope of the arbitration. I ain't an arb, but, if there is evidence of this individual having been circumventing, and thus violating, existing sanctions, I would guess it is allowable. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I explicitly reject the claim that I am a "clean start" of, formerly user:Levine2112. I am in no way related to this account, have never interacted with this user, and I honestly do not understand where this accusation is coming from. I took a break from my primary account due to the toxic environment in these topic areas and have never used a separate account to dodge any sanctions whatsoever. For a brief moment, I considered returning for a short while, but given the current editing environment, I am convinced that the time is not yet ripe for me to return. All I ask is that I be left alone, but if people continue to have lingering concerns that I am a sockpuppet of user:Levine2112 then they should contact contact a checkuser so that my name be cleared. With all due respect, I find it surprising to see such a ludicrous allegation of sockpuppetry coming from at least three experienced editors and I think those making these accusations should have attempted to communicate with me on my talk page first and foremost before running over to the drama boards. RoseL2P (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you have to ping one of the drafting Arbs if you want a response, so I'll do it now. Hello, --Atsme 📞📧 17:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for CheckUser review
I do not know where else to submit this request, so I'm making this statement in the hope that a clerk or arbitrator might move it to a more appropriate venue. The crux of my statement concerns a spate of frivolous accusations against me, namely that I am a sockpuppet of some user that I have never heard of nor interacted with. Rather than initiating a full sockpuppet investigation against myself, I am hereby requesting for an active arbitrator to query the CheckUser tool and confirm that I am unrelated to User:Levine2112. The reason for doing so is that this accusation is being shared by at least several editors (such as JzG, Alexbrn and QuackGuru) and it is not the first time this has been raised (diff only visible to admins). When confronted about the truthfulness of the accusation, I categorically denied it and thought the matter had been settled. But it has not been settled.

In the midst of this arbitration case, I note that Geogene has accused me of WP:SOCK and that this issue is currently being taken up by JzG on the ANI drama boards. These sockpuppet (and COI accusations ) have continued for more than a year, so I'm wondering if there is some way for me to clear my name without having to launch a sockpuppet case against myself? I will consider giving away some personal information to defintely prove that I have no COIs regarding the topics I perviously edited (and have stopped editing due to the toxic environment), but I think it might suffice if a trusted arbitrator uses the CheckUser tool to review the evidence and clear my name.

In any case, I have already made up my mind to semi-retire. However, it would be nice if I could peacefully withdraw from this place without these very serious (but completely baseless) allegations lingering on the talk pages of ArbCom and elsewhere.

RoseL2P (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe SPI cases brought to by the accused to clear them are not taken. That being said, as a last resort if you really feel the need after the arbs have replied, leave a message on my talk page and I will start one. AlbinoFerret  12:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always found it funny that this is the case. I remember seeing one hilariously Kafkaesque case where a user was accused of being a sockpuppet and asked to be checkusered to clear his name, in response another user wrote something along the lines of "Hah! That's exactly what a sockpuppet would say! He's clearly a sockpuppet who knows that self-requested checkusers aren't allowed, and is pretending he wants a checkuser to look innocent!" What's the reason behind the "no self requested checkusers" rule? Brustopher (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure. While I have no proof, I believe it to be to protect the accused. From what I have seen at SPI the behaviour threshold is very low. Once a Checkuser is done and the findings show no connection behaviour is looked at. While I would be willing to start one, I would caution against it. I would defiantly advise against requesting a checkuser if you live in some place like LA or NY city. The odds increase that someone else has edited from a similar IP block in such densely populated areas. AlbinoFerret  13:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason they don't checkuser as a self-request to validate an account is because the checkuser process is much more fuzzy and subjective than they want to admit. There's some tricky tracking techniques they use to try to zero in on suspected sockpuppets that they don't want to reveal.  If you want to read about them, do a search on Wikipediocracy's forums as most of the checkuser tricks have been discussed at different times in threads there. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RoseL2P, please do not let these editors (JzG and Geogene) WP: bait you. their aggressive behavior has been noted/documented on this page. please slow down. And please reconsider your thoughts of semiretirement ! you are appreciated and needed.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded Wuerzele's comments. I don't care whether we have the same viewpoint on this topic; you have had a lot of very constructive edits to the pages in question, and have provided a lot of valid input to this ArbCom (more than I feel I have, frankly). Your continued presence is desired and it would be a shame to lose you, particularly if it is due to editor behavioral issues. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also seconded. Rose, your work is laden with diffs, and is clear and direct. Please reconsider semi-retirement. Regardless of your decision, thanks for your work in this case and elsewhere. Jus  da  fax   15:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at final comments at the ANI from Rose, I see s/he is the third person who has been the target of OUTing by people involved in this case. It almost seems as if it's becoming normalized. I hope that isn't the case. If people are going to speak out against powerful companies, they need to feel that their identities are very protected by Wikipedia, and that attempts at OUTing result in a lifetime ban.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4th person if you count Atsme. Minor4th </b> 00:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rose, you, Atsme, who is the fourth?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad. Early in the case, JzG tried to make some off wiki connections to SR. <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> 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Private "investigations" of editors involved in a content dispute were severely condemned during the Transcendental Meditation ArbCom case a few years ago, and resulted in the guilty editor being indefinitely banned from WP even though he was a long-time, established admin. Have these four instances of outing or private investigations been documented in the evidence?  If so, I will post proposed findings of facts about them on the Workshop page.  It's very important to WP's model that editors should feel safe contributing without fear of their personal lives being investigated by WP admins or other editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would do any good regarding Tryptofish, since his actions have already been discussed. But, yes: "editors should feel safe contributing without fear of their personal lives being investigated"   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone attempting to "out" other editors needs to be blocked at once and then investigated themselves. This behavior must be halted at once. Jus  da  fax   11:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any evidence relating to outing can be sent to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org . I'm not familiar with almost all of these cases. We can't act on what we're not aware of. NativeForeigner Talk 14:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then let's do so, and quickly. If there is individual harassment or worse, a pattern of outing it needs to be dealt with as fast as reasonably possible, so I urge User:SageRad, User:Minor4th, User:Atsme and User:RoseL2P to email the evidence in their respective cases to the provided ArbCom address. I had previously expressed concerns regarding SageRad on his talk page, but I was unaware the outing problem had reached this level of viciousness. Enough is enough. Jus  da  fax   15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what ArbCom would even have to consider here. The information on SageRad is nothing personally identifying, but speaks to an advocacy presence outside Wikipedia. WP:OUTING says to approach that cautiously, but it can be considered. There's nothing new about Minor4th, and likewise Atsme's case is stale (relating to personally identifying information they provided that has long since concluded). I'm not sure where outing occurred with Rose relative to this case either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's let ArbCom be the judge of that. My knowledge is limited, but this Talk page thread got my attention. "I know who you are" coming from an Admin who has previously blocked the editor in question - is flat-out wrong. Jus  da  fax   16:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And that they will, but I'm just cautioning against focusing on things largely unrelated to the case at hand or with things that have a lot of on-Wiki background that may or may not be brought up in emails. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect what went on is that a few editors and possibly an admin who are involved in this dispute investigated whether some of the other editors might have ties to anti-GMO organizations with the aim of accusing them of having a COI. If any of you here were subject to such accusations or inquiries, you need to let ArbCom know, even if it's true that you DO have connections to anti-GMO or other special interest groups who might have an interest in the topic area.  Even if you do have ties to such groups, you are still allowed to edit the topic in Wikipedia if you adhere to the NPOV policy and other editors are not allowed to investigate your personal life to try to accuse you of COI.  The only time you might be required to declare your connections with such groups is if they are paying you to edit WP on their behalf, and even then, WP's rules on that aspect are under debate.  So, anyone here who has been the subject of accusations of sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, COI, or had their background or connections investigated, needs to email ArbCom and let them know right away. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern has to do with editors' personal safety.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern too is primarily about safety.  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Jzg/Guy has repeatedly engaged in outing me. And denying that he's doing it while continuing to do it in many different pages on Wikipedia. He's apparently done research on my identity and likes to drop in insinuating remarks all the time based on what he thinks he knows about me, and that is intolerable. And he's not even a party to this case, for whatever reason, god only knows. You industry supporters can try to minimize it all you want cause he's on your "team" but it's outing and it's nasty, and JzG/Guy has been editing an a very partisan way and abusing guidelines and principles and targeting me personally. It's not alright. Why does tihs drag on and why does he not get included in the ArbCom case? I'm kind of losing faith in this whole process. Meanwhile, Guy is swinging it all around in the Workshop and the dialogues of this case, while actively being abusively partisan, and yet is not even party to this case and is therefore immune to accountability. Impunity. SageRad (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have made that claim several times, and it has been rejected every time, because it was you who first linked to your off-wiki activism in order to push an off-wiki spat with Gorski. Continuing to repeat a rejected allegation is not especially helpful to your case. I know who you are, and I have not named you in public. Actually you would do yourself many more favours if you were to be open about who you are: it's fine for people to be engaged in a subject off-wiki, but when they come here and try to pretend that they aren't, then we have a problem. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Has been rejected" ... by you? Several others seem to be troubled by it as well as me. Not going to engage with you further, here. Just had to register disagreement on your assessment of yourself here. I'm not pretending anything. I'm just saying that work on Wikipedia is work on Wikipedia, to be judged on its own merits, and for another editor to do research on an editor and then to continually attempt to use assumptions about an editors real-world identity to cast aspersions on their Wikipedia editing, against that editor's will, is WP:OUTING. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have made the accusation several times and in several venues, no action has resulted, that, in Wikipedia terms, means that your complaint has been rejected. You should read WP:STICK. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of Correction to Guy's comment above: I've not pursued any formal action. I've simply called it out. It has not been rejected by any body. Enough here. SageRad (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of correction: you don't get to choose whether any particular assertion you make on the admin noticeboards qualifies as a complaint or not. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Request ArbCom Review and protective block - OK, I have had enough. Please review the comments by JzG/Guy just above: it should never be OK for an admin to say "I know who you are" on editor talk pages and subsequently right here in a discussion on an ArbCom Talk page. I believe this behavior, clearly intended as an intimidating threat, calls for an immediate preventative block. This is extremely serious misbehavior by an involved admin. Jus da  fax   15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact. My advice to SageRad has been pretty consistent: he will serve his case much better by being open about who he is. His current approach, of seeking to suppress any mention of the off-wiki activism that he himself brought into the equation by his edits to, gives an unwarranted appearance of malfeasance. Actually SageRad seems to me to wear his heart on his sleeve, and I do not think this is evil. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note: Thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 17:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unacceptable to make chilling effect-type remarks. So please do not repeat them. Could you also please email me (via email user) with a link to the diff where you say SageRad self-discloses?
 * This does not appear to me at first sight to be WP:OUTING but that is not to say it is optimal conduct. You were invited to report this to ArbCom by email: you have not done so yet. Please do not repeat the outing allegation.

It is not acceptable

Possible closing of workshop stage?
The template at the top of the page says the workshop was going to close on the 19th, but, apparently, it hasn't yet. Anyone want to indicate when it might be scheduled to close now? John Carter (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest we stay open a few days longer? I believe additional information is coming in, and see no harm in an extension. Jus  da  fax   17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One way or another, though, it would help if the template at the top of the page indicated maybe when the workshop is to be closed more accurately than it currently does. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be precise, I've asked a clerk to close it. If that doesn't happen in the next 2 hours I used to be a clerk and can probably manage it! Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oddly, just as the workshop closes, SageRad posts this perfect example of assuming bad faith. Despite several patient explanations, he seems incapable of accepting that it is possible to criticise abuse of science without actually hating the person doing it, and that criticism of abuse of science may be motivated by a dislike of bad science, rather than a dislike of the person promoting it. I, for one, have no opinion at all on the FUD Babe as a person, I have never met her and probably never will. I do give a damn about her proselytising of chemophobia, because I have enough education to understand that (a) everything is made of chemicals; (b) toxicity depends on dose, not your ability to pronounce the name of something; and (c) natural is not an objectively meaningful way of distinguishing the likelihood of toxicity. Anyone who disputes this is welcome to try consuming 1mg of entirely natural botulinum toxin and 1mg of entirely synthetic DDT. DDT is specifically designed to be toxic, yet botulinum is many thousands of times more deadly. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They might also note that the recent Lamar Odom overdose, widely reported in the US news feeds, seems to have perhaps been in part brought about by use possible abuse of some unregulated "organic" substances, specifically some form of "organic Viagra," as I think I heard it referred to on the use. Even the "organic" stuff can be dangerous, and is, obviously, chemical in some sense. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Advocating against something is as harmful to WP as promotion, even if it seems you are saving people from imminent danger. Off-WP advocacy should stay off, doncha think?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't bicker or continually try to one-up each other on these talk pages. If you have new evidence, and the clerk can correct me if I'm wrong, I assume that it's best to just email it to the ArbCom mailing list. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I laughed out loud at you lecturing people on not sniping at each other. I suspect that may have been the intent, since you do appear to have at least that much self-awareness. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Guy, but you and Dr. House just mentioned two elements that are linked to two extremely important substances that help insure the happiness and well-being, on a global scale, in a mutually beneficial way, for scores of men and women over fifty...Botox and Viagra...which some may even consider to be far more important than the issues plaguing GMOs.  I know nothing about the science, but I can attest to the efficacy of the aforementioned substances according to what a friend told me.  As you may have guessed, I will adamantly deny any first-hand knowledge.  Anyway, both of you...please go easy on the science in those topic areas.  It's scary enough.    <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)