Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 12 November 2015

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD Date

I'm trying to get started on this PD. As all involved know this is quite a large case with large scope, and so hopefully getting out ahead of it will be fruitful. At this point, I'm aiming to be on schedule, and think it's quite likely/feasible. NativeForeigner 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am already working on a version of the PD and I have asked the committee for additional support. This should be delivered on time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The wait

Waiting for the Committee to post the PD can be understandably nerve-wracking for the parties involved. It's common, therefore, that the parties end up bickering with each other here and on the other case talk pages while they're waiting for the PD to be posted. I've been guilty of that myself in the past. Unless new evidence comes out in the interim, I doubt anything that is said here will likely have much impact on the PD, unless someone really loses the plot and earns themselves a sanction just from misguided comments here alone. So, please avoid the temptation of arguing with each other on this page. It might help you to take this and the other case pages off your watchlists until 26 October. Just a suggestion, FWIW. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish's section

I am back at Misplaced Pages, and, between now and the posting of the PD, the drafting Arbs should feel free to ask me here if you have any questions about diffs, and I'll be happy to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked again at the Workshop page, and I am specifically concerned about an Arb comment made while I was away from Misplaced Pages, at , because it seems to have been made without awareness of what I previously said just above it at . ("In presenting proposed findings about individual editors, I am not providing diffs here, but in every case I am basing it upon the evidence in my section of the Evidence page, which please see.") I never said that "the arbitrators can find the diffs if they look". I said very clearly that the diffs are in my section of the Evidence page. There is a huge difference, and I trust that the Arbs actually read the Evidence page. Perhaps I'm being a bit sensitive here, but I think that I have good reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It would not be my idea, per Streisand effect, to link from here to either my talk page or to that of the editor directly below, especially because I cannot see how it would help with formulating the PD. But: , , . I'm doing all that I can think to do, to disengage (a completely separate issue from that which I am raising with the Committee on my talk), but maintaining a section about me on her talk page kind of works against that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In the time between the closing of the Workshop and now, most of the dispute underlying this case has been located at Talk:Kevin Folta and Talk:Vani Hari. I do not mean to imply any accusations in saying that. Rather, it is purely a matter of information, in case any Arbitrators would like to observe what is happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request that the drafting Arbs provide an update of when the PD will be posted. (The navbox on the PD page says Nov. 7, which obviously is no longer current.) Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments after the PD was posted

Now that the PD has been posted, I want to say thank you to the drafting arbs (who, all things considered, may be surprised that I am thanking them), for your hard work on a difficult and thankless task. I have read the entire PD, and looked for anything needing correction, and not found anything (although I will go over it more carefully again tomorrow, in case I missed something). I think that NF ended up doing an excellent job of working out the case. I also want to say to anyone reading here (who, all things considered, may be surprised at what I am going to say), that I agree with the proposals concerning Jytdog. That is because of his decision not to participate in a meaningful way in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I just read DrChrissy's comment, and I agree that a change from "genetically modified plants" to "genetically modified organisms" would be a good idea. And I would do that as well for the DS (as it already is) and for all parties subject to topic bans, with one exception, who is in fact DrChrissy. I feel very strongly that in DrChrissy's case, there is an excellent track record of editing about animals, and I would not want a topic ban to infringe upon that by extending beyond plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@NF: About the changes from "plants" to "organisms", there are still a few parties that haven't been changed yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Not yet done.

I found a typo: in the topic ban for SageRad, it instead has Prokaryotes' name. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Done

Very trivial: the Proposed Principles should have a header identifying them as Principles, Done and the Principle about edit warring should have a lower-case w for warring in the header. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Not yet done.

A very general comment: one of the things that happened during the Workshop was editors lining up to vote (as opposed to !vote) according to which "side" they were on. I'm beginning to see that happening again here, so I would urge Arbs to be critical in terms of how much weight they should give to comments on this talk page that recommend taking a different overall position than what the initial PD has taken. (Obviously, that does not apply to editors making comments in their own defense.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th's section

Arbs @Guerillero: @NativeForeigner: @Roger Davies: please see my comments here and also see Tryptofish's talk page wherin he re-started the discussion. Thank you. Minor4th 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Case will be a bit late, I think. Other arbcom silliness has eaten my allocated wikitime. Nonetheless good progress has been made thus far, expect posting by the end of the month at latest. NativeForeigner 02:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Much appreciated. Minor4th 03:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I last minute started a new job and that has reduced the amount of free time that I have --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well congratulations on the new job. So what are we looking at for an estimated time frame for the PD? Thanks. Minor4th 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

And I last minute interviewed for one. But that being said I think either 11/3 or 11/4 are likely. Reconsidering a couple aspects but I'm nearing the point where I'm happy with it. NativeForeigner 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Minor4th 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of PD

Just absorbing the PD right now and checking diffs. I hope NativeForeigner did not feel pressured to post the PD before it was complete - I'm also curious about whether this version incorporates Guierillo's input or if he will be posting separate PD's? I will have more specific commentary and analysis after dinner :) Minor4th 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are only two things that I am going to add; however, our notes pretty much line up and we worked though the evidence independently. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: PD

The PD has been posted. I view it as a minimum of what needs to happen, I may add one or two more FoF/remedies in the next day or two, but I think this represents the core of the issue. Comments welcome. As a reminder, no threaded conversation. NativeForeigner 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My own section

JzG should be added as party, given the findings and remedies. NE Ent 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy's section

I have just read the PD and I thank the admin for a careful and considered summary. However, I fail to see why Jytdog has been given "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted;" His extreme disruption and highly objectionable incivility has ranged wide, very very wide. I feel he should have a site ban, but at the very, very least, please reconsider why this topic ban is limited only to genetically modified plants. Surely, this should be "genetically modified organisms". I thank you for reconsidering this.DrChrissy 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to scope yours slightly differently, to not hamper your productive editing on animals. Somehow that wording snuck into his. It's been changed. NativeForeigner 01:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that - much appreciated.DrChrissy 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My current topic ban Several editors have commented positively about my current topic ban regarding alt.med, med and MEDRS being raised here. I am not overly concerned that this has been raised by the ArbCom. It is clear some people have seen one or two of my edits as potential violation of this, however, the ArbCom does not agree this has been a violation, or at least has decided not to pursue this further. I am able to appeal this current topic ban in just 8 days! (nope - I have not been counting ;-) ). I think we should let this matter settle here for the moment and if you care to join me on ANI on November 20th, I will welcome your company.DrChrissy 01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that 2 arbs have now voted in support on the section of my "Existing restrictions". Could I ask what ArbCom are voting on, please? Is this simply supporting the fact that one or two other editors accused me of violating my topic ban, or, is ArbCom voting on whether I did violate my topic ban?DrChrissy 14:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing Proposals In the Workshop phase of this case, evidence was raised against User:Kingofaces43, User:Alexbrn, and User:Yobol, yet there are no proposed sanctions remedies for them here. Does this mean there will be no action against them, or is the PD not yet quite finished?DrChrissy 13:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looie496's section

"Editors have voiced concerns" is not a proper finding. A proper finding must assert that the concerns are valid. Looie496 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Why? That editors have voiced concerns is perfectly factual, whether the concerns are valid or invalid. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of findings is to justify the list of remedies. Concerns can't justify remedies unless they are valid. Every POV warrior voices concerns. Looie496 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw's section

1. I think much of the proposed decision is workable, but I would urge the committee to post the appropriate templates alerting people to the DS provision on at least the 10 or so most-edited pages. My own view is that the topic bans and interaction bans are workable and provide WP:ROPE to those who push the limits of civility. I am concerned that the specific "DrChrissy: Existing restrictions" section is vague and could lead to net more drama, I think the general topic bans this user is already under are a bit too broad, and JMO, I would prefer to see some of the existing restrictions relaxed a bit, but at the very least, if they remain in place, a statement such as "Editors have voiced concerns that some of their edits within the locus of this case may violate their restriction" is kind of worthless. I'd suggest saying that the "locus of this case" is defined in the following section and then clarifying what - other than this case - is in and what is out to avoid people constantly going after this user with a "gotcha!" attitude. I have seen other scapegoated users with ArbCom restrictions make good faith efforts to edit within the scope of their sanctions but get dragged to the dramaboards over and over again by editors who think they have crossed the line. DrChrissy is a useful and productive editor, invaluable on articles such as Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals, and I'd hope this user is given a bright line so ALL of us know where DrChrissy can and cannot edit - I, for one, would hate to accidentally ask this user for assistance on an article, have DrChrissy answer, and then have the reply to my own good faith question somehow run afoul of a restriction! (This has happened to Eric Corbett, so I'm not making up a far-flung theory here...) Montanabw 01:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. I also agree that the restrictions on Jytdog (and anyone else, similarly situated) should read "organisms", not just "plants." Bacteria and such are not plants, but can be genetically modified. Montanabw 01:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The plants was in relation to chrissy. I copy pasted it, although I meant to have organisms for the rest. I'm headed off but will review any further comments in the morning. NativeForeigner 01:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Cla68 comments

Looks like a fair decision to me in the proposed remedies. I would ask the committee, however, if there are any underlying problems or factors with this case that should be addressed if you think they might arise again and continue to cause problems in this and other topic areas, namely: Do established editors get more leeway to violate WP:CIVIL than newbie editors? Is it ok to continually accuse other editors of being "SPAs"? Are editors who claim to support "science" allowed to break WP's rules more than others? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One other thing, if you have a proposed principle that mentions not using WP as a battleground, I suggest having some findings of fact that state which editors you feel violated that principle. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Atsme comments

Petrarchan47

When Petra attempted to discuss some of the NPOV issues on their own TP, on the TP of a BLP and during a 3-O discussion on Tryptofish's TP, the result is the proposed TB in this case with no apparent consideration for the fact that Jytdog was both the lead COIN investigator and steward of the GMO articles at the time. He had also banned several editors from his TP.

I also fail to see how casting aspersions is supported in the FoF against Petra based on the diffs provided. I am also thoroughly confused over the proposal to simply admonish Jytdog for his obnoxious treatment of other editors, his extreme profanity and overall disruptive behavior (reverts, SQS, etc.) Yet, a full blown TB is being proposed against Petra for a few legitimate, civil TP discussions attempting to resolve an ongoing issue of noncompliance with NPOV, one of WP's 3 core content policies. Those concerns have still not been addressed in this case, and many of us were hoping they would be.

Please forgive my ignorance, but from where I sit, the diffs simply do not support the allegation that Petra cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith. The message you're sending to other editors is that it's okay to shout profanities at another editor and create disruption - you'll just be admonished for it - but don't dare try to discuss a potential COI that may be involved or you'll get a TB.

1. The first diff is a discussion on Petra's own TP regarding an article being noncompliant with NPOV. The exact statements are: "not going out on a limb here to say that any article"; "If you find ONE article that Monsanto; "so the system, as you say, has been gamed." The latter was simply repeating what another editor had stated.
2. The second diff is a discussion on the TP of a BLP regarding (again) noncompliance with NPOV. The section title is Rename article for neutrality? The statement Petra made was this article should be retitled. How is that an aspersion?
3. The third and final diff is on the TP of Tryptofish discussing the ongoing issues editors have had with Jytdog. The crux of the statements made by Petra is (yet again) about noncompliance with NPOV, and an RfC that actually supported the position of those who opposed the noncompliance. How is that casting aspersions? If editors are going to be TB for discussing problems with an article's NPOV on their own TP, or on the TP of a BLP, or during a dispute discussion on the TP of another editor, then ArbCom will be TBing the majority of WP editors while contradicting their own beliefs that such discussions should take place at those venues. Again, keep in mind that Jytdog was the lead COIN investigator and also the steward over the the GMO articles. I respectfully request that the committee more closely review the diffs provided before imposing a TB on a GF editor whose only concern has been compliance with WP policy. Thank you. Atsme 15:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy

It appears to me that imposing the far-reaching sanctions that have been proposed on an academic (DrChrissy) who is knowledgeable about animals, their diets and behavior may not be in the best interests of WP in the long term. I hope that ArbCom can find a malleable solution that isn't restrictive in "the broadest sense" as what has been proposed. Perhaps some consideration can be given to excluding sanctions that involve animals directly, much the same way medical doctors are given leeway and an advantage over medical articles. It appears far too much leniency is being given to biotechnology at the expense of experts in the areas that are affected by such technology. Biotech ag, chemicals, etc. are so intertwined in our everyday lives that determining whether or not a GMO, fringe, or whatever TB applies to an article about a horse's diet (example: eating hay from a field that was treated with Round-up) would be nearly impossible, and will create more problems than it could possibly resolve. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Atsme 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

SageRad comments

In brief, i feel it's a sad day. I feel i've been learning so much about how to work well and cooperatively with other editors, and i had been looking forward to becoming better every day at really helping to boil conflicts down to their core essences and then to decide on content in a civil and cooperative way.

I feel that if i'm topic banned, that my positive contributions and many times that i've acted in ways that would be against my assumed point of view are being overlooked, in the flurry of other things that have happened.

I think it's a core principle that we must recognize that editors are people, and people do have points of view. This in itself is not wrong. It's actually good and leads to a richer encyclopedia. What is important is that the spirit of the guidelines be used to adjudicate between these various points of view, so that the articles reflect the best possible representation of reality around a topic. If there is significant real-world controversy around a topic, then content should reflect that, in as fair and balanced way as possible. The guidelines support this goal. It's the application where things get tripped up, when people speak in poor ways in dialogue, or refuse to admit when they're wrong.

I've admitted to being wrong quite a number of times, and i've pointed out when people i've been editing with were wrong, even when that was against what some assume is my "POV". I have a point of view, but i am against pushing a point of view contrary to evidence. Evidence is the bottom line. Fair and balanced representation of evidence is important.

I hope that a topic ban is reconsidered for several editors, including myself and some others who would be characterized as being on either "side" of this issue. (There are actually many sides. That is an over-simplification.)

So many times, i have tried to get warring editors to slow down, to talk it out, with respect and integrity, and to figure out the real underlying issues.

Sure, especially in my earlier days on Misplaced Pages, i was quite reactive to other editors when i felt dialogue was being used ingenuinely. Strawmen are my pet peeve, and general incivility has gotten my goat. I've gotten a thicker skin since then, and i've learned not to react emotionally even when someone casts aspersions or tries to pigeon hole me.

I think we must recognize that there is POV pushing in topic areas like this. I recognize some of my own in the past. However, there is a necessary tension almost like in a court of law, where different viewpoints are contested in a civil way, where we could all agree to discuss with respect and civility.

I'm still learning, but i wish that my more seasoned and learned actions would be given more weight than early reactions to an often hostile environment.

I just hope that the topic are will, going forward, become more cooperatively maintained, and will not result in another group of editors coming in to push a point of view in one direction or the other. I hope that, whether or not i will be able to edit personally, the encyclopedia will gain more integrity, and not slide into war by some other editors.

All the best, SageRad SageRad (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I do have to add that in the findings of fact on me, adding unsourced content isn't, I thought, against guidelines in a simple and uncontroversial context. The diff provided as evidence shows me prickly against Jytdog but not, I think, breaking any rules or guidelines. In that instance, I believe I had made simple and not so controversial edits for clarity. I understand that when challenged, sources must be provided, but this diff shows the challenge, and not a violation of rules or spirit, in my estimation. In the end I do accede to sourcing requirements, of course. I also hold others to those requirements on challenge. I'm working so I'll look at other diffs later. Anyway, I appreciate the work of ye arbitrators. I wish I could see more of the reasoning behind decisions. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple comments

I have to go through all the diffs cited in this decision, but I started with Petrarchan, as (full disclosure) I have seen her around quite a bit on other articles. I have to say that absolutely none of them support the statement made in the proposed decision. These are not necessarily the most serene comments known to mankind, but in context are quite consonant with a heated discussion, typical of heated discussions everywhere, and certainly not sufficient for a topic ban in any rational sense. Arbitrators, don't rubber-stamp this please. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax's section

The call for sanctions for JzG, including ArbCom removal of the the administrator title and buttons, is appropriate. I see an argument is being made that because he is not a named party in this case, that he is somehow immune to correctional action here. That argument is specious and should be rejected.

• After a questionable block of SageRad, JzG hounded him, a named party in this case, and used chilling tactics including repeated use of the phrase "I know who you are" on SageRad's Talk page and on a case Talk page itself. Moved by outrage at this ongoing breathtaking abuse by an involved admin, I objected on SageRad's page and vehemently on the case Talk page, and JzG was warned to knock it off and handed a stern warning and an interaction ban with SageRad. JzG's response was instructive: he wiped the warning off of his Talk page and ceased all editing, with no apology, no admission of wrongdoing and acknowledgement of his need to act with the proper neutral decorum that a Misplaced Pages Administrator must have. Not to take corrective action here and now against JzG would be a serious error, in my view.

• JzG is not a named party in this case in the first place because of several ArbCom members objections to doing so, with one, AKG, stating he was doing the "wiki's work." That act led to a climate that allowed JzG to act with astonishing impunity. I have previously asked for an explanation, and I now demand one: something is clearly wrong here. ArbCom needs to act with scrupulous fairness, and how in good conscience can this sequence be called fair?

Site ban option needed for Jytdog. In vivid contrast to JzG/Guy, I was added as a party to this case despite virtually no involvement in editing any of the articles in mainspace. This was originally done by named party Jytdog as retaliation for my statement, which pointed out a number of glaring facts regarding Jytdog; his action to add me was an obvious tit-for-tat move that continued his overall pattern of abuse of process. Like JzG, Jytdog abruptly ceased editing while this case was in progress after things started looking bad for him, including several pointed warnings on Jytdog's Talk page regarding his grave dancing to named Party GregJackP, who stood up to Jytdog effectively. The sharp administrator warnings were then removed from Jytdog's Talk page by Jytdog. GregJackP's opening statement remains relevant and important as Jytdog is the primary actor in this case.

• No evidence was subsequently presented against me, presumably because it would have looked silly, and the obvious conclusion is that I was added as an attempt to shut me up with a chilling effect. I ask that a site ban of Jytdog be added as a solution in response to a years-long reign of terror that needs to be permanently ended. I also ask for a review of the process that added me to this case: it is arguably an abuse, given that Jytdog led Arbitrators to do so within minutes of my statement. It is extremely likely that the timing indicates bad faith editing and is symbolic of this entire case: speak out, and get slammed. This tactic violates the core principles of collegial editing that must remain Misplaced Pages's daily operational model. Otherwise we drive away the editors who ask tough questions and edit boldly.

I ask proposed sanctions, including a topic ban, for KingofAces. Not to do so, yet point to other editors as deserving of such, is a serious error, as I see it. KoA has been highly disruptive and he merits corrective action.

Proposed topic bans for SageRad, Petrarchan47, DrChrissy and Prokaryotes are deeply wrong. These people are legit editors who without exception have been bullied and harassed on their own Talk pages, article Talk, and elsewhere. I repeat: the proposed sanctions against these editors are flat-out wrong.

No mention of Pete/Skyring despite obvious substantial and prolonged disruption at Monsanto legal cases. I am astonished by this.

Conclusion: I am in general profoundly disappointed with this Proposed Decision (PD). I call on Arbitrators to make corrections promptly. I believe this case is crucial to the future of Misplaced Pages, and I feel it will be referred to by future Wiki-historians. The decisions made here will reverberate for years to come, and the decisions to act responsibly and again, fairly, are of course up to the Arbitrators. I urge that the final decisions be made in a spirit of justice, and wisdom. Jusdafax