Initiated by Atsme^📞📧 at 01:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ca2james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Doc James (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jytdog
• Alexbrn
• Ca2james
• Kevmin
• Cwmhiraeth
• Serialjoepsycho
• Risker
• Doc James
• DGG
• Someguy1221
• Ronhjones

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• COIN July 4, 2015
• July 6, 2015

The manner in which Jytdog prepared and presented my case at COIN was not only handled improperly, it was punitive as evidenced in an email exchange, [1]. He probed into my RL off-wiki and equally as deep on WP to churn up a 2011 ELN discussion. A newbie to WP, I disclosed my affiliation with Earthwave Society; a volunteer exec dir of a small educational nonprofit, 100% volunteer. I was also a founder of the organization in the 90s with help from a group of biologists. A more experienced editor suggested that I contact the OS team to remove RL info. I took his advice, not that my disclosure was wrong, rather I should have handled it differently.

Add diffs: Oct 14, 2011 COI TP request, Oct 14, 2011 COI TP request June 9, 2014 COI aware approves EL, TP GA review by editor aware of COI 11:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of retirement after 2 year hiatus, I came back to WP as a retired volunteer. I've made my share of newbie mistakes, still do from time to time, but I did not deserve what happened at COIN or what arose at Gabor B. Racz as a result. Upon my return, I discovered more RL info on WP, and contacted the OS team for removal.

• FB site Jytdog included a link to a FB page in my personal suite of pages. The ELs subject of COIN were not linked there but to the official site [2]. I removed page because of concerns over exposure at COIN.

Jytdog wrongfully listed Ambush predators which I never edited, and Gabor B. Racz, no COI evident. The beehive activity at Racz further demonstrates the questionable cabal-like behavior arising from the COIN incident. A GAR was initiated.

• [3] Alexbrn, ...the lurking suspicion of a COI taint, and - with a flurry of recent edits - the article is now unstable. Couldn't be a clearer case for de-listing, really.
• [4] Jytdog created more suspicion.

COIN used punitively

• July 6, 2015 Probed domain registrations.
• July 7, 2015 Uninvolved editor commented on mishandling.

The close

• July 5, 2015 First close by Risker, disputed by Jytdog and Ca2james.
• July 5, 2015 Updated close *July 6, 2015 Request to reconsider.
• July 6, 2015 Depth of Jytdog's probing.
• July 6, 2015 Risker told Jytdog that "he is not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, COI or not."

Extent of COIN authority

COI guidelines do not support such RL investigations. It does not infinitely tether editors to former volunteer positions, or other past affiliations. If so, it should apply across the board, including but not limited to grant funded academia and advocates of biotechnology.

1. Jytdog's "self-declaration" as a biotech. User:Jytdog#Self-initiated_COI_Investigation
2. Jytdog was not subjected to a COIN investigation like mine, his was private. He denies a COI but his edits prove otherwise.
3. [5] Gary Monk's analysis of Pharmaceutical company Wikipedia corporate pages, Jytdog is #12 in the ranking."
4. Jytdog's off-wiki comments confirm advocacy as a biotech. His edits relating to biotechnology including Monstanto, GMO, GMF, and so forth should be subject to COI scrutiny.

Google search revealed confirmation of advocacy and possible COI:

• [6] Jytdog, I support BIO’s advocacy and education efforts and believe they are important;
• [7] jytdog says: May 28, 2013 at 2:42 am "Thanks for responding Madelaine. I work in academia, and I find it laughable that people think academic scientists are somehow free of conflict. Academic science is pretty darn cut-throat – you live and die by getting grants awarded, and you get grants awarded if you are able to publish work based on your prior grant, and the more “relevant” you can make it, the better. I have seen paper after paper on good basic science strain to push its conclusions to find some direct tie to health. I have seen poor paper after poor paper too, do the same thing."

The evidence demonstrates violations of privacy, advocacy issues, a potential COI on Jytdog's "suite of articles", and cabal-like behavior. PAGS that were designed to resolve disputes are now used abused to further support the goals of advocacies by ridding WP of all opposition...one editor at a time.

•  Clerk note: Further statement trimmed to enforce case request statement length limit. You may remove this notice to save words. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: Do I understand you correctly to be claiming that Jytdog, Alexbrn, Ca2james, Kevmin, Cwmhiraeth, Serialjoepsycho, Risker, Doc James, DGG, Someguy1221, and Ronhjones have formed a "cabal" (your word) to mistreat you, and that you have done nothing untoward whatsoever? BMK (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this unfold over a variety of pages. The OP seems to have difficulty with WP:HEAR and understanding explanations of WP:COI. A series of experienced editors and admins including Doc James and DGG have been trying to advise and guide this editor on the COI issue/ puffery issues/ COPYVIO issues. [8][9] [10] [11] I think they have been remarkably gentle in correcting the OP's improper edits. She has taken this effort as a cabal out for revenge. She particulary has been unable to grasp that there is no outing when she has posted (and re-posted, and re-posted above) her own position as executive director of the Earthwave Society. I'd suggest rather than an ARBCOM case that a strong mentor be connected with the editor, preferably someone who can explain COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, from other comments here, she already has/had a mentor. I have no further ideas to guide the OP. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has frequently been noted (see for example the arbitrators' opinions closing the Zeitgeist arbitration request above), the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve issues that the community has failed to resolve elsewhere. As far as I can see, the COIN discussion closed more of less in Atsme's favour, stating (correctly in my opinion) that there was no real COI issue involved, that we don't retrospectively apply a 2014 policy to 2011 edits, and that the appropriate course of action is to assess the Earthwave material by normal external links standards. Neither Atsme's claims of a 'cabal' acting against her in regard to the Racz biography, of other contributors violating COI policy, or anything else mentioned in her statement seem to have been discussed at ANI, or at any other form of dispute resolution. Accordingly, since the community has not had a chance to resolve the issues - or even had them brought to their collective attention - it would seem premature for ArbCom to take the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I describe myself as 'uninvolved', in that I've not been involved in the specific disputes Atsme describes in her submission. If this case is to be expanded per Jytdog to include the multiple other instances where Atsme has been in dispute with one person or another, I'm clearly 'involved' - though again they seem not to have been discussed elsewhere, so an ArbCom case seems premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brief response to Atsme's comment on me:

I was not included in the initial submission, and frankly I fail to see what the dispute we had regarding the essay has got to do with any of it. And it is a matter of record that I repeatedly suggested that if she had a problem with my edits there, she should raise the matter at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to any COI I might have, I voluntarily disclosed my identity to an oversighter as described here. I'll disclose to Arbcom if desired.

• The COIN case about Atsme was closed with a finding of COI by Risker here. Atsme disclosed her relationship with Earthwave here in WP. The COIN filing was legit and her editing when she came back in 2014 was promotional for Earthwave by making their website the most-cited source in 2 of the articles she edited and adding ELs to it, despite a finding of no consensus to use it even for ELs in 2011. Atsme refers to the Facebook page of Earthwave as her "personal FBsite" above. As the founder and Executive Director of Earthwave, that small organization is indeed "hers". Her resistance to accepting her COI (which in the big picture of WP has only affected a few articles) and being this combative about it, is a snapshot of her attitude in WP. Never wrong, and fights like mad.

• I suggest that Arbcom consider not accepting this case, but instead decline it with a significant block for Atsme, as a disruptive editor who is unwilling to accept community WP:CONSENSUS. This is not happy, but that seems to be where we are.

• I first encountered Atsme at the G. Edward Griffin article where she disrupted that article from Dec 2014 until March 2015, making 370 edits on Talk per her contribs to that article's Talk page, which included bringing sources like naturalnews to play up benefits and downplay risks of a FRINGE cancer treatment, amygdalin. Walls of text making strong claims like this +4,967. We went to BLPN here and here, the Fringe Noticeboard here and here, and RSN here (you can see the kind of sources she brought) At none of which, did her views find support.

• • When she entered that article, I tried to warn her to go slow here and here to no avail.

• The next drama was her "COI ducks" essay, which the community snow-deleted here - it cast community consensus as conspiracy.

• Next was Kombucha where she again downplayed risks and played up the benefits of an alt-med product (like this), and adamantly, which led to a temporary topic ban by Callanecc for edit warring under DS, which she protested here, attacking him, and doing that more at her appeal of the AE close at AN.

• At Gabor B. Racz which she created and had GA reviewed, and which is now undergoing GAR, she made personal attacks against several editors including Doc James, per this, and DGG, instead of dealing with the problems in that article - as Serialjoepsycho, advised her to do here and here and here. Again to no avail. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AndyTheGrump the close was correct in finding a COI, but incorrect in saying that the conflicted edits occurred in 2011. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Risker - The COI issues are more pervasive than the one editor; see here. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thryduulf i hear you and will step back from COIN work for a bit; I know well that COI issues are controversial in general and that my COI work can be too. The specific ANI case appears to be going no where, but I am very open to hearing concerns at my Talk page or elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Serialjoepsycho as DGG pointed out, Atsme reverted efforts to improve the article; your claim is not fair. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to my edits: For the first, July 6, 2015, just what are the errors? I probably did make some typos--I often do. For the 2nd [12] and 3rd, [13] I stand by what I said. I am not surprised to be included here, for I do not automatically support Atsme everywhere, though I have supported her when I think she is right, as I did for some of the material challenged at the Gorski article-- in the very comment complained of here.

I am not to the best of my recollection a member of project med, excellent project though it is. Indeed, I have had sufficient disagreements with some of the regular med editors here, that I normally avoid med articles , except for bios and companies, my usual specialties in all fields. For one thing, I take a considerably more open attitude to the inclusion of articles on alt med people and subjects than most of them--but I take the same strict attitude as they do to NPOV in our coverage on those subjects.

As I see it, the principal problem is Atsme's refusal to accept legitimate criticism and to assert article ownership. As she apparently sees it, her approach to an article is always the right one. I leave it to others to decide if there is any realistic process of her changing. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very involved in another matter (ironically, one that involves a real violation of the same section of the Terms of Use) and will also be traveling in the near future, so I do not expect to make a full statement in this matter. However, I do wish to draw to the attention of the Committee this report at ANI involving Jytdog. Many of the articles involved have been present on Wikipedia for several years before there were any COI edits to them, and shopping mall articles are, often as not, considered to meet the GNG. There is a pattern of behaviour here, not simply isolated to this case. Risker (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use are not retroactive. I've looked at a handful of the articles, and in many cases the majority of the article has been rewritten by completely non-conflicted editors. I've just removed a COI tag you put on one of them, alleging that the COI editor was a "major contributor". He made one edit - adding the address of the shopping mall - factual information that is not in conflict. And one edit, which I note still remains in the article, does not justify the addition of a COI tag to the top of the article. This kind of sloppiness has to stop. Risker (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That ANI link is crying out for a permanent link, but I can never find Bishonen's magic links page when I need it. If someone could make that a permalink, I'd appreciate it. Risker (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

 Done: permalinked to the (presently) current revision, Risker. LFaraone 04:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Risker (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme is not innocent. Neither is anyone else. The COIN case was piss poor and strongly bordered incompetence if it wasn't an attempt to be vindictive. WP:ELN and WP:RSN could have handled any real concerns in the case without digging out Atsme's personal information from a long forgotten post and displaying it publically. The GAR was mistimed and has a questionable participation. The appearance of impropriety is present and easily explains Atsme's questionable conduct at the GAR.

Other than opening the GAR at a poor time I don't think Doc James has really done anything wrong. They have offered comment on legitimate article issues. Doc James in the future I hope you will consider the atmosphere before opening a GAR. A toxic Atmosphere can discourage participation from some involved parties (such as Atsme's participation) as well as uninvolved parties. The majority of participants are involved in one way or another.

Alot of Drama could have been avoided if Jytdog would have practiced a little discretion at COIN. Consider doing so in the future.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im surprised to see myself listed, as the only interaction I had was to initially restore COI tags to the talkpages of Sturgeon ([14]) Paddlefish ([15]) and Alligator gar ([16]), the three of which happen to be on my watchlist in connection to my editing of them/related taxa to add paleontology information. I did not interact with user:Atsme after except to note on my talk page that the templates should not be removed until resolution was found in the COI case ([17]). I'm not sure how that was transformed into me being a part of cabal, and i will point out that 99.5% or more of my editing is the addition of Paleontology articles and I have never interacted with Atsme before.--Kevmin § 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work alot on the detection of copyright issues. I believe that not dealing with them exposes our movement to negative press. Ca2james has described the copyright issues that were previously present in the article well here [18]. We need mechanisms that check for copyright issues, especially before articles are promoted to GA/FA as exemplified by this and other cases.

Now the issues have been mostly fixed in this article. What I view as concerning is that statement by Atsme that "it was never copyright infringement". The comments here continue to raise concerns [index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&oldid=671160791#Copyvio] expecially when the user was informed here that "fair use" is typically not allowed.[19]

With respect to Earthwave, Atsme should not be adding links from the site and should not edit content directly pertaining to it. Writing about fish I view as okay as long as they are using sources not related to Earthwave. The fact that Eartwave is used 7 times as a ref here by this user per [20], and is the most frequently used ref here Alligator_gar may require looking into. But not my interest so will leave it to others.

Would also be good for Atsme to make sure no further close paraphrasing has occurred in their other articles. I do not see enough here for an Arbcom case. The COIN has been closed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest thing would be to get them to mark the page you "copied and pasted" from as public domain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is called "abuse of COIN" the COI aspect here seems relatively straightforward: a post was made at COI/N and the case closed with the finding of a (minor) COI on Atsme's part.

The underlying issues are more troubling. Atsme appears to view anything that happens on WP that she doesn't like as a personal attack - as part of some grand conspiracy. With each new editor who enters the fray and doesn't share her views, the conspiracy is seen as growing. The absurd conclusion to this has already been anticipated by Atsme who has declared if arbcom find against her it will merely prove the unworthiness of Wikipedia: "if the unpredictability of ARBCOM gives them a free pass and me a block or ban, then at least I'll know where WP stands and I can move on to bigger and better things".[21] In Atsme's world Atsme is never at fault, it's always the cabal's fault. This conspiracist mindset has manifested itself in myriad disruptions.

Without some prior attempt at resolution by the community (probably at AN/I) this case is premature here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Add) If (as seems likely) the decision here is that the matters raised should be considered at AN/I, it would be good if a neutral party (a clerk maybe) posted there to make sure (a) that it happens, and (b) that the material is presented neutrally. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Arbs who, as of this time, have voted to decline. If anything, this is ultimately a case that will primarily be a boomerang. The ANI thread to which Risker has pointed has tl;dr'ed into what basically amounts to a lot of complaining over there's too much adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should just let me violate those policies and guidelines, all you mean people. It is not evidence of wrongdoing that ArbCom needs to get involved in now, nor is it evidence that the accusations are valid. Those of you who are administrators and/or Arbs, a way that you can understand what is going on here is by thinking of it in terms of the old trope about "administrator abuse": there are some editors who just don't want to be called to task for their disruptive editing, and try to blame those who stand up for Wikipedia. Jytdog isn't an administrator, but he is a volunteer who really does excellent work about COI, and Wikipedia is better for it. At the same time, I think Thryduulf is right that Jytdog would be well-advised to be a bit less Javert-like in his zeal. Let's learn from that, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, thank you for your response to me. I would like to clarify what I said above, by making it clear that what I said about you should just let me violate... etc. was in reference to the discussion at ANI, and I stand by it as a characterization of that ANI discussion. But I will point out that the ANI stuff is not about Jytdog's interactions with you. I still don't see this as a case that ArbCom ought to accept. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case is not ripe for Arbcom as there have been no attempts to have the community deal with any of this.

I have encountered Atsme on three pages: the Advocacy Ducks essay, Kombucha, and Gabor B. Racz. I have disagreed with some of her conclusions, which seems to have earned me a place in this cabal of editors that are against her. I am not against Atsme and I bear neither her nor anyone else any ill-will. I did think that the Racz article was particularly problematic: it was full of PEACOCK words, the above-mentioned COPYVIOs, and a factual inaccuracy. At no time did I attack Atsme personally, although she does seem to take anything other than support of her actions to be a personal attack. I did put the templates back onto the fish articles because a COI had been found and I thought it was inappropriate for Atsme to remove the COI tags when the issues had not been addressed.

If this case is accepted, I suggest that Atsme's conduct be closely examined as it is at the heart of the conflict. She herself posted her connection to Earthwave, and instead of dealing with the question of COI, she engaged in an attack on other editors.[22]. This appears to be par for the course for Atsme: instead of dealing with criticism, she engages in WP:POINTy edits[23] and accuses those who disagree with her of making unwarranted statements,[24][25] bearing her ill-will,[26] harassment,[27] being biased,[28][29] or, as in this case, being part of a cabal.[30][31]

Note that she had found herself a mentor[32] after being brought to ANI[33] in March 2014. Considering that she is still engaging in much of the behaviour shown in that ANI thread and appears to be unwilling to accept that she is wrong (and we're all wrong, sometimes), I don't think another mentor will help. Ca2james (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I wish to make a posting here, but I am currently topic banned in a way that will limit my statement as an uninvolved editor. Am I allowed to break my topic ban here?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not without explicit permission from ArbCom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Will they read my question or do I have to make a special request somewhere?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just send us an e-mail, where you tell us why you need the exception (for completeness' sake, if the case had already been accepted, you could have just e-mailed one of the drafters). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you very much for your help, but I have decided not to proceed with making a statement.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Recuse as a clerk. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• obviously, I'm recusing from this. I have made a statement above & I shall give evidence if the case is accepted. DGG ( talk ) " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">03:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as proposed, and suggest ANI. There is too little in the COIN issue to warrant a case. There is some weight in the editor conduct concerns, but admin noticeboards are a better port of first call. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, certainly as filed I do not see that there is systematic abuse of the COI noticeboard, or anything approaching that, that needs investigating. What we actually have here is two editors, Atsme and Jytdog, who both have (independent but overlapping) issues regarding their editing and behaviour that need looking at individually, but it appears that ANI has not been tried yet so it needs to go there first. Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as community resolution has not been tried (without prejudice if that is tried and can't resolve the issue), but while noting that the concerns raised here, if correct, are legitimate and serious. I will echo the suggestions to seriously consider what has been said here in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline until such time as community resolution processes have been exhausted. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - other avenues have not been exhausted, also echoing the suggestions above. Doug Weller (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Per my colleagues: nothing here rises to the level of arbitration. AGK [•] 03:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]