Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Proposed parties

• Ggck2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Zefr]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1382157813

Statement by Ggck2

There has been an ongoing disagreement between Zefr and me about editing articles on polyphenols - this has resulted in a lengthy ANI discussion, which ended without a conclusion. In my opinion, the core disagreement is whether I am permitted to edit articles on polyphenols and flavonoids, even though I conduct research in this area. Zefr believes that I have to use the COI template (which they usually decline with little justification), while others disagree. I have requested advice at COIN [] and was referred to WP:EXPERT. I have therefore made some corrections to [] which have been reverted multiple times by Zefr and MrOllie.

I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as WP:EXPERT, but this is difficult if all edits are instantly reverted (or edit requests declined), even if the changes are supported by references and correct existing mistakes. I would appreciate any advice/support to resolve this situation.Ggck2 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for coming here prematurely. I was under the impression that this forum would be the right place to resolve the difficulties and get some advice on how to best proceed. Ggck2 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Zefr

Statement by non-party CoffeeCrumbs

There's no dispute here that has exhausted the ability of the community to address, so this is incredibly premature. The filer has not taken any of the steps in WP:DR to try and resolve the issue, so this should be closed as a waste of ArbCom's time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I would suggest that the filing party ask for advice at the Teahouse rather than filing this request for arbitration. I don't entirely understand what the article content issue is (if there is one), and I don't see that the community has tried and failed to resolve a dispute. I see an editor who needs advice on what to do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

Note that there is now a parallel ANI filing against Ggck2. As I've noted at that thread, I don't think that filing here is the right option at this time, but I also think it was an understandable misstep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

CaptainEek in further fairness, started at least partially in response to this filing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Polyphenols COI: Clerk notes

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

Polyphenols COI: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline per CoffeeCrumbs as premature. Daniel (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Decline per Daniel. This is outside our scope. You have other options, such as reopening the ANI thread to request a close or continuation (you may inquire on WT:AN about how to do that), or you may continue to discuss the changes you wish to make on the various talk pages. (An illegitimate option is to edit war which usually results in blocks, so don't do that.) Izno (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Decline, per others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Hold on. There's been a COIN thread and a rather lengthy ANI thread, wherein the issue really wasn't solved. Now, I can say that, going in front on ArbCom is probably dangerous for the filer--in that the WP:BOOMERANG possibility is non-zero. But I am struck by what appears to be some overzealous COI enforcement. A person has a COI about a source they wrote, and obviously the filer has cited their own work some without disclosure, which they acknowledged. But a researcher doesn't have a COI in their topic area merely because they work in that topic. Otherwise, how could we ever get expert help on Wikipedia? Especially when the thread ended without a topic ban, I'm not really seeing that there is a need for COI disclosure/procedures. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  The COI disclosure and such is because they were already indeffed once for COI editing and it was a condition of their unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  At the time, @Rosguill said I would say that COI concerns would kick in for things like citing your own or your immediate colleagues’ work, or possibly in assessing WP:DUE between counterposed perspectives within the field, but in general you should be able to contribute to the topic. I don't see that as requiring edits go through edit requests. Though I agree that the edit warring was not a good look. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, Rosguill has helpfully pointed out that there's another ANI thread (started like an hour ago, in fairness). It's not looking good for Ggck2, but it will probably provide some further community resolution, making it outside of our hands for the moment. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:02, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  I do not see how this is a serious conduct dispute that the community has unable to resolve. Izno (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

  We've also got two experienced editors tag-team edit-warring. Declining COI edit requests from the same editor repeatedly without explanation doesn't sound great either. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

• Decline, premature for ArbCom. The options listed by Izno would have been better as a next step, and the new ANI is also a means for the community to continue to seek a resolution. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:17, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Decline for numerical purposes. I agree with my colleagues that there are other avenues better suited to resolving this issue than ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
• Decline with thanks to Izno and CaptainEek for giving some guidance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:20, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
• Decline, while echoing the thanks to Izno and CaptainEek. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 03:40, 14 November 2026 (UTC)