Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: ToBeFree (Talk) & MJL (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Enterprisey (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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments from Extraordinary Writ

FoF 3: KoA was blocked by (of all people) Lourdes, not SlimVirgin. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Thanks. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Leyo, it's a bit surprising to me that the remedy I and other AE admins unanimously opposed (a topic ban) is passing here unanimously, while the remedy many of us were much more interested in (desysop) seems on track to fail. The only evidence in the passing FOFs is 1) INVOLVED problems (with KoA and JzG) and 2) BATTLEGROUND/personalization-of-disputes problems. The sentiment at AE was that a warning was adequate for 2), especially since Leyo never really got a clear "shot across the bow" pre-October that comments like those at the PAN AfD were problematic. That would leave 1), which could be resolved by either a desysop or, if you're unwilling to do that, a restriction on the use of the tools in the topic area. The risk of taking that approach would be very low since a CTOP topic ban would still be an option if problems continued down the road. Just my two cents. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tryptofish

I'll have a lot more comments shortly, but I see two things that I hope can be dealt with quickly:

1. In Remedy 4c, the green-font language about a possible sanction names Leyo, but it should name KoA.
2. On this PD talk page, it has been traditional practice to say, at the top, that all editors are required to enter their comments in their own sections, and there should be no threaded discussion (except with Arbs and clerks). I hope that someone will add this now.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Thank you as well. I'll get that note added. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that note is already there, actually - @Tryptofish, was there another one you were thinking of? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Now it's my turn for a Facepalm. It was staring me right in the fish-face. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• FoF 3: This is deeply flawed. There is no evidence of a pattern. There is just a single incidence of edit warring, and a block by... Lourdes. Absent something very significant, ArbCom should not be making findings about stuff where there has not been a pattern of bad conduct.
• FoF 8: The FoF links to this group of 2019 comments: [1]. To some extent (but not entirely), the passage in that combined diff is skewed towards editors who have had a long history of being hostile to the consensus about the GMO topic area. (I'm reluctant to post "new evidence", especially about persons who are no longer alive, but if Arbs request, I can provide more details.) I do hope that Arbs will pay close attention to my own comment within that combined diff. That's linked as a single specific taken from a broad link to Leyo's evidence; I don't think ArbCom should engage in such a false equivalence between Leyo's evidence and that presented by others. That FoF also links to Dialectric's evidence. I urge Arbs to carefully read Analysis of Dialectrics's evidence for context.
• FoF 9: This is deeply flawed. ArbCom should not present vague comments about how some unnamed editors perceive what other unnamed editors did.
• Remedy 2: The phrase "the effects of all three," should be removed. It's self-evident and it's covered by "broadly construed". And frankly, it sounds off.
• Remedy 4 (and sections): Part 4d, the 1RR restriction, is not supported by the evidence, and is already covered by the 1RR restriction in the original GMO CT. It will surprise no one, I guess, that I also have big problems with Parts 4a and 4c. But really, they go far beyond what the evidence supports, and I hope that the Arbs will see how inappropriate these both are. Please read through the analyses of evidence carefully. If we remove KoA from the GMO etc topic area, the relative quiet that has existed there (outside of Glyphosate) will collapse (and I personally don't want to have to increase my monitoring of the topic, to keep the POV-pushers out). More broadly, this reflects what I have been saying has been an error by ArbCom in how this case has been handled. The case brought to you by the community was a relatively focused administrator conduct case. ArbCom expanded it to an overall examination of the GMO etc topic area in the time period after the original GMO case, and yet defined the scope as only being about two editors. If you really wanted to examine all that, you should have been willing to look more broadly to see the biases that other editors would bring to the case pages or that would appear in evidence, but you set up a structure that was predetermined to split the difference between Leyo and KoA. Even though the community did not credibly tell you that there were problems in the CT area, aside from one case of admin misconduct, that could not be handled at AE. As I've said repeatedly, in KoA's case, this becomes "blaming the victim".
• Remedy 5: I don't know if this will surprise anyone or not, but I'm glad that you are apparently doing this. This is a matter of fairness. And I hope that the same sense of fairness will also be applied to KoA.

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and helpful thoughts, Tryptofish. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts as well. I might take a while to get to everything here, but briefly, on FoF 3, the most important part of that second incident is that KoA made approximately the same change seven times in a row, and none of the WP:EW exceptions applied; Lourdes happened to be the person to make the block but it was IMO a fairly obvious block. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In 2019. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The evidence against Leyo is older than that. Please be consistent with where you think the line of interest should be, or if you think (these) editors should not be treated consistently for potentially old evidence, please explain why. Izno (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Izno, I'll try to reply to that, and to what you said about me on the PD page, at FoF 3. First, my "In 2019" reply to Enterprisey, that was just a gut-reaction reply, not a part of my detailed comments above, and I didn't intend for it to undergo in-depth analysis. But I appreciate you holding me to a rigorous standard. For me, the critical evidence against Leyo is the block of KoA, which just happened recently, and the second-place most important is the threat to block JzG. The latter was in January 2019, while the Decline in insect populations events were in April 2019. So yes, January comes before April, if that's what you want. For me, I don't see the two parties equally, because only one of them was brought to ArbCom as a filing about administrator misconduct. If you are one of the Arbs who wanted to expand the case beyond what the community brought to you, then we disagree about that.

Under FoF 3, you disagree with my comments relating to KoA edit warring. Here's the way I see that. You are quite correct in your quote of what I said at the time (so much for KoA and me being a tag team). And here, I'm not disputing the edits that KoA made. There are diffs that document them. And yes, I've constructively criticized KoA from time to time; we don't always agree. But what I said above is that there really isn't evidence to show a pattern. In my opinion, ArbCom shouldn't be making findings and remedies based on conduct that hasn't been a pattern, unless the conduct was very bad by itself.

As for the putative edit warring by KoA in 2023, I have something I want to say to the entire Committee. It's something that has been mentioned by some Arbs on the PD page, and is described in detail by KoA in his section below. In the block review, the community discussion largely concluded that KoA had not edit warred and generally had not done anything that was block-worthy. If ArbCom issues a decision that concludes otherwise, ArbCom would be repudiating the community in the community's consensus at that discussion. That's not something that ArbCom should do lightly, and here, it's not something ArbCom should do at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Following directly from the last paragraph of what I said just above, I am alarmed by Enterprisey's comment in KoA's section, below, that Enterprisey believes that the XRV consensus was incorrect and, apparently, would like the Final Decision to reflect that. To the Committee as a whole: if you repudiate the community on this, you should expect blowback, and, more importantly, you will be in the wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, for two reasons. 1) The point of XRV, as correctly identified in the post-close collapse box, is review of administrator action, not blessing the actions of any others involved in an incident. 2) More importantly, the closing summary at XRV did not make clear why the community thought the block was wrong. Certainly when I read it there were not many people advancing the position that it was not edit warring. You were one of them. KoA was another. Both of your opinions on the point are certainly lower-case involved. Izno (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong on multiple levels, and seriously so. Of course the purpose of XRV is to review administrator actions. A big part of that, in this case, was the INVOLVED issue, as was accountability afterwards. But another part was whether or not the user who was blocked had done something block-worthy. And it was far from the case that it was just KoA and me who said it wasn't edit warring. As I go through it, I see BilledMammal (going into extensive detail), Bishonen (an administrator), and North8000 (along with KoA) who commented explicitly on whether or not it was edit warring, and concluded that it was not. That represents a substantial part of the discussion, and it was never rebutted. KoA's conduct was not, indeed, described in the closing statement, and that reflects the fact that the noticeboard is about admin conduct. But there's no getting around the fact that a substantial amount of the discussion was about the fact that edit warring, for which Leyo had blocked KoA, had not in fact happened.

And where did you get the idea that I said anywhere in that discussion that it wasn't edit warring? I personally didn't. My comments were entirely about INVOVLED. It's starting to look to me like you are trying too hard to lump me and KoA into some kind of pro-GMO POV-pushing camp, and you are being sloppy in looking at the evidence. You said under FoF 9 that "I think there is probably something here but this evidence is insufficient to me to support an FOF", in regard to Gtoffoletto's claim that KoA and I were tag teaming. You are, of course, right that there's not a justification for an FoF, but your insinuation that there's "something here" is dead wrong. If you think that what I said on KoA's talk page makes me sort-of tag teaming schemer, and if you think it makes me "lower-case involved", you are dead wrong, and I don't like it. I was the filing party in the GMO case, and I primarily wrote the content that the community – the community! – chose in WP:GMORFC. I have consistently worked for NPOV in this topic area, over many years, and I think you need to be more careful in what you want the decision here to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The second not in not many people advancing the position that it was not edit warring was a typo. Izno (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion of edit warring, here is my read of XRV:

• Doug Weller thinks the last edit isn't edit warring sufficient to cause a block (his unblock message says "it's unclear that it is edit warring");
• BilledMammal only explains why the reverts shouldn't be cause for a block; he doesn't discuss edit warring particularly;
• Dennis Brown recognizes this is going slow, I guess in general indicating he doesn't think this is cause for a block (whatever "this" is - YMMV on what he thought, I'd guess he's thinking an edit conflict of some sort [I'll dodge the use of the word "war" so that we don't get mixed up in the naming of things]);
• you seem to recognize in that discussion it was edit warring and agree with BilledMammal that it should be cause for a block (how this doesn't really look like there was the kind of edit warring that would have justified the block), but to be gracious I'll chalk that up as the more general "not edit warring sufficient to earn a block";
• SmartSE on KoA's talk page for the unblock request doesn't think it's edit warring sufficient to need a block;
• KoA says he didn't mean to edit war (ok, that's good I guess) with unresponsive editors (oh...), but then asserts that some of his changes weren't reverts in the XRV ("the first and second true reverts") when the definition of revert is pretty clear in WP:Edit war, which is why there are 4 reverts listed in proposed FOF 3 and the block notice of interest;
• North8000 says It's questionable whether KoA did even a minor violation of policies

Others who don't mention edit warring while that's a discussion point:

• SN says 'not a good look';
• S Marshall et al get into a discussion about logs;
• Black Kite echoes SN;
• In fact Bishonen does not appear to discuss the edit war at all, certainly not initially. (Later there is a comment about not-discussing after a response from Leyo); if you believe Bishonen should be in the "it wasn't an edit war" court, please provide the quotation you think supports it;

Discussion mostly drifts away after Leyo responds.

It is exceptionally clear to me that the board came to no conclusion that it was or was not edit warring, only that a block was not warranted for at least two reasons: 1) the edit conflict was insufficient to warrant a block (I think I can count to 5 up there who say that more or less directly) and that 2) Leyo was involved (whole discussion). Between the two, that is pretty close to what the summary says. Given that non-conclusion, I think it is absolutely fair and appropriate for ArbCom to make a decision (FoF) on the matter. Izno (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BilledMammal: "Leyo didn't consider the talk page discussion. Before making the reverts in diffs 3 and 4 KoA went to the talk page... Counting the first "revert", the reverts took place across ten days. Four reverts over such an extended period, absent aggravating circumstances, should not result in an immediate block as such circumstances do not meet the requirements of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. Even if Leyo had been correct about this being edit warring a talk page warning should have been the first step, with a block only occurring if KoA did not desist." Where he says "Even if", that's expressing dubiousness. The argument he is making is that KoA engaged in talk over a period of ten days, and periodic reverts during that extended period do not constitute edit warring.

Bishonen: "A bad block considering KoA's editing pattern and use of the talkpage". The "editing pattern" is clearly about whether there was edit warring.

Me: "I agree with what others say above, about how this doesn't really look like there was the kind of edit warring that would have justified the block." And then my comment focuses on INVOLVED. If you want to wiki-lawyer that I was saying that it was edit warring, but just not the kind that would justify a block, and then conclude that it justifies an ArbCom finding, that's a pretty tortured reading of what I plainly said.

Yes, the discussion subsequently becomes focused on INVOLVED and how Leyo does or does not reply. I think some members of ArbCom are just looking at a series of diffs, and saying that sure looks like a lot of reverts, without looking at what the community is telling you about the overall conduct during that time, including the talk page engagement and the way that those discussions went. As I keep saying, "blaming the victim".

And I'll also say this. I'm fine with ending up with the "KoA warned" remedy that seems to be emerging. I think ArbCom is getting it right, about the big picture. But there is a specific issue about the alleged edit warring in 2023. I see on the PD page that some Arbs get it, that the community looked closely at it, and Leyo was all alone in thinking that it was edit warring. I'm saying: don't be sloppy in the FoF and make it sound like the edit warring happened in 2023. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I just looked again at the PD page, and I see that you opposed FoF 3, and proposed FoF 3.1, which solves the problem I've been raising. I'm left wondering why you had to argue with me over whether or not the XRV would support a claim of edit warring, since you, yourself, removed edit warring from the FoF. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I did so in the spirit of collaboration with another arb who was not happy with the previous motion. Compromise is hard. :-) Izno (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for compromising. Getting to the right result, even if one, personally, disagrees with it, is still getting to the right result. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

And as for your second paragraph, no, I am not trying to lump anyone with anyone. I clearly opposed the finding of fact that might have found you to be a person of interest. My may is clearly also possibly may not, rather than an actual "insinuation" of misbehavior. If I thought you were seriously implicated in the evidence presented, I would have said I thought that you were by supporting the FoF (which itself was a soft appearance of rather than is tag teaming). I am otherwise glad to know your previous efforts have found community backing. Izno (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You said, and still say, "I think there is probably something here". Thank you for getting the votes right. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I also want to make a comment agreeing with the comments by Just Step Sideways/Beebs, below. He and I haven't always agreed, but here, everything in his comments is spot-on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

CaptainEek asked on Remedy 2 (the changed CT) for community comments, so here is what I think. Basically, it's what I said above about Remedy 2. I don't have a problem with ArbCom revising the wording of existing CTs based upon what ArbCom has observed; that's not a problem in terms of going beyond the community request (and strictly procedurally, industrial agriculture would have come up even in a narrow admin conduct case). The proposed changes basically come down to two things: adding "industrial agriculture", and adding "the effects of all three". As for the first, I see it as a beneficial matter of fine-tuning, and I said on one of the case pages that it would be a good idea. As for the second, as I said above, blech. The remedy should be revised to take that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm following the discussion below between KoA and Barkeep49 with a lot of interest. And, as someone who has long given advice to KoA, I think that Barkeep49's analysis is a fair one. Now I'll go back to being KoA's supposed tag team partner. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeing what CaptainEek just said about Gtoffoletto ([2]), I think it's important to make clear here in talk that Gtoffoletto should not be made to think that ArbCom is declaring that Gtoffoletto did nothing wrong on case pages or on article talk pages. Rather (and I agree with this), ArbCom decided that it was an unfair process to make Gtoffoletto a party at such a late stage without explaining why or giving an adequate opportunity to rebut. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I can infer from the PD page that the Arbs are discussing privately how they might revise the FoFs, and I think that's fine, especially in regard to walking back from the earlier decision to expand the case from the admin conduct request made by the community. As for that original admin conduct request, I note that multiple Arbs are being careful to have everything thought through before making a decision on the desysop, which is also fine. But I want to point some things out, in regard to comments I've seen on the PD page. Some Arbs have discussed the fact that Leyo eventually did admit that the KoA block was a bad block. But what I see in the evidence is that Leyo had to be dragged to get to the point of saying that, and only said it after severe consequences appeared to be likely. If one follows the XRV discussion, this was very, very far from oh, now I see that I made a mistake, I'm so sorry, and I won't do it again, and it included obvious misrepresentations. Taken with the earlier interaction with JzG, and the striking of the comment about Smartse without striking comments about KoA or JzG, there's a pattern that should be readily visible, not just a testy one-off. Perhaps ArbCom has seen desysop cases that were even worse, but that should hardly be an excuse.

Separately, an editor has been mentioning me by name on this talk page to quote something I said to KoA in 2018. I'm quoted correctly, but I said that in 2018, when there were a bunch of obnoxious editors still editing about GMOs, who would all be topic banned at AE a few months later. The temperature has been much cooler in recent years, with perhaps a slight tick upward recently (due to that same editor who is quoting me), which is a matter for AE and not ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick comment about DMacks' statement: almost nothing in this case has actually been about GMOs. The topics where conflict occurred were agricultural chemicals mostly, and in one case (the Dominion film) large-scale agriculture. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI, in case anyone has questions for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from KoA

I'm just going to focus on my edits at this point, but I do want to echo Barkeep's comment We wouldn't be here if not for this action by Leyo. I haven't been the subject of an AE, so it does feel extremely premature to discuss my behavior all the way at ArbCom when I was being put in a position of having to practically beg for help with Leyo. That said, I'm definitely willing to chat about what actually was going on in my edits any clarify what was happening in very complex editing environments.

I'll address specific proposed decisions shortly or else early tomorrow, but a first glance,@Barkeep49, you mention not loving the wording of FoF 5. One key thing I'd like to make sure isn't omitted is that the XRV didn't just say Leyo was INVOLVED, but instead (my bold): Consensus is clear that this block is not endorsed, both considering only KoA's actions and also for being a WP:INVOLVED block. That's a very key fact I feel has been left out because the community already did review my edits as part of that process. I also walked through those Dominion edits in my analysis of Leyo's evidence (the numbered list just under the "Leyo's depiction of the Dominion article" bullet). KoA (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

FoF 3

• FoF 3. The first bullet directly contradicts the XRV close and discussion also linked in FoF 5. The block was not endorsed even looking at just my actions. There was extensive discussion about just my edits at the XRV. The FoF also leaves out that I was on the talk page working with editors while juggling blanket reverts, unresponsive editors, etc. between those edits that ranged between July 23 and Aug 3. My analysis of Leyo's evidence (first bullet) walks through that.

The second bullet related to the Lourdes block is addressed in this section of my evidence and this analysis From my evidence, this is what Doc James said in their unblock I am not seeing a significant concern with these edits. Without a clear breach of 3RR this is a bit of a stretch for a one week long block.[3] Again, I'll just reiterate what I said in evidence that there were many edits going on with editors blanket reverting back in unverified content, etc. against WP:ONUS policy in my evidence despite multiple requests by me on the talk page to address that which often went unaddressed. I had stopped editing the page prior to the block except that I was asked to redo my edits on the talk page one last time. That was a messy content situation I can walk through more if need be, but it was also from 2019 and pretty isolated. KoA (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the last line KoA has shown limited ability to compromise, even in otherwise civil and productive discussions. The only piece of evidence linked is not to a civil discussion at all as the well was quickly poisoned with comments like but you want to represent the PFAS manufacturer's POV that (e.g.,) PFAS are perfectly harmless chemicals that every baby should cheerfully drink daily. Whether it's EWG, Dominion, or back to the Insect decline article, the evidence ironically points to cases where I had aspersions cast against me that often misrepresented the content discussion or what I was even supporting. This part of the FoF ignores the 10+ years of collaborative editing I have been doing and picks isolated cases where I was having to juggle behavior issues while still being relatively civil despite that. Since we're restricted to what's in evidence already, this talk section is what a technical discussion looks like where behavior issues aren't inflaming discussion. KoA (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Guerillo and Enterprisey, since we had no workshop, I want to ask you both as drafters. The current version FoF 3.0 is omitting major details that should be included if we're accurately summarizing the incidents, namely the XRV indicating community consensus about my editing, and Doc James unblock reason. Normally we'd deal with issues like that in Workshop.

For the first bullet as I mention above, the community consensus on my editing at XRV I mentioned above should be included related to this FoF. It wasn't something unresolved by the community that would normally escalate to ArbCom. The unblocking admin Doug Weller made it clear in the opening they likely would have done the same as me among others saying it was a bad block due to my editing pattern and use of the talkpage. The key thing is the XRV frequently references that I was the one at the talk page trying to build consensus and work through iterative edits as part of WP:BRD. It even has my collapsed section where I walked through my actual edits and talk page discussion. That's running very contrary to the description in this FoF. If arbs disagree with the community assessment, it should be addressed directly in the FoF.

The second bullet omits that while I was blocked, I was also unblocked by Doc James with them stating I am not seeing a significant concern with these edits. and they go on to show that my edits were reasonable at my unblock. That's not to say it was the ideal situation at all, but if the reason for a block is going to be mentioned, so should the reason for my unblock. This also omits that I was the one at the talk page following WP:ONUS policy trying to get editors who added unverified content, etc. to address that on the talk page instead of constantly reinserting it. It was a complex situation rather than cut and dry, but I already accepted my take in that back then. This and that after this incident is when I was much more careful about reverts is already summarized in my evidence section here. When it comes to the actual evidence on edit-warring, there hasn't been anything on-going on my part post-2019, which is what concerns me about the current depiction. KoA (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that XRV consensus was strong or well-attended, but more importantly I (evidently) don't think it was correct, as you note. I suppose we could put something in like that. I will try to come back and respond more. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I was actually impressed by the turnout and pretty strong consensus at XRV, but my main focus here right now is that it was a major event examining my edits that should be mentioned in a proposed FoF related to my Dominion edits. That way the full course of events is documented. This is my perspective now, but it also shows the community did not have an unresolved issue with my behavior alone that needed to be forwarded to ArbCom in the first place. The community mandate from XRV and the AEs for ArbCom was Leyo's conduct and the interactions with me, so that's why I want to be careful about including assessments of my edits. KoA (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

SilkTork I saw your comment about my 2019 block and wanted to direct you to my comment above this dealing with the second bullet. If a modified FoF is going to mention that block, it should also document the rest of the block actions in that I was unblocked by Doc James with them saying they didn't see a significant concern with the edits [4] That's similar to including the XRV discussion related to the Dominion block just from a documentation standpoint.

One of the things Doc James suggested was that even though editors were blanket restoring unverified content, etc. was to craft an RfC dealing with the backlog of unaddressed content after the unblock. I drafted that with a lot of heavy lifting here and here with others at the article to whittle things down (finally getting some long-term issues addressed even before the RfC), and the RfC was here. If you look at the RfC link, you'll see some of the vitriol and stonewalling I was dealing with about even having an RfC while trying to be the one to engage in consensus-building. Ultimately the final RfC edits were accepted[5][6]

I mention the unblock because I was not blocked for a week (the block itself was questioned when reviewed), and it leads into what I was doing in the topic post-block/unblock to resolve the edit warring issues I was working on there before the block. I've owned up to what worked and didn't in that dispute long ago, but it's a complex dispute I want to be careful of context about here, especially if it's discussed in relation to my post-2019 editing trends. KoA (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

KoA, I was thinking out loud, and as I was doing so I noticed that the two other difs did not quite support, for me, a battleground behaviour finding. There are aspects of your behaviour that are troubling - I'd prefer, for example, that you attempted to resolve problems with others through discussion with them rather than raising complaints elsewhere. Raising a complaint tends to increase the tension rather than reduce it. However, though I have concerns about your behaviour, I'm not sure those concerns are quite at the level of supporting a finding for battleground behaviour. I think I'd need more than what I've seen so far. That's not to say I won't support the finding, but I'm not there at the moment. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

SilkTork, you touch on a really pertinent issue about raising complaints, so I want to focus on that. It's something we've been wrestling with in the community since the 2015 GMO case, especially at AEs that I mentioned in this part of my evidence. Any of us that have been in the topic since before the 2015 case and later can say it's not easy to navigate, hence this comment being longer than I'd prefer, but needed.

Back at the 2015 case I proposed a more specific principle that was accepted on aspersions than the one here because accusing someone of editing to support ag. companies, etc. is something especially toxic (and not uncommon) in this subject. It's basically a dog whistle used as a bludgeon in content discussions mentioned in the principle, but also signals that the editor will be inflaming the topic with battleground behavior. Often times those editors think that attitude is perfectly acceptable and react poorly when informed it is not. The principle was accepted in part because a portion of the community often did not realize how serious the problem was or even considered it overblown prior to the case.

In that evidence section I gave, often times we don't get action on aspersions until the topic has been significantly disrupted already. If targets of that behavior bring it to AE early on as was intended in discussion about the original 2015 principle, there are sometimes admins who accuse them of weaponizing the DS as not being serious enough. When we wait until it's plain as day a problem, I've gotten guidance from admins that say it should have been brought to AE much earlier. I hope the catch-22 becomes apparent here when one is the target of this behavior and how easily one can be labeled as battlegrounding for having to deal with this battleground attitude from someone. I know you mean well in your suggestion, but it often leads to more disruption in the topic when followed.

The overall guidance I've gotten from admins that understand the problem though is to remind the editor of the DS/CT along with the specific aspersions principle. Often times I remind editors on their talk page (as I did Leyo) that those types of aspersions are particularly disruptive and simply that it needs to stop. If it continues, isn't retracted, or issues otherwise continue, bring it to AE. The guidance (and also my intent) in raising the complaint is to get the behavior to stop before it escalates further, hopefully with just a warning if needed while letting admins handle it rather than the target.

That's the ideal at least. It's a systemic issue in the topic that really isn't getting addressed much in this case, and is likely to remain an unresolved issue that will continue to plague AE. It's been an issue through the years, but is what started off my interaction with Leyo and also the recent parts about Gtoffoletto that are in evidence related to their block for harassing me. The Gtoffoletto example is a good one where I never have raised a complaint at AE yet after their block despite Doug Weller's caution of an impending topic ban if issues continue.[7] I am usually measured when I raise complaints, so I wanted to be clear in how I usually do walk through them.

If arbs really want to cut down core disruption in this topic, addressing the continuing aspersions issue and how we need to approach it when it happens is what would do it. Otherwise, I feel like we're just going to be back here yet again as it continues. This is a tough question I know, but let me ask you, what could we do at this case that makes it easier to prevent or stop ag. related aspersions and the battleground behavior it injects into the topic while reducing the heat that is generated when someone has to raise a complaint about it? That would have made a difference at the Insect decline article, EWG, and to a smaller extent at Dominion (which was more general poisoning the well).

Ideally it would have guard rails both against false accusations the target is just out to get the person who said it and actual cases of battleground WP:GAMING where someone is merely out to get an opponent sanctioned. It should also protect against gaming of the aspersions principle like mentioned in the AEs I provided where editors do things like say they didn't specifically name an editor by name (e.g., Leyo's "certain editors..." comment)[8], so they say it's ok.[9][10] If there is a better solution that could be used as a follow-up principle (e.g., How to respond to aspersions) than the admin guidance I mentioned above, I'm convinced that would would help break the back of a major source of disruption in the topic. Those of us who don't resort to that and are targeted by the behavior would have a huge weight lifted if that worked, so I'd be glad to help with discussing such a principle knowing the years of topic history if any arbs do want to pursue that idea.

Again, apologies for the length, but I'm seriously trying to find ways we can cut down the underlying disruption in this topic so us content experts can work more on content instead of the trouble that comes when we're stuck dealing with battleground behavior. KoA (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for delay responding. I've been distracted by other issues. I agree it can be dispiriting and demotivating and sometimes downright annoying when people continually imply that you are doing something that you are not. However, to be fair, there was not much evidence of Leya persistently casting aspersions in your direction. Indeed, you say yourself in the evidence: "first run-in in years". As with children occasionally engaging in low level naughtiness, it can be best to ignore the occasional swear word or intemperate comment, and instead focus on and encourage the positive behaviour. I don't think either you or Leya are bad people. You know, treat people with respect and kindness, and they usually return it with respect and kindness. Snarl at people, and they are likely to snarl back. We all get angry at times when editing Wikipedia, and want to post a snarky comment - what I do is write it all out, then gradually edit it down, removing the inflammatory bits until what I have is more neutral or even supportive, and then I post. I also totally accept that other people are human, and will make mistakes, will get tired, will get grumpy, and will now and again post something aggravating. I think there are few active Wikipedians who have not posted angry at some point. I would say that a revert is usually an angry or thoughtless response, so I include reverts in "posted angry". I'd like to see as many of us as possible move away from edit rage, no matter how right we think we are. If we go edit on another article for a few hours or days instead of flaring up, I think the whole community would progress more smoothly and positively. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

SilkTork, what you describe is already what I follow since I'm very cautious about anything snarly and doing things by the book instead, though I was asking more about the larger agricultural aspersions issue in the comment above, not on just Leyo.

To clarify on Leyo's aspersions though, I don't treat them as severe as some past AE cases I mentioned in my evidence. Leyo's falls more under to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes[11] than the more direct pesticide company insinuations going on elsewhere (though please read JoJo Anthrax's section on that escalating issue).

When I was met with comments from Leyo though, especially when I thought they might disengage earlier on, I usually stepped back and either initially just calmly advised them about the CTOP expectations or ignored the comments and tried to steer things to content. That is the problem when one person tries to remain civil and sticking to our previous ArbCom guidance (aspersions and 1RR expectations) while the other is engaging in continued pursuit over years. Remember for instance that the "first run-in in years" comment by me you mention was instead describing when Leyo came to a page I was at they had never been at before to make the certain editors sniping comment. They held the grudge, I did not. I was willing to give them a clean slate multiple times before they started back into it. I'll be honest though that at this point it feels moot how much I put into trying to avoid or ignore Leyo's sniping over the years. Your advice works well for good faith but tense disputes. Hounding though just seems to keep escalating no matter what is personally done instead to avoid it after this experience. I'm hoping the I-ban stops that while we're both editing in the topic area at least. KoA (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

FoF 5

• FoF 5. This mentions the XRV, which I asked Barkeep49 about above in an earlier comment and about FoF 3. When it comes to me and edit warring, the community found the block was not warranted even setting aside Leyo being involved, and many at XRV did not find my actions unreasonable, such as the XRV filer (and unblocker) Doug Weller. I highly suggest reading Doug's third paragraph in the opening of the XRV. KoA (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

FoF 8

• FoF 8. This contradicts the RfC. The RfC close reiterated what I was highlighting as the problem I note KoA's specific and clear opposition to discussing the EWG's research. This is fair and I don't see why it's neeedful to describe what the EWG does as "research" at all. That ascribes to the EWG an aura of scientific authority. . . The whole issue I had related to MEDRS there was determining what was WP:DUE research related to human health from the group. I had no issue including a more general section, but I was opposed to locking in the proposed content to highlight their research. I had no issue with the part of the close that said But, to say that the EWG advocates restrictions on PFAS is not a medical claim. because I agreed with the distinction. The medical claims came in related to the research side of things, not simply saying they advocate on PFAS. KoA (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  On the aspersions side of things, Leyo's evidence doesn't support that claim. The second link was about aspersions not in the pro-pesticide, etc. sense, but making accusations while omitting evidence (in this case, that I was asked to make the last series of edits because they had been caught up in other's blanket reverts/restorations).

  As for Dialectric's evidence, the 2016 comment was focusing on WP:SCIRS, but I mentioned MEDRS mostly because it has additional guidance on issues with primary scientific sources regardless of discipline. As someone in the veterinary medicine background, there was a time I used to apply MEDRS to that field before MEDRS was tweaked more for human health, but that's been a long time ago now. The 2021 DDT edit dealt with human disease transmission and if you go to the actual talk section, I was not the only one saying MEDRS was needed there in place of an old 2007 opinion piece. KoA (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  KoA there are two substantive pieces that have stood out to me throughout this process in the evidence against you. The first is the edit warring, for which there is a single example and it's old. The second is the the EWG RfC, which again is a single example but is only a month old. Beyond the substance/merits of that RfC (which you've discussed above), what are you taking away from it in terms of our dispute resolution process? Put another way, the next time there's a similar RfC to this what do you anticipate doing the same (if anything) and what do you anticipate doing differently (if anything)? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49, I want to be thorough, but concise as possible here. The short of it is that I'm often critically examining not only my own actual edits/comment, but their appearance too looking ahead.

For the EWG RfC outside of substance/content, the key thing there I take away looking back is aspersions directed at me like but you want to represent the PFAS manufacturer's POV that (e.g.,) PFAS are perfectly harmless chemicals that every baby should cheerfully drink daily did get under my skin. That behavior had been making a major resurgence in the topic, and I shouldn't have engaged with those battleground comments on article talk to the degree I did. That's the catch-22 of editors misrepresenting others though (and why I proposed the updated aspersions principle to arbs in 2015) where I'd prefer to deal with it on usertalk, but because it happened in article talk, targets of this are left trying to deal with the effects in content discussion too.

I'd love to say my change on aspersions would be not even worrying about it anymore because everyone acknowledges how disruptive it is. Instead, this is where I can only do so much and need to ask for help from you and other Arbs on what to do. Aspersions related to chemicals and using that battleground tactic in content discussions are a systemic underlying issue in this subject, and I outlined the problems with that principle not always being taken seriously in my evidence. What more can we do here to make it clear it's a disruptive issue indicating battleground mentality in the topic? I don't want to have to run immediately to AE whenever someone does it, but I don't want to see it inflaming the topic either. When we do try to ask for help with it at AE in this subject, it's often initially considered frivolous or weaponizing the DS that ends up creating a chilling effect despite what we covered at the 2015 case.

When it comes to MEDRS/SCIRS, I've been applying those consistently with our policies and guidelines (no remotely recent evidence in FoF 8 actually supports this), so I'd still be doing that going forward. Whenever I cite those, the key thing is that I'm leading editors to guidance on why primary sources are problematic in scientific subjects and that we need to raise the source quality, especially in controversial areas. That gets to the core of WP:PSTS policy that primary sources are complicated where use varies by subject. Even if we're not in a medical subject, MEDRS/SCIRS still gives good guidance for those not familiar with scientific publishing. There's more on my userpage for my actual views on sourcing issues. Given examples like DDT mentioned above for mosquito/malaria control that squarely falls into medical entomology, it's a problem I can't do much about. That's a wider problem in the community that sometimes people try to claim medical topics aren't medical topics or just trouble discussing more nuanced edge topics like the EWG RfC. In the case of the RfC, it was helpful to make sure it had a close because it reiterated I was using MEDRS correctly in my actual comments. If situations like that come up again, I'd just be checking in at WT:MEDRS or having an RfC if needed. KoA (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

FoF 3.1

• FoF 3.1. Barkeep49, I'm hoping to get clarification from you on your FoF:

1. Could you highlight in the FoF what evidence in diffs is being referred to as battleground behavior on my part, especially for Dominion and the EWG RfC? I mainly want to make sure that if there is an issue with my current editing that rises to FoF level, that it's accurate and documented. The current lack of specific evidence concerns me because if you look at the Dominion talk page, I was responding to initial battleground behavior by this IP edit summary and this new editor's bad faith accusations at talk simply with Please keep in mind talk pages are no place for personal attacks. basically asking them to WP:FOC. That's it, and it's the very guidance we have at WP:BATTLEGROUND for dealing with that. These two sections are the two talk sections I was involved in if you want to point out comments to assess. This is one where I'd really ask to specify my actual comments though that are believed to be a problem since the depiction looks very different when you go through the actual talk page discussion when we were working on content.
2. I'd ask the same for the EWG RfC. We had our discussion above where I made it clear I was dealing with harassing comments there accusing me of but you want to represent the PFAS manufacturer's POV that (e.g.,) PFAS are perfectly harmless chemicals that every baby should cheerfully drink daily. Given the context of that, is my initial reply[12] really battleground? At most, explaining WP:ASPERSIONS in that discussion beyond the initial reply drifted outside WP:FOC where I could have gone to WhatamIdoing's talk page earlier, but battleground would not be an accurate depiction here. That's the challenge with aspersions we discussed above though because they poison the well on content discussion where the person being harassed has to deal with non-content issues on article talk too to prevent further misrepresentation. It's also why we had the language in the 2015 principle similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes

What I'm taking away from all the discussion so far about me really centers on how I respond to harassment or battleground behavior in all of the presented incidents. I say that not in a WP:NOTTHEM context, but focusing on my actions given the context of the situation. If I were writing an FoF here on my behavior alone, I would say something to the effect that it's not uncommon for me on the receiving end of harassing comments, mischaracterizations, or aspersions, but I generally respond civilly reminding editors of talk page expectations trying to re-focus discussion on content per WP:BATTLE and WP:FOC. On rarer occasions when I've been dealing with persistent sniping or severe mischaracterization, such as cases here like EWG, I can occasionally deviate from WP:FOC to a degree when trying to handle with personal attacks.

The real question there should be if on those occasions, am I deviating outside the norm of what would be expected when seeing a editor frustrated from badgering that's trying to remain civil but also deal with personal attacks? Does that rise to a level of FoF? My main concern here is that battleground behavior directed at me (and my having to respond to it) is being seen as battleground by association rather than due to my actions themselves. Showing specific edits would help with differentiating that. KoA (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: I was responding to initial battleground behavior by this IP edit summary I'd just note tfat responding to an editor's battleground behavior with one's own battleground behavior just means there's now two editors doing battle. Zooming out, the unifying theme I'd draw between the RfC conduct noted and the edit warring conduct noted, which have been grouped together as battleground behavior, is a desire to keep pushing through what you want regardless of what the feedback is from others. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, first I want to say I'm glad you're working to help out here, and this is not meant to come across as taking it out on you as it's dealing with a larger process issue. However, your statement I'd just note that responding to an editor's battleground behavior with one's own battleground behavior just means there's now two editors doing battle. is why I asked for direct evidence of battleground comments because I did nothing like that at Dominion. I take misrepresentations of my edits very seriously, especially here in FoF, but I also own up to legitimate issues. I'm saying if there is a legitimate issue, give me something to work with please in terms of substantiated evidence.

Again, asking someone to briefly not use the talk page for attacks, especially a new editor, and redirecting them to content focus[13] is not battleground behavior, it's following WP:BATTLEGROUND policy. I'll just ask to please read through the July comments before the block (or more) in this talk section. Where does my collaborating and working through content/sources with editors like Psychologist Guy come across as battleground? We were iteratively working through issues we found there pretty mundanely prior to the block and even after the block I was working on questions that came up. In short, I'm asking if there isn't evidence provided of battleground behavior in an area, the claim should be struck. I have no problem owning up to a FoF related to EWG that instead says something to the effect that after WhatamIdoing cast aspersions towards KoA, KoA responding excessively to the attack on article talk rather than user talk.[14] It wasn't battleground on my part, but a complicated WP:FOC issue I got stuck with.

As for not taking feedback, can we have specific evidence of that at EWG or Dominion both for myself and other Arbs? There should be none of that at Dominion, especially since the feedback there ended up in me gathering more sources. At EWG, the main feedback I got, which was incorrect based on the close, was that my opposition to discussing EWG's research was not valid in terms of WP:MEDRS. I agreed with others that it was not in the realm of MEDRS simply to say the group engaged in specific advocacy without dealing with the research, but others were not making that distinction between research and advocacy. SilkTork has an accurate comment of that situation currently in the FoF. This idea that I don't take feedback (or don't edit collaboratively in another FoF) based on two recent incidents even if substantiated wouldn't normally rise to the level of FoF and completely ignores the other 99%+ of edits not included in this case where I do quite the opposite. All I'm asking for is specific evidence to move forward. KoA (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

KoA, I'm about to respond substantively to this, but I really want to highlight something I wrote before a desire to keep pushing through what you want regardless of what the feedback is from others. (emphasis added). I recognize the power imbalance here between us and how that wouldn't apply in a normal editing situation. I also recognize that this situation means you fairly want to defend yourself and that need that wouldn't necessarily apply in a normal situation. Necessarily. From my perspective, you're not in a law of holes situation but I do worry you've got a shovel and have stuck it into the ground.

Re:IP comment, my comment was a general observation but I absolutely didn't make that clear and I could have done better or omitted the comment altogether. I think you're making a defense against the aspersions allegations that I don't find compelling and are not in the FoF alternative I've supported. So I'm not going to address it further.

As for taking feedback - having multiple editors revert an edit you've made is feedback. Claiming talk page support to then make further edits is a feedback question for me as well. Finally for the RfC, a question I'd had about your conduct - and based on an N of 1 I don't think it's answerable - is did you draw a line in the sand at that RfC because you felt it deserved a line (and feel supported in that line by the close - which I admit if I'd been the one to close wouldn't have been quite as sympathetic/supportive of you) and which of it was because you draw lines in general. This is why I asked about the future. I was hoping to get a more definitive "that was a special situation" than I got. But there was enough nuance to reassure me. But ultimately, you were 1 person and everyone else, whether they were previously involved in the discussion or not felt differently. And when an RfC turns out like that I can't help but wonder if there wouldn't have been a way to come to a consensus short of an RfC but it had to go to that level of dispute resolution because of the mindset of the one person. Which in this case was you.

But that's also why you've been warned about edit warring and merely reminded about the other pieces. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for your response Barkeep, probably won't be on again until morning here.

One thing I want to clarify in that time though is that in the leadup to this overall dispute before ArbCom, I've constantly had to deal with misrepresentations of my edits. For the most part I try to ignore them and focus on content. Now that we are here though I wanted the opportunity to finally address specific edits if they were going to come up, but instead no specific examples are given in the FoF. That's despite the very decorum principle or the policy expectation that we deal in specific edits when accused of something, even at AE. That's to the benefit of those accused that do need to correct behavior too, so that's why I'm asking for a pointed FoF that at least links to specifics. I hope that frustration should be understandable for someone that wouldn't be here if Leyo had just stopped pursuing me while I was already actively trying to avoid them, especially when it comes to volunteer time being taken away from editing. KoA (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@KoA what response are you waiting for? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like I misinterpreted your comment I'm about to respond substantively to this as you had more you wanted to say later. Sorry about that confusion. I'll get back to this in a bit. KoA (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, responding to the substance of your comment, I'll start with your question about the RfC re: line in the sand. I appreciate the n=1 caveat because it never really looked like I needed to go include expansive examples in the evidence phase of what my overall content discussion habits are. There was a side discussion that highlights my norm though that came up in my analysis of Dialectric's evidence though where I said That talk section is an example of how compromise works when battleground issues aren't an issue and runs counter to this idea I don't compromise.

There was a lot going on in that talk section, so I wouldn't ask you to delve into the nuts and bolts of it, but just glance at demeanor, especially at the end of this subsection. When it was brought to my attention I missed something by someone I was disagreeing with (Tryptofish in this case), I was very open about it Ah yes, I thought I was missing some article. I was focusing on the academic papers too much. That Forbes piece can be something we can dig into more. If you look at the following comments by editors I was disagreeing with like Tryptofish and SJ, it should be clear that line in the sand depiction isn't accurate even as a tougher subject to navigate.

So when you move over to the EWG RfC, this was a tenser situation, but I outlined that we had discussion prior to the RfC. I was not drawing a line in the sand, but instead dealing with the nuances of MEDRS and the distinction drawn in the later close between research/advocacy. That includes, To say that they (EWG) generally focus on PFAS is better and moves away from MEDRS to a degree and Still, MEDRS or not, it's probably best to focus on a source that gives an overview of what they do in this field rather than one that is just reporting on the EWG report. I was instead the one proposing solutions saying let's focus on sources that give an overview on that EWG's advocacy without having to even get into sourcing WP:MEDPOP cautions about rather than edits that would have major complications when following WP:PAG. That is why I say going forward I wouldn't change that I collaborate on talk pages to work through issues, sort out what is supported by WP:PAG, and try to get solutions that cut through our outright bypass complications like when editors insist on something problematic like the MEDRS issue. The recurring thing is that I don't draw lines in the sand. I instead identify those that exist because of WP:PAG while making a point about guiding others who do want to include something about how we can get around that line instead of crossing something problematic. I want to be extremely clear on my editing philosophy here.

I'm getting short on time before I have to be out for the weekend, but I'll try to comment on having multiple editors revert an edit you've made is feedback shortly. KoA (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

For Dominion, the thing to be clear about though is what kind of feedback actually came my way and when, already presented in evidence with respect to reverts:

1. July 26. The first IP revert just accused me a bad faith for making changes blanket reverting everything from my first edits, including ref templates, etc.[15] There was nothing I could use for a clear issue to address that followed in terms of WP:EDITCON policy, and given the blanket revert, I thought it was wiser to ask the IP in my edit summary to come to the talk page to discuss a specific piece of content/issue that I would have then self-reverted. Psychologist Guy later that day modified the lead text, but without explanation.[16]. The IP never did respond unless they later logged in. The relatively new account Jesse Flynn (pseudonym)] did come to the talk page only repeating the IP were without pointing out a specific issue, so I responded stating why I made the changes, namely that the addition I made the lead was sourced and didn't appear to have any issues expecting that to kick off discussion.

2. After July 26 I was not changing the lead text as it was clear editors were disputing it, but not articulating why. When we got talk page discussion going on it, we were discussing on the talk page how to approach it (and a lot of changes/issues we did agree on). On the lead text though, I clarified on talk the language I used came straight for the source, and to what degree sources described it that way was the only issue that came up. It was based on that discussion that it appeared uncontroversial that we just needed show what sources said on that, so I added a new source with updated language on July 30.[17] Based on talk discussion so far and lack of any other issues brought up I thought we had it taken care of in the overall edits we were working on at the article. I planned that if someone reverted the new content mentioning specific issues, we were at the point we'd need to propose specific content on the talk page only.

3. My July 30 edit was undone by Stonerock10[18], a brand new WP:SPA account. All they did in the edit summary was personally disagree with sources depictions calling it ridiculous. Nothing to really use for feedback there in terms of content discussion, so I asked on the talk page about the lead content and what was at issue. Then the block by Leyo happened, and the next response on the talk page on this was not until Aug. 8 by anyone. Had someone spoken up on what the specific concern was so we could address an actual WP:PAG issue, I would have been just been using the talk page and likely working on a solution like an RfC if needed. It wasn't until August 3 that I restored the edit due to lack of feedback or any clear issue.[19] My actions on this last edit were a focus at XRV and by the unblocking admin that were found to be reasonable given this issue with lack of response and feedback.

So for the question of my taking feedback, I worked with what little I got in a reasonable (not perfect) manner. With hindsight bias, I would have been better off just launching an RfC after Stonerock's revert, but my last action due to lack of feedback wasn't unreasonable either as it looked like we had what concerns had been articulated taken care of. That's really what it comes down to for the Dominion edits. Considering what I was working with, were my edits outside the realm of reasonable editor conduct? That's what an accurate FoF based in evidence should address, and battleground was not it at Dominion at all mischaracterizes my actual editing. It sounds like arbs are talking about tweaking the FoF's evidence so I'm just going to leave it at that for this one probably even after I get back after the weekend. KoA (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

FoF 2

• FoF 2 Izno and SilkTork, it looks like there's some misunderstanding about my evidence in FoF 2 with comments like And the fact it is from only 2016-2018 doesn't do any favors to the word "pattern". because the FoF only links to the first section of battleground issues, not the rest. Based on Enterprisey's comment there, it looks like they intended that FoF to say this was the start of the battleground behavior (with later FoF's dealing with later battleground). My evidence was showing the battleground behavior through 2023 in rough blocks of time, not that it only occurred in 2016-2018.
  • After that time period, we had the threats to JzG in 2019 where admins at ANI like Black Kite (and JzG) discussed Leyo's battleground attitude towards JzG[20] using disparaging rhetoric like claiming censorship.[21]
  • Then you have the return to similar rhetoric in June 2023 against me with the comments about certain users trying to bias references in the next section.
  • In August 2023 for this section, (the block and XRV) one could make the case that Leyo's responses at XRV touched on in FoF 5 arb discussion indicate a battleground pursuit attitude that gave them a blind spot here. That and the essential WP:HOUNDING discussed at XRV SilkTork describes at FoF5 is also battleground.
  • Then you get to Sept. 2023 with my last section that deals with battleground sniping not just at me, but again at JzG and now SmartSE. That was intended to show the battleground behavior pattern was continuing and pretty bluntly treating editors as opponents with the WP:TPNO comments.

Short version of all this, the question of a continuing pattern of battleground behavior of discrediting editors rather than content discussion comes from the wider view of what's happening throughout my evidence or over FoF 2,5, and 7 It might be helpful to tweak this FoF to clarify whether it's meant to address all battleground behavior over all the time periods or clarify that it's the start that leads into the other Leyo FoFs. KoA (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

KoA, I did look at your evidence, and what I saw seemed to match the finding as your evidence is presented as: "Leyo engages in battleground behavior", with links to 2016 and 2018 only. I now see that the entire section is intended as evidence of battleground behaviour. Thanks for the heads up, I will go look at that more closely. SilkTork (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

FoF 7

CaptainEek and Primefac, just asking you two on FoF 7 since you've been looking at it a bit harder lately, but it looks like one procedural piece is missing here that was in evidence. Leyo was also p-blocked by HJ Mitchell at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#Leyo for their comments[22]. That's not to address any support vs. oppose comments, but just a key event in the timeline that probably should be included on this FoF regardless position. Thanks. KoA (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That has no influence on my opinion on the matter, but thank you for the extra information. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes that was my intent not to ask folks to change votes, but just make sure we have the full set of events related to that incident considered. Enterprisey, I see you've been working on that FoF recently, so I'm not sure if you'd want to consider adding a sentence saying Leyo was already given a logged sanction (a p-block) for those actions? GeneralNotability's comment about not rising to the level of sanction caught me eye, and I wasn't sure what context they were commenting on that from (i.e, knowledge about the existing sanction or not). KoA (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Remedies

I'll just comment broadly on these:

• I originally had been seeking a one-way interaction ban with Leyo back at AE. That's in part because I was already voluntarily trying to avoid them as much as possible when they came to areas I edit, so there isn't a need for a sanction on my part at least. I know there are variable feelings about one-way vs. two-way I-bans, but I want to reiterate general editor sentiment at Leyo's block review that I already had my block log unnecessarily extended, so I'm wary of even a "no-fault" two-way. I just wanted Leyo to leave me alone. If for whatever logistical reasons arbs determine it should be two-way I'd at least ask it be made clear that that my behavior was not the issue in the interaction.
• Functionally, a topic ban for Leyo would largely negate the need for an interaction ban since I wouldn't expect to run into Leyo in my topic areas. Considering they've been going after other editors besides me, this might prevent the most problems, but those are logistics for Arbs to weigh between I-ban, topic-ban, or both for Leyo.
• As for edit warring remedies, imposing 1RR on me would be largely moot because we're already under 1RR in this subject. With the expansion of the subject area to industrial ag., it would make more sense to modify Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed to match just to dot the i's. KoA (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I-bans

Izno (and other arbs), I've seen your recent comments in the I-ban in 1.1, so I just want to point out my above comments if it helps with the discussion interaction bans in terms of my side of the interaction. I'll mention here how I'd be working with remedies.

After the Aug. block, I basically edited as if I was under a voluntary I-ban with Leyo outlined prior to this part of my evidence. If they came into a topic I was editing, I still tried to avoid directly commenting to them or about their edits. Even when they were talking about my edits at MEDRS talk, I avoiding commenting to Leyo until they started replying to my comments. I basically do not want to interact with Leyo after all this and would be avoiding them even if the one-way I-ban remedy passes, so I want to be clear there wouldn't be anything in terms of WP:PREVENTATIVE policy on my side needing a sanction there.

I know there's differences in opinion on whether 1-ways should be used at all, but I've been an advocate for them. They're useful for when one party has been pursued, but has not been pursuing the other party so their editing does not need to restricted (at least within reason to avoid gaming the sanction). It can also be used to say "We're giving you WP:ROPE, be reasonable not to abuse the 1-way." if there was a substantiated concern with that party.

If a two-way is used in what was one-way problem, there is a case to be made that it's just logistically easier to do two-way. That places a burden on the editor who was not at issue (or was less of an issue) though, but that editor also shouldn't have a problem appealing a year later, etc. that they had no problems avoiding the editor and their side of the sanction can be removed. That's a bit problematic when the editor has been pursued when already trying to avoid the other because it's essentially saying it's ok to be sanctioned for being a target of hounding. I'm not going to treat it as the end of the world either though, especially if it's clarified it's more of the logistical situation rather than a true two-way problem.

The main thing is that I don't want to deal with Leyo following me around anymore, especially where we have major overlap in pesticide topics. I'd have reservations, but would not entirely oppose the two-way if a one-way fails because it's clear Leyo still continued pursuit of me after all this. If a two-way happens though, I'd ask arbs to think about how likely we'd bump into each other and the topic-ban situation as a two-way would mean it would be easier for Leyo to edit in the periphery of pages where I am. Given how I asked Leyo to leave me alone while I was voluntarily avoiding them, and they did not, I do have some concerns Leyo may test the I-ban limits. That is why I sometimes advocate for topic bans in place of or on top of a 1 or 2-way as functional I-bans in cases like this where the editors mostly only overlap in one topic. It worked well in this case at least (and was a two-way -> one-way conversion). I just want to edit without worrying about further pursuit by Leyo is all. KoA (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So I rushed a bit after getting back and didn't see the topic-ban remedy had a trending vote. I think that would cut out most potential interactions if it passes, so it would be the question of periphery topics in ag. (Dominion would not have been covered), noticeboards, etc. As long as the broadly construed part related to pesticides/commercially produced agricultural chemicals is applied, that would apply to pages like EWG, or PFAS to some degree (just found out they are involved in some pesticide ingredients too).

If the topic-ban passes, it could be treated as a WP:ROPE situation that an I-ban isn't imposed now, but instead a remedy could be passed warning that an I-ban will be imposed if sniping, hounding, etc. continues towards me or others in other topics. I'd still be wary if there isn't an I-ban, but topic-ban + interaction warning could be the easiest and most WP:PREVENTATIVE option. I'm looking at a busy week, so this will probably be my longest reply now until the close. KoA (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing aspersions issues

I didn't intend to be back here, but now there are continuing problems showing what we get stuck with in the topic in a single day sometimes. Pinging you SilkTork just because I mentioned the wider issue to you earlier above in my FoF 3 section and in my evidence.

Just today this kind of stuff from an IP And the give-away that a shill did this is that the bogus claim was inserted right at the top of the section, as if it was a summary. with respect to a Cornell university source, and is what we frequently have to deal with in the topic. That was a clear-cut case that was easily just brought to WP:AIV, especially because of block-evasion, but they are often not quite as "easy" as that and still raise the temperature in the topic.

Then you have Jtbobwaysf who came to my talk page today accusing me of COI with I would assume the editor is receiving grants from pest management companies from that statement. when I directly say on my userpage I have nothing of the sort. Gtoffoletto was blocked for this line of questioning.[23], and Jtbobwaysf still didn't take it seriously despite multiple editors cautioning them about it on my talk page. They previously went to the dicamba page to reply to the IP above making the astroturfing/shill comments commending them with no reservations about the shill comments.[24] Then they came to this page to post this section where they keep insisting It seems that KOA is very active on articles closely related to his area of work, and we know that pest management companies (aka manufacturers of pesticides, herbicides, etc) do employ pest managements academics to conduct studies. Sometimes there are editors who simply will not take no as an answer when I say on my userpage I have no connections to pesticide companies, and this is another case.

It's like harassing an editor I wont name here because they have a medical degree, work as a doctor, etc. and insisting they must be a shill for pharma companies when they edit medical content, or moreso in my case, accusing a chemistry professor of COI because they teach on that subject. That's the systemic issue that seems to just be getting emboldened here showing how expert editors are harassed in this subject, which is why I already provide more detail on my userpage than I should have to. Is that something the committee may be able to address at this case, or is it better to do a clarification/amendment proposal at a later time pointed on that subject? KoA (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, on the clerk side, could you clarify how the notice Behaviour on this page is enforced when an issue like Jtbobwaysf's comments mentioned above comes up, especially when another editor like Gtoffoletto also linked above was blocked for those types of comments earlier?[25] It feels like this is becoming a free-for-all with respect to Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). and the language on this from the GMO case. When multiple people including myself pointed to the language on my user page Jtbobwaysf ignored, that should have been time for them to stop rather than come here and repeat the insinuation I have ties to pesticide companies. That is the kind of personal attack that would normally be dealt with at AE, but it gets complicated because they occurred during at ArbCom that AE admins often don't want to cross wires on. Thanks. KoA (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Expressing (or implying) disagreement about whether someone, based on information provided by themselves, has a conflict of interest, is not a prohibited aspersion by itself. This type of statement is also not necessarily off-topic or unconstructive on a proposed decision's talk page when sanctions in the affected area against the described user are part of that proposed decision. A block for making behavioral accusations on an article's talk page (against WP:FOC and WP:TPG § No meta) is not a relevant counter-example. I thus currently see no (urgent) need for intervening myself, although of course any arbitrator may well decide to remove Jtbobwaysf's comment or warn them in case they share your concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, to be clear, this kind of behavior was already treated as prohibited by ArbCom from the the GMO case and the principle I linked. That was passed specifically for cases like this with This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations. . . especially with no evidence as required by that principle and the notice at the top of this page. That principle applies to both content discussion but also continuing to insist that at admin boards with no evidence with If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence. . . I never once said I was paid by or have any connection to pesticide companies, I said the exact opposite on my userpage because of how frequent that type of harassment is. The principle made it clear what is going in here violates WP:HARASS policy in part so I wouldn't need to reiterate all this here.

As for the block, Doug Weller made it clear that coming to my talk page in the same manner as Jtbobwaysf is doing to cast aspersions was the final straw. Either way, we crafted that principle for exactly the kind of thing Jtbobwaysf is insisting on doing, and Arbs at the time were clear we shouldn't have even needed to remind people this was harassment. I'm just asking we stick to expectations we already laid out on such comments even if you personally choose not to act. KoA (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Leyo

Remedies

• 2: I would suggest adding a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Contentious topic designation or highlighting the proposed changes.  Done
  Since this remedy would also affect involved parties in the original case, IMHO it would have been fair to inform them of the current case to potentially allow them to provide additional evidence.
• 3b and 4a (topic bans): I am of the opinion that this proposed remedy is too strong for both KoA and me. Both our contributions to improving many articles in this topic over many years clearly outweigh the much smaller number of edits considered as problematic. Note: The term "outweigh" is not fully accurate, but I couldn't find a more suitable one. What I would like to say is that, overall, this topic has benefited from the long-term contribution of KoA and myself, even though some articles have become less balanced, and the working atmosphere in the associated talk pages has deteriorated as a result of KoA's contributions. The issues can be addressed by other means.
• 3c and 4b (admonishments): IMHO, this needs to be done in the case of KoA in order to prevent further issues as those provided in the evidence page. For myself, this might also be a viable option, although the wording could be interpreted to mean that I've been showing battleground behavior and doing personal attacks on a regular basis. However, these are very rare cases, certainly less than 0.01% of my edits in WMF projects.
• 3a (desysop): In my opinion, this would be too far-reaching, given the fact that there was one only one (big) mistake in the use of of my admin tools. I stated that I am taking an admin break, except in relation to files. I need my admin bits also in relation to my adminship on Commons, i.e. to check deleted versions of (possibly) incorrectly transferred files in order to correct the information/license on Commons. These actions are not being logged. I have already stated that I invite anyone to hide my admin buttons, except those related to files. Arbitrators could decide to partially desysoping me, but to leave my admin buttons for anything related to files. There have never been any issues with my file-related admin actions.
• 4d (revert restriction): I agree with Izno that slow edit-warring behavior is not dealt with in this proposed remedy. --Leyo 13:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Finding of facts

• 4: As stated previously, I had no intention of banning JzG myself because of my involvement in this matter. The goal was to give him a clear warning and get him to stop his action during the ongoing discussion.

--Leyo 10:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2: Leyo also has a pattern of raising concerns about other editors in regular discussions instead of using the proper venues for those concerns – the wording is way to general: There are few cases, and, more importantly, only very few editors (KoA, JzG and in a single case Smartse; for the latter of which I have apologized). With the vast majority of users I have dealt with over the past 15 years, I have always had a cooperative and respectful relationship. --Leyo 21:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with jc37 concerning FOF #2: Leyo also has a pattern of raising concerns about other editors in regular discussions instead of using the proper venues for those concerns (KoA's evidence). → The linked evidence includes just cases concerning KoA and me, and they are at least five years old. I don't think that they provide sufficient evidence to talk about "a pattern" and "other editors" in general. Guerillero also seems to have some doubts about the second statement, although he voted in favor of (the whole) FOF #2. --Leyo 13:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

On KoA's comment concerning the Environmental Working Group article: the well was quickly poisoned with comments like … (WhatamIdoing's full comment containing the quoted example) – KoA's non-collaborative editing might have been a reason for that. He has just blanket reverted all attempts to include their activities related to PFAS pollution [26][27][28][29], without offering any alternative text proposal. --Leyo 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Regarding your analysis of the block: I am going to repeat how it happened: I noticed the revert in the recent changes. I then carefully went through the article's history and through the talk page, which took some time. Based on that I came to the conclusion that it is a slow edit warring (inserting almost the same wording four times, against consensus on talk page). The options to warn, block, or do nothing were on the table. However, I didn't want to take a hasty decision. Therefore, I did some simpler admin work using Twinkle and in a different tab while still considering. Considering that KoA had been blocked for edit warring twice before, had recently engaged in other edit wars, and was well aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I concluded that a warning alone would not prevent further edit wars. Obviously, it wouldn't have been appropriate to justify the block with a standard reason from Twinkle. Should I have invented a description of the time before my block in order to make it seem more plausible?!
purely through dislike – This is certainly not the case. I have been deeply concerned about KoA's actions to a number of articles (as detailed in my evidence), while on the other hand, I am aware that he has improved several articles considerably. --Leyo 00:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the fuller explanation Leyo. Communication is key. With the evidence I could see, it appeared that there was some deception about the timeline. I did actually consider that you might have seen it earlier, and then acted later, which is why I emphasised recently in my comment. Because the block of KoA came as part of a string of blocks I speculated that you might have seen the edit on RecentChanges, looked at it, and thought you would block, but then considered that it might look less "targeted" if that block occurred as a string of blocks, so if challenged you could say - "Well, it came up on RecentChanges, and I blocked same as I did the others...." I didn't say that on the PD page because that is pure speculation without evidence, and it would be inappropriate. However, the optics don't look good without a full explanation. Have you offered this explanation anywhere prior to this post? If not, why didn't you give the fuller explanation when challenged during the Admin Action Review? SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I provided a (shorter) explanation of how things happened on that day before. I don't remember where it was, but I'm still looking for the diff. --Leyo 21:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Yes, I would restrict my admin actions to files (where I often apply my passive right for inspecting deleted versions). This has been my main task, as I had stated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leyo 13 years ago. On 15 November, I wrote Anyone is invited to hide my admin buttons, except those related to files. --Leyo 20:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Alternate remedy to 3a?

@Guerillero and Enterprisey: (drafting arbitrators): Would you see it as an option to include an alternate remedy for 3a, i.e. to leave my admin buttons related to files (see above)? Just to give some more background information on the passive use of admin right: Unfortunately, many files have been copied from one Wikipedia language version to another, partly with incorrect or incomplete authorship and licensing information. Later on, many such copies (instead of the originals) have been transferred to Commons. In order to correct the authorship and licensing information on Commons, it is often necessary to have a look at the deleted versions of files in en.wikipedia. If a local admin is needed to help, this makes the process much more time-consuming. --Leyo 01:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I went ahead and asked for help to hide my admin buttons that are not related to files. I implemented the solution to my common.css. I won't unhide those buttons regardless of the outcome of the remedies taken. --Leyo 22:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban

• @Izno: You voted for a topic ban against me and you indicated that you will likely vote for desysoping me. Assuming there will be a general support for an interaction for an interaction ban (currently 2:1), may I kindly ask you to answer the following question? What issues would remain in your view, if the other two remedies (desysop, i-ban) were to come into effect? The only one in past that comes to my mind is my comments towards JzG and Smartse in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network in 15 years of activity. All the rest is either related to KoA (where the iban would do its job) or related to my adminship. For example, I can't recall any major criticism of my edits in such articles.
  A topic ban that includes agricultural chemicals would severely affect my main activity in the WikiProject Chemicals. I often do maintenance work in a bunch of articles, e.g. related to GHS classification or other parts in chemboxes, fixing broken links etc., sometimes in a semi-automated way. It would be almost impossible for me to check whether a chemical is, or historically had been, used in agriculture. Due to the high risk of editing an article that might be considered to be within the scope of the proposed topic ban, I would need to discontinue my major work. Are you really of the opinion that this measure would be proportionate and preventative, rather than punitive? --Leyo 10:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• @Barkeep49, Primefac, and Guerillero: I noticed that you followed Izno's support vote. As a matter of fairness, I would like to ask you to provide a rationale as to why you think a topic ban is necessary and proportionate in addition to an i-ban and potentially a desysop (either fully or excluding what concerns files). See also statement just above. --Leyo 02:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have clarified; my oppose to 3a contained my rationale for 3a and 3b and I forgot to extend that to my vote further down the page. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. However, even when considering your comment in 3a, I do not understand your rationale for a topic ban. The rest of the behaviour in this topic area is troubling: If everything in relation to KoA (which might be covered in a more targeted way by an i-ban) is disregarded, there is very little left. As mentioned above, a topic ban would be an extremely harsh measure for me, if any chemicals are included in the topic. Since I couldn't contribute to the chemicals topic in an efficient manner, I would probably retire from enWP. --Leyo 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  You used your tools more than once to bolster your POV. I do not think you should be editing within the topic area -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please provide evidence to support your claim. The only one I can think of is my warning to JzG that he may risk of being subject of an administrative action. I admit that my wording was too strong, but I never had the intention of blocking him myself because of my involvement. Moreover, this happened almost 5 years ago. Anything else? --Leyo 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your block of KoA. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, obviously, although "bolster your POV" does not describe the circumstances there well, as it was about slow edit warring. Anyway, "once" can be seen as fulfilled. But I am asking for evidence for the "more than (once)". --Leyo 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  And I gave it to you. Your explanation, "it was about slow edit warring", feels less than complete and ignores why the community found you to be INVOLVED -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, you did not. I'm not disputing the "involved".

  So, again: If my block of KoA is your "once", what are your "more than"? Please provide some examples. --Leyo 22:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Your actions towards KoA and JzG -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is that really all the evidence you have to vote for a topic ban, in addition to a desysop and an i-ban?! What would be the gain of a topic ban (really harsh measure for me, per above), in addition to an i-ban and a desysop? Where is the proportionality? Warning a user for removing links to a website (the user did this during an ongoing discussion about those links to create facts) is not specific to a particular topic anyway. --Leyo 22:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cabayi and Wugapodes: You have joined other arbs in supporting a topic ban against me, although no convincing argument has been put forward on how such a harsh measure would be necessary and proportionate in addition to an i-ban and possibly a (partial) desysop (see full arguments above). Are you prepared to provide a rationale? --Leyo 21:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)/22:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

in addition to an i-ban and possibly a (partial) desysop I opposed those. although no convincing argument has been put forward on how such a harsh measure would be necessary and proportionate See proposed findings of fact 4, 5, 6, and 7, and my rationale in proposed remedy 3a. — Wug·a·po·des 23:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am really surprised that the i-ban might not go through, as this would be the most targeted, most proportionate and most effective measure, along with my voluntary action to hide my admin buttons except concerning files (see #Alternate remedy to 3a?). Believe me, I won't risk going through an ArbCom case as a party ever again. I got little sleep for weeks. If I could, I would like to undo my inappropriate actions. --Leyo 00:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Highly problematic ambiguity in FOF 4

The statement In January 2019, Leyo threatened to block JzG for removing links to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names to win a content dispute. has 2 possible meanings, according to the language reference desk:

1. Leyo threatened to block JzG, for removing links to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names to win a content dispute.
2. To win a content dispute, Leyo threatened to block JzG for removing links to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names.

I've always understood the meaning to be #1, since JzG continued to remove those links, while the discussion about those links was still ongoing, to create facts. Without my warning (You are not going to remove any other of the references that are under discussion until a conclusion has been reached.), he would not have stopped until all of those links (probably a few dozen remaining at that point) were removed from the entire article name space.
On the other hand, #2 would be a lie/gross misinterpretation of my intent, which was to prevent a user from creating facts (to win the discussion) while the discussion is ongoing. My warning was not intended to, and did not, affect the content discussion. At least Guerillero seems to interpret it as meaning #2. I don't know about the interpretation of the other arbs who voted. Because of the ambiguity in the statement, I urge you to clarify the statement and then revote. --Leyo 01:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The language reference desk is of the view that If there are no commas, the first interpretation is a way more reasonable, the second one being very unlikely. However, as mentioned above, at least Guerillero seems to interpret it differently. @ToBeFree, MJL, Guerillero, and Enterprisey: Are you currently considering clarifying the statement and then asking the arbs who voted to revote? Barkeep49 has acknowledged my concerns. --Leyo 01:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Leyo, the wording of the remedies is not ultimately a clerk's choice to make, but I agree about the ambiguity of the sentence and highlighted this point internally when I saw your concern yesterday. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this update. So I will wait for the outcome of the internal discussions. --Leyo 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Leyo I have posted an additional finding of fact that does not have this ambiguity; let me know if you have any thoughts. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting an alternative FOF without ambiguity. However, I still don't think that the text is accurate. It was obvious from the beginning that I was involved in the case (i.e. the comments by KoA were superfluous). As mentioned before, in order to prevent JzG from creating facts by removing all remaining links during an ongoing discussion about them, it was necessary to stop him immediately. That's why I couldn't go to WP:ANI with a detailed description of the situation (that would have taken too long to write). I didn't want to get into an edit war, either. So, that's why I went to his talk page with a (too) clearly worded warning. Because of my obvious involvement, I never intended to take any admin action myself. However, it is true that I used too strong wording. If I had considered taking admin action myself, I would have used the active voice.

In my opinion, at least for removing links to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names while the reliability of these links was under discussion (the first part of which was in FOF 4) should be added to briefly describe the situation. --Leyo 23:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems that we disagree on whether it needed to truly happen "immediately". (Note: I'm bad with words and so this next part may sound patronizing, but I really don't intend it that way.) I don't see this situation as so "immediate" that it was an IAR situation, and as a result I think you still needed to follow policy. When you, an admin, say anything about blocks on a user's talk page, the unavoidable implication is that you will be placing the block. That is how 10 out of 10 users who receive such a message will read it. I think part of being an admin is being able to recognize that. If you had clarified that you wouldn't be taking the action because you were involved, or if you had gone to ANI, I think we wouldn't have an FoF about this situation. I understand that you're saying you currently think your wording back then was too strong. I will write a note in the comments of FoF 4.1 with that. However, I think 4.1 accurately describes what happened. You're proposing that we add details justifying why you made those comments, but the only way those would be relevant is if they justified them under one of the INVOLVED exceptions, and they don't. (And INVOLVED is definitely relevant here, as talking about a block in that way counts as an admin action - even if we disagree on whether you intended to ultimately make the block yourself.) Enterprisey (talk!) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed answer. My reason for adding the proposed text is to make it clear that a block threat from an uninvolved admin (with active voice) wouldn't have been inappropriate. --Leyo 10:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Leyo, speaking personally, I agree the FOF is still not ideal. The correct finding—which I think you don't disagree with—is that you acted recklessly in giving the impression that you were threatening to block JzG yourself, even if you genuinely didn't mean it as a threat, because a reasonable editor reading your words would interpret them as a threat. That's why my suggested finding begun with "In January 2019, Leyo improperly wielded their status as an administrator in the context of a content dispute." Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that this wording describes the situation the most accurately among the three versions. --Leyo 22:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Regarding your question: I don't think that "their willingness to use an admin tool and admin status to enforce their viewpoint" accurately describes either the (admittedly involved) block of KoA or the warning to JzG. Apart from those two cases, as far as I can remember, there is nothing that could even come close to this description during my 13 admin years. --Leyo 00:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Remedy 4 is currently supported 7:2 ( noting that the votes were cast before the alternative remedy was added), while Remedy 4.1 is supported 7:0. What if both versions end up being supported? Will one win over the other? --Leyo 22:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Not at the moment. It needs to be fixed and this kind of issue is why Arbs also have to vote to close the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.

The only major remaining issue is that this statement as currently worded ("to win a content dispute") is simply not factual. @Guerillero: Are you willing to reconsider? --Leyo 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HouseBlaster

Two things:

• I believe (at least) wikilinking WP:MEDRS in FoF 8 would be useful. I think a principle explaining the purpose/scope of MEDRS would be better.
• Remedy 5 is fantastic. Thank you to the drafting Arbs for proposing it; I hope to see it used in the future. I believe would be a remedy worth consideration for any editor who is a party to a case against their own volition

Sincerely, HouseBlaster^talk 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from JayBeeEll

I am a bit puzzled by the wording of and contrast between remedies 3c and 3d. 3c is titled "admonished and restricted" but what exactly is the restriction? None is stated in the text. Also "may result in sanction" is notably weaker than 3d's use of "should". Also, just as a pure writing note, it would make more sense to me if the first and second sentences of 3c were switched -- the third directly refers to the first, and the first appears to implicitly rely to the second.

Is it possible to link "Remedy 1 of GMO" in Remedy 2?

--JBL (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Just Step Sideways

I probably won't be following this further, and I don't know if anyone even cares what my opinion is at this point, but I did vote to accept this case so you're going to get it anyway:

When I voted to accept I specificed that I felt this was an admin conduct case. I still feel that way and I think it was an error to say that the scope is industrial agriculture. You've got findings of fact that there is an admin who has a battleground mentality, who personalizes disputes, who grossly violated the involved admin policy, and has threatened another user with the same, showing that they either don't understand or don't care about an absolute bedrock admin policy. If that isn't enough for a desysop I don't know what is.

And please, please, for love of all that is Wikipedia, do not go back to the outdated concept of ArbCom probations. There's a number of good reasons the committee stopped doing that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Smartse

• FOF 7: I am surprised by CaptainEek's opinion that Pointing out that an editor is voting delete and also wiped the article of content is relevant which is contrary to the principle of "comment on the content not the contributor" and would like to know what section of policy they think makes this relevant.
• Remedy 2: Personally I do not see the need to expand the scope given that there is very little evidence of there being disputes across this topic area and the addition of the broad and vague term "industrial agriculture" seems to only relate to a single, small, dispute at Dominion (2018 film). That is a very different topic to GMO and glyphosate, and the real topic area of that article is veganism or animal rights activism. If you do decide to take this forward though, you should almost certainly take the opportunity to clarify the position on gene editing, because at least in Europe, crops created with gene editing are not considered GMO: [30]. SmartSE (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Smartse I appreciate you raising the issue, and I'll elaborate on my thinking. AfD does sometimes involve commentary on the contributor, such as the "This contributor has made few or no edits outside this topic" template, or noting that a particular editor created the page, or noting that an editor has contributed extensively to the article. While I'm not encouraging contributor commentary, I recognize that there are times when it can be noted. If we point out that an editor has created a page, or is focused on this page, why is it not relevant that they have worked to shrink the page? If an editor has already removed much of the content of a page, they might not have focused on finding sources which verify its notability. A closer can of course disregard that argument if it doesn't apply, but sometimes it does. Further, if that is one of the only examples of Leyo making contributor focused comments, that's very mild and not worthy of an entire FoF. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Newyorkbrad

Writing in general terms and not focused on this specific case. Although there is a precedent for it (in the Michael Hardy case in 2016), I agree that the ArbCom adopting a Remedy addressed to itself and its own processes is awkward in form. My suggestion is that the decision include a Principle addressing the procedural concern, and then individual arbs can comment in their votes there if they wish to acknowledge a deviation from best practices in this case. Just a thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The remedies get posted to a bunch of places that the FoF does not. If we made this a FoF it has the unfair impact, for me, of broadcasting criticism of others and hiding it about ourselves. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment from jc37

I'm concerned about several of the FOF texts.

I'm reading the arbs' comments, and it's just, well, concerning.

I understand trying to group things together to try to make things easier, but several of these seem to have extra sentences ("oh, and this too.")

We shouldn't be putting arbs in a position to vote yes on several things in a single FOF, when they only agree that part or some is appropriate.

It's like when answering test questions in school - if only part of the statement is true or applicable, then the answer is false/inapplicable.

FOF #2 seems the poster child for this, but there seem to be several others as well.

I believe these are well-meant, but it comes off like "pushing things through".

And speaking of FOF2, I think CaptainEek has it right. A page is a page is a page. Wikipedia policy applies everywhere. Talking about"venue" gets into WP:CREEP territory. - jc37 10:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Gtoffoletto

I'm very new here so I'm trying to interpret all of this. But a few questions come to mind:

Regarding Leyo

1. Several remedies (e.g.3d, 3b) seem to refer to Leyo as if they have been "edit warring". Has any evidence of this been provided? I don't see it in the FOFs at all.
2. "Leyo topic banned" was proposed and 1 member supports it (without clarifying their reasoning). What evidence/FOFs justifies it?
3. "INVOLVED block of KoA by Leyo": was Leyo editing that topic area in the several months before the block? Silktork mentions this, but I am unsure of its accuracy (see [31][32][33]) So their involvement was due to past interactions with KoA in 2019? Also: hasn't Leyo already been "punished" for this? Apart from this, Leyo's only additional "misdeed" is FOF 7?

The three points above seem to indicate some confusion on what is happening here in my opinion. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Topic banning Leyo makes absolutely no sense. @Wugapodes mentions FOF 4,5,6,7 as being a justification for it.

• All FOFs relate to KoA and not to a specific TOPIC area. KoA simply only edits that specific topic area. (Also this point raised by Leyo is highly problematic Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Proposed decision#Highly problematic ambiguity in FOF 3 as I had also read it incorrectly without giving it much though. But that FOF is basically a lie. How is it influencing votes?)
• I have still not seen anyone address Leyo's accusations of KoA violating pillar 2 (see section below). That was Leyo's main argument against KoA. Without a FoF on this basic point of the case how can an accurate decision be taken? Is KoA editing the topic area neutrally or not? In one case, Leyo should be thanked for defending the neutrality of the encyclopaedia. In the other Leyo should be sanctioned for improperly accusing and casting ASPERSIONS on another user. How can it be none?
• What is this topic ban WP:PREVENTATIVE of? Leyo is clearly an expert editor. Why are we loosing his precious contributions? Have any cases of poor editing in the area been reported? I have seen absolutely no evidence of this. There was not even a content dispute as Leyo has barely been editing in the same pages as KoA. If you believe Leyo cannot "handle" KoA an interaction ban would fix it. If you believe they cannot be trusted with their admin tools they should be stripped of their admin rights. But what is the meaning of this topic ban? I see @SilkTork asking some valid questions with no replies. It doesn't make any sense to me and no member of the committee has yet given a valid explanation of their vote. The FoF and the evidence simply don't support this per @KevinL

{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You start by saying Topic banning Leyo makes absolutely no sense in bold, and then your first two bullet points have little to do with the topic ban. You note that I pointed to Findings of Fact 4, 5, 6, and 7, but then your first bullet point is about FoF 3 (where you conveniently bold the claim that it's a "lie" but not the fact that you're talking about a completely different finding of fact than I was). The only relationship your first bullet has to what I said is the first two sentences: All FOFs relate to KoA and not to a specific TOPIC area. KoA simply only edits that specific topic area. The first sentence is misleading given the title of FoF 4 Threat to block JzG by Leyo, the text of FoF 7---"Leyo attempted to discredit several participants who voted for deletion, including KoA, with personal comments" [emphasis added]---or the evidence linked in FoF 6 such as this diff or this diff from the second AE thread which substantiates FoF 7. The issues in the area extend beyond KoA, and to the degree that KoA is in this topic area, a topic ban resolves the issues with others and gets us the interaction ban for free.

Regarding your second bullet point, you try to mitigate Leyo's conduct by pointing to accusations against KoA. See WP:NOTTHEM for the advice we give to blocked editors when they try to make this kind of argument, and see principle 5 for the Arbitration Committee's own position on how being "right" isn't a blank check to ignore our behavioral policies.

Regarding your third bullet point, you ask a lot of questions that are largely easy to answer. What is this topic ban WP:PREVENTATIVE of? Leyo's behavior towards other editors in this topic area, see FoF 4, 6, and 7. Why are we loosing his precious contributions? Because he misused admin tools and was not behaving appropriately towards other editors in this topic area. See FoF 4, 5, 6, and 7. Have any cases of poor editing in the area been reported? Depends what you mean by "editing". If you mean direct editing of articles, I don't recall any off the top of my head, but see FoF 4 for an example of threatening to use the tools to win a content dispute, and see principles 5 and 7 for more on why "edits articles fine" doesn't excuse misbehavior elsewhere. — Wug·a·po·des 21:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes thank you very much for taking the time for a full explanation. I think some big problems emerge.

1. Leyo mentions FOF3 in their title but I'm pretty sure they were referring to FOF4:"Threat to block JzG by Leyo". I think they mixed up the numbers. This may confuse things even more. When I say "it is a lie" I refer to what Leyo pointed out: the ambiguity makes it seem like Leyo attempted to win a content dispute while it was JzG that did so! I think even you have fallen for this mistake @Wugapodes. By saying "FoF 4 for an example of threatening to use the tools to win a content dispute" you have proven that the incorrectly worded FOF4 may be misleading the committee into voting incorrectly in this case. Leyo never threatened to use the tools to win a content dispute. That is simply false and a lie against Leyo. JzG was the one attempting to win a content dispute.
2. I agree that this FOF4 is not "directly KoA related" (KoA does appear in the discussion to threaten Leyo with... guess what? topic bans) however if one reads the discussion Leyo asked (correctly in my opinion) JzG to stop making edits while a discussion on that content was in progress. Isn't that extremely normal? Have you seen the rudeness and aggressiveness of the replies? Leyo was insulted and called an "arse" immediately, then threatened with blocks several times (including by KoA). That's as toxic as it gets and Leyo did a good job of keeping his cool and did not use their admin tools at all despite standing alone against JzG's friends. What does this FOF prove? That Leyo can keep their cool while being verbally abused? That they are willing to stand up to other admins when they are doing something wrong?
3. Regarding the diff you provided for FOF6 [34] that comment (still on JzG) by Leyo is accurate and (as CaptainEek pointed out) if an editor is voting delete and also wiped the article of content is relevant. This seems to me like the same problem with JzG trying to influence ongoing discussions. Isn't that a problem in itself? Leyo did strike and apologise to Smartse for the other comment on him and I agree it was a mistake. Is that grave enough for a ban of any kind? I've seen much much worse honestly in contentious topics.
4. Regarding my second bullet point on KoA's neutrality: I'm only interested in fairness and in protecting the neutrality of the project. If one focuses on the hard underlying diffs of Leyo's behaviour: I believe very little substance remains and very often in the face of disruptive behaviours by KoA (I think FoF3 definitely proves, for example, that KoA was blocked for slow editing warring against consensus of several editors and was inserting text that was an extreme and blatant violation of NPOV. Despite this KoA was immediately unblocked). Leyo has provided evidence of KoA's WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and KoA has defended themselves with the best defensive evidence they can provide (see section below). KoA is a user with over 26.000 edits focusing exclusively in one specific topic area. If found to be not respecting WP:NPOV and using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to remove all opposition that would be a powerful force able to skew the entire topic area. An explicit FoF is needed to establish KoA's neutrality just like FoF 3.1 is on his battleground behaviour. Especially since KoA is constantly using WP:ASPERSIONS to screen themselves from any scrutiny of their editing (this is a problematic misuse of this policy, especially by an anonymous self described "expert" - heard that one before? - that only edits his allegedly work related topic area).

I think there is a lot of confusion in this case. Not all of it may be unintentional. I urge the committee to take extraordinary measures to focus on the direct, hard evidence to ensure that the final decision will be an accurate and fair one. Some FoFs may have unfairly influenced the committee. Please be careful. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding KoA

1. Leyo's main argument in their evidence was that they were defending the project from a "Violation of pillar 2". However, KoA's neutrality in the edit area has not been explicitly addressed as far as I can tell. Since a lot of the complaints against Leyo focus on ASPERSIONS is it possible to have an explicit vote on this? Does ARBCOM find that KoA is editing the topic area neutrally, or not? I think this is a crucial item to be addressed and voted upon. We are talking about an industry that is no stranger to scandals and has been targeted by a lot of legitimate scientific scrutiny. I would expect that a neutral editor with 26.000+ edits would have edits falling not too far away from an even distribution of "positive/negative" edits.
2. The "Casting aspersions" principle is key here. It says "An editor should not make accusations, such as that another group of editors is biased or habitually violate site policies or norms, without evidence." Leyo has provided evidence, and ASPERSIONS does not clarify what evidence is "good enough". Did KoA's behaviour not justify "ASPERSIONS" in the committee's mind? In general, what evidence does? Lack of clarity on this rule can easily lead to DARVO attacks which is a very effective manipulation strategy used to defend against accusations of wrongdoing.
3. FOF "KoA misapplies policies and guidelines": What is the justification behind all the votes against this? The comments are not very clear. I think ample evidence has been provided of this resulting in large time losses for all editors involved and in unnecessary RfCs.
4. Are we focusing too much on procedure rather than substance here? If we ignore the "involvement" issue was Leyo's block a good one or not? FOF3 seems to point to a clear yes but I'm surprised that not everybody agrees those edits were problematic. They don't offer clear justification though. Do they believe the reconstruction is incorrect?

Final comment: This topic area is obviously vulnerable. According to the current UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights "The manufacturing of doubt about the risks and harms of hazardous substances by producers of deadly products has become a lucrative business. Certain business entities specialize in deliberately spreading ignorance and confusion in society. In addition to attacks on scientific evidence, scientists themselves are often the target of campaigns that malign, harass, discredit, threaten, or otherwise undermine them if they question, publish, or speak out about the risks and harms of hazardous substances."[35] This is what we are up against and external interests certainly work daily to influence the encyclopaedia with "specialised business entities". Against this all we have is policy and volunteers. We must have policies able to address those issues and must thoroughly investigate any minor indication of potential issues. Numerically, we are more often "under attack" by those that wish to push unscientific beliefs, but attacks from "industrial interests" will be much more sophisticated, insidious and damaging. If any question regarding NPOV raises an ASPERSIONS accusation how can we defend from this risk? I don't know how the ASPERSIONS principle was created but are we sure it isn't doing more harm than good in its present form?

I don't know if any user here deserves sanctioning. And I'm not an expert in policies and procedures. I trust the more experienced ARBCOM members will decide what is best. In general I think this case is running into some problems since the scope wasn't very clear. But Leyo has pointed out that they were acting to defend the project from issues with NPOV, and others have also seen some smoke. I think this issue should be addressed thoroughly and very explicitly by the committee. Whatever the outcome, it is the only fair conclusion for all involved. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have just found KoA's defence to Leyo's accusations of violating pillar 2 [36]. Apart from linking their own user page (what is that supposed to prove?) they provided the following 4 items as their best examples of not editing "always in favor of industrial agriculture or pesticide/chemicals":

• the Varroa destructor article "for examples of where I'm dealing with harmful effects of pesticides on bees" - The word pesticides is mentioned 7 times mostly to describe how they can be used to control this dangerous pest. What exactly is "against" the pesticides industry in KoA's mind?
• This small edit [37] fixing a template on some text added by other users on Thiamethoxam toxicity (really!?!)
• Deleting some content on "Crop protection" [38] that they consider "industry lingo"
• And this tiny deletion of some very poorly sourced content at the bottom of an article [39]

Pesticides obviously have great advantages but also costs to the environment, costs to human health etc. Out of 26.000+ edits almost exclusively concentrating in the pesticide topic area those are the most significative edits according to KoA of their ability to be neutral and of describing those costs?

At the same time, ample evidence has been provided of KoA doing everything they can (even resorting to battleground behaviours) to delete content critical of the chemical/pesticide industry. Despite their expertise in the area they even claimed not to know the Pesticide Action Network NGO and proposed to delete their page. When the tide turned against deleting that page while other editors that were critical (such as SmartSE) joined in in editing the page they just disappeared. Suddenly they had no interest in expanding the content. Only deleting it.

What does the Committee think of this? And why is this topic not being addressed? We need an explicit reply here especially since it seems the committee supports topic banning Leyo (Why!? This is one of the most absurd decisions in my mind), Leyo has brought up this neutrality issue as their main justification for their actions, and several other users have expressed concern on this (even users mostly agreeing with KoA such as Tryptofish: you do look like "the pesticide police"!). Now, either I am going insane here (I am at home with the flu so this is possible) or this is extremely worrisome. What is going on? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

FOF9

It seems FOF9 is based on my evidence (which initially was not really meant as such, just "context"). However, I was extremely surprised by Leyo's evidence of a 2018 comment by Tryptofish exactly describing my experience with KoA in the last few months [40]. I hadn't seen this before and I'm honestly shocked at how identical that assessment is to my experience, including: battleground behaviour, mentions of misusing policies, inability to compromise, "status-quo stonewalling", slow edit warring ("you are engaging in a slow edit war"), and POV issues such as never seeming to "write for the opponent" ("you cannot avoid the POV aspects of this. You were the only editor to make multiple reverts during the dispute so far, and they all had the effect of removing something that might be considered negative about glyphosate..."). It's all there in one comment. It isn't clear to me what Trypto thinks about this today and if they believe this isn't an issue anymore. However, the fact that even a user so aligned to KoA ("An editor who sees the content issues as both you and I generally do") has noticed the exact same issues we are still discussing here 5 years ago is an indication that some problems are evident and have not been properly dealt with. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments on some of the reconstructions/justifications above by KoA

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Proposed decision#FoF 3.1 Did KoA really write "I was instead the one proposing solutions saying let's focus on sources" while talking about the EWG RfC that came after months of discussion in which they didn't budge by an inch despite unanimous consensus against them by a dozen editors and me bending over backwards to try to offer them any possible avenue for compromise? We had to run a useless month long RfC just to placate KoA, and only KoA. That is the most absurd thing I have ever read in my life and an astonishing case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I doubt we could find even a single editor involved in that discussion that agrees with 1% of this description of KoA's behaviour during that dispute. I understand everybody is giving KoA a lot of WP:ROPE because they are an extraordinary contributor to the encyclopaedia with a lot of edits. But... wow... {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the remedies involving me

Just wanted to point out that I appreciate those efforts by the committee to clarify the situation a lot. I mostly agree with CaptainEek [41]. I don't think I am owed any excuses for being added as a party as I also interpreted it as the Captain does. A party is not necessarily culpable in a case. However, this is not clear at all, and some of the comments made here did alarm and scare me as they didn't sound like an invitation to "help us to resolve this issue" (that's the spirit of my contributions here). They sounded incriminatory/accusing. Also it seemed like I was being treated differently from other "witnesses" and this is still a problem. Someone reading the case from the outside will probably not understand why I alone was added as a named party (see SilkTork's comments). Being this the first Arbcom case I follow ever I didn't know how to interpret the situation. I thank Tryptofish for graciously pointing out that I was being treated unfairly and I have already accepted Enterprisey's excuses and thank them again. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Feyd Huxtable

Gio remedy
Absolutely awesome. If only most senior folk would show that sort of grace after making a minor mistake, the world would be a far better place. Not sure why there's such concern about self reminding. Unlike an admonishment or even a warning, I've never known an admin to use a previous Reminder as part of their justification for sanctioning - it's an almost harmless remedy. But that's minor. I'd resolved not to vote for any Arb this year per the recent trend for max harshness against both regular editors & admins, but might vote after all thanks to this.

KoA remedies
These also seem finely judged. Except for the 2 way iban. There doesnt seem to be evidence of KoA ever going out of his way to initiate interactions with Leyo. 1-way ibans can indeed be messy, but that seems unlikely to be the case with someone as honourable as KoA. Even back in early 2019 when I had much more mixed feelings on KoA, I said I'd be happy to accept a 1-way iban with him, per KoA having been "admirably unpersonal in the dispute, so there seems little risk of him abusing the iban to launch attacks". A 1-way iban would avoid unfairly tarring KoA with a sanction he's done nothing to deserve.

Leyo remedies
The dsysop & especially the topic ban seem rather harsh. Leyo unquestionably make an involved block. But it was a one off incident and they near immediately recognised their mistake. Being too harsh on a single out of policy block arguably risks exacerbating the "unblockable" problem, as several of our more aggressive high profile editors inevitably build up history with the active admins who know enough about the context to see they warrant a block. Per Gio's, Dialectrics's and Leyo's own evidence, KoA's forceful editing has given plenty of reason for concern, and Leyo may have understandably felt compelled to act, as few others seem to want to take on such a forceful editor. @Leyo, I wonder if you might make a statement saying that if you are allowed to keep the tools, you never intend to make another block on enWP again? There's a small chance that might allay the Arb's concerns, and enable you to continue with your valuable trans wiki gnoming & licence compliance work. (A voluntary commitment not to block may be more feasible than a tech fix that unbundles the tools just for you.)

The tban for Leyo seems even more objectionable. Ok, there's the JzG thing, and JzG is a great editor, but he can have rather strong opinions; Leyo's far from the only admin to have considered JzG might warrant the occasional block. No credible evidence has been advanced suggesting that Leyo has ever tried to distort NPOV in the TA. Quite the opposite. Here's the thing with mainstream science - much of it is effectively "pro corporate", corporations pay for a significant % of the best science. But there's another stand within mainstream science where folk objectively follow the scientific method and report their results as accurately as they can, regardless of how inconvenient those results are for funders. And we need the PoV from that type of scientist too for NPOV. And to prevent Wikipedia science articles from contributing to an increasing trend for the public to see scientists as contemptible liars who prioritise their personal reputations and funding prospects over the public good. A Pew report published a few weeks back found that while public perception of science had been improving up to 2019, since the pandemic the % who see scientists as having a net -ve impact on society has almost tripped, while those who see science as having a +ve effect fell from 73 > 57%

Tbaning Leyo could be felt as so grossly unjust it may force Leyo to retire from enWP! It would be a mistake to assume Leyo's sense of honour is any less than that of KoA's. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban functionally an unwarranted permaban
Gio's on point about this. Other than interactions with KoA, there's no substantial evidence that Leyo has been problematic in the TA. Just two minor points re-presented multiple times. One of the evidence sections is titled "Leyo's disruptive edits in the topic area" - but the diffs inside it all relate to KoA. The JzG thing is re-presented several times, but with the ambiguity cleared up from the FoF, that was a defensible admin warning. And then there's the minor incivility against Smartse - where Leyo merely notes the fact Smartse identifies as an exclusionist. In the context of Leyo > 20k edits to enWP alone, this is nothing.

The edits against KoA are concerning, in particular the suggestions KoA might be a shill may be most hurtful to someone of KoA's honour. Still, it's an easy mistake to make. As seems to be the case with Leyo, I too have a chemistry degree, and at least on the theoretical side here in Europe, KoA's invincible self confidence is the exact opposite of how scientists are trained to be like. (We're supposed to suppress our ego so the secrets of nature unveil themselves, not impose our opinions). You just dont normally meet someone like that who turns out to be good faith. A reason I've came to have such a high opinion of KoA is that after the bug decline dispute ended I chanced to do some consultancy for Lanxess. One of the American applied chem guys from their El Dorado sites was trying to argue against my recommendations, and on email & text chat he came across similar to KoA, but really good guy once you get him on face to face - albeit needing a little charm to dispel the misconceptions that had built up from text based arguments. As Leyo probably hasn't had that sort of experience it's understandable they might have deep suspicions. But that's nothing a 1 way iban wouldnt take care of. Per there being no evidence that remotely justifies a tban, imposing one on Leyo would be one of the most perverse results ever. Leyo's stated the tban would prevent them doing their "major work", so not much different than a perma. Sort of thing that happens all the time in the real world, but we're normally better than that on wikipedia, or at least the Arbs are. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If I accepted the idea that "a topic ban is too harsh a remedy" then I think I end up at "desysop" not just "1-way iban" precisely because of the history with JzG here. Regardless of who was "trying to win a content dispute", Leyo was INVOLVED so that's two different people in this topic area he acted while INVOLVED and so I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that it's a Leyo-KoA problem. Removing a topic ban feels far easier than restoring adminship once removed and so for me the topic ban is a lesser sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep, see what you mean when you put it like that. A desysop would be the lesser sanction for most. But unless Leyo says otherwise, that doesnt seem to be the case here. Apart from extremely minor grooming, ( example ) , almost all Leyo's edits, including their more substantial gnoming like correcting broken links & GHS classification, seem related to chemistry. As Leyo stated it would be almost impossible to check whether a chemical is, or historically had been, used in agriculture. So for a cautious scientist like Leyo, the TA effectively stops them doing almost all the work they find meaningful. It's effectively a perma. (And difficult to appeal against as there's not be much to work on to build a track record of trouble free contribs) I'd hesitate to ask before, but if you'd be willing to add an exception to the tban excluding "maintenance work such as fixing GHS classification & broken links", then that might be the ideal solution. It would enable Leyo to carry on their valuable work, while still being a big win for KoA and preventing Leyo from stepping in to help care bears in any future disputes that may occur with other members of the skeptic & MEDS crowd. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm especially open to exceptions or narrowings, although that might not be the most helpful, as the remedy is currently passing without my vote. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from DMacks

Remedy 3b: Leyo topic-banned: "all pages about genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed."

I think the topic scope is overly broad. I'd like to a more-tailored remedy that leaves a path forward. The general area of concern seems to be GMO-related, so the first area, "GMO", is obviously on-target. But the second and especially the third area seem beyond what the case is about. Much of the content on many articles in this areas are substantially or totally unrelated to the GMO area. I think the scope here could be narrowed to "anything GMO-adacent" content-wise (again, "broadly construed") rather than the whole articles that have a hint of association. That leaves the opportunity for Leyo to contribute constructively in the pure chemical aspects, as they have an extensive and seemingly uncontroversial history of doing across a wide swath of article- and project/discussion space. This remedy as written would mean they could not participate in site-wide chembox work since such activities would materially affect agro-chemical articles even though it would have no relation to GMO (and might not even involve actually editing such articles, since there is so much template magic on them). DMacks (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish is correct (obviously) that FoF 1: Locus of the dispute is stated as "centered around industrial agriculture, agrochemicals, and the resulting effects of both". But as it says with equal weight, "The topic area mostly overlaps with the contentious topic designation in GMO" and the current polling is 8/0/0 with that included. As written and to an outside reader, that indicate to me that the GMO aspect is a key aspect of the Locus, not merely a side observation that the other topics are somewhat in that CTOP arena (and therefore worthy of arbcom involvement). Looking at the FoF, I do agree that GMO itself is not the central topic. But I still don't see involvement beyond the GMO-adjacent topics. For example, I see agro at the industrial scale, which involves certain applications and effects of chemicals and inter-related crop bio/ecological details and effects. But I do not see physical-science/chemistry chemistry itself or the industrial side of producing chemicals. DMacks (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Or as I read again, perhaps it is just an unclear wording. Does "pages about topic X" mean articles that are X as their topic, or articles whose topic is Y where Y is a type of X and/or has as some of its content X even if the topic and most content is unrelated? That's not as splitting hairs or potayto/potahto as it sounds. MEDRS, which has broad community support, does not cover "whatever articles have human-med content", but instead "human-med content in whatever articles". So again, I'm hoping for a clear remedy that is reasonably tailored to the locus of the problem. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So close on Remedy 5

Arbcom got so close to doing a really cool thing with Remedy 5. Hats off to Enterprisey and Guerillero for proposing it. Smh at the rest of the arbs for nixing it.

BK wrote adding a party is most decidedly not an extraordinary step. Of course it is. When you're added as a party, your chance of being sanctioned in the case goes from 0% to higher than 0%. You can't wish this away, it's a fact, not an opinion. The only reason to add a party is because arbcom might sanction them. There is literally no other reason for someone to be a party. Everyone knows this.

SilkTork wrote It seems to me appropriate that if the drafters have concerns about someone who appears involved in the case that they bring them in order to look more closely at what is going on. OK, so did Arbcom do that--look more closely at Gtoffoletto? If so, let's have a FOF about the outcome: if it turns out Gt did nothing wrong, then say so. ("We added a party, turns out they did nothing wrong. Sorry for the trouble.") If Arbcom didn't look more closely, then that was a mistake and Arbcom should admit it ("We added a party but then dropped the ball. Sorry for the trouble.").

Eek wrote deeply unfair to Guerillero and Enterprisey, what about deeply unfair to Gtoffoletto? Ent and Guer asked to be involved, they stood for election as arbs; non-arbs don't ask to be involved, even if they participate.

Does arbcom want to set a precedent that fairness to arbs is more important than fairness to parties? That participating in an arbcom case (which SilkTork pointed out) puts you at risk of being added as a party to the arbcom case? That arbcom is above admonishing itself or admitting its own mistakes? Or that adding parties who turn out to have done nothing wrong, and then saying nothing about that in the final decision, is not a mistake, it's a fine and dandy part of the process? Is that the process we want?

I hope each of you who has voted has also read the evidence talk pages and understands what Gtoffello went through during this case. The drafters seem to understand it; the other arbs seem to have missed it. Put yourselves in the shoes of an editor reading those pages -- especially Gt's comments on the evidence talk page, and then your comments on the PD page -- and ask yourselves: would it make bystander editors more or less likely to help any arbcom with any case in the future? Levivich (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I've written here and here about what it means for me to add a party, while understanding others, including you Levivich, reject this. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

At least consider removing parties from a case. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We did remove parties at the Holocaust case just not once we reached the proposed decision stage. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant consider removing Gt from this case, at this stage. Better late than never. As general practice, either have a FOF about every party (even if it's "No evidence of misconduct by Parties X, Y, and Z; Arbcom thanks them for volunteering.") or drop the un-FOFed parties as part of the PD. It's the least Arbcom could do after having a volunteer sit under very high profile threat of sanction for weeks or months. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment by jtbobwaysf

First, am I allowed to make a comment in an arbcom, or am I only required to stay out of it since I am not an arbiter? If I am not allowed to make a comment, please feel free to remove them. I first came across this editor when I noticed this discussion Talk:Dicamba#Dicamba_and_bees in which KOA was justifying removal of some decently sourced content saying it was not scientific. KOA states on his talk page that he works in pest management. I asked the user to state clearly their COI (their about page refers to a COI) and the user updated their about page apparently in response to my question. Gtoffoletto had also raise COI questions with KOA User_talk:KoA/Archive_5#WP:EXPERT apparently also to no response (and now reading from the other recent comments . It seems that KOA is very active on articles closely related to his area of work, and we know that pest management companies (aka manufacturers of pesticides, herbicides, etc) do employ pest managements academics to conduct studies. The editor then responded that he doesnt have any personal connections to pesticide companies, while we know that chemical manufacturers normally direct their research funds through lobbying organizations and would be funding a university, not a personal researcher. Seems a bit like WP:WL on the issue. KOA then responds by warning of "casting aspersions" by my asking such a question, and also states another editor was banned for asking the same questions. I am not aware of the circumstances regarding the other editor and I am not sure if this ARBCOM is the venue (or even if I am allowed to make a comment not being an arbiter for that matter), but it seems wikipedia needs some sort of academic policy on COI beyond this individual editor. We have a situation where editors promote themselves as paid experts (a researcher is clearly paid for their work in a particular field), actively edits a particular genre, and then seems to fight off COI disclosure requests with conduct accusations of aspersions in response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, comments are welcome here! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Moved response to KoA from § Ongoing aspersions issues. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What this editor appears to be seeking is unprecedented, and in violation of WP:5P3. First they use the words "expert editor" linking to WP:EXPERT as part of their user page User:KoA that is self-promotional, noting that is fine for a user to put more or less whatever they want on their own page including promotional stuff. I have my own vanity comments on mine, many of us do, its great it gives us an opportunity to share more about ourselves should we choose (emphasis on choose). However, if an editor puts up promotional comments or COI disclosures, they should expect to be asked about that, and the action of asking by another editor is not even remotely grounds for a sanction. Second, they have a paragraph or more on how they are an expert in this particular field and how vaguely how COI is avoided. The very mention of COI is first brought up by KOA on their user page, it was my action to seek clarification on that COI. So to summarize we have a user promoting themselves as an expert and seeking to dispel any COI notions, and at the same time, if another editor asks about it, it is then cause for that editor to be banned. This is an absurd abuse and appears to be in violation of the spirit of WP:5P4. It should be noted that this current comment on my part is a result of what I have read in this discourse over the past day, and not at all a part of some long running content dispute. I dont think I have ever come across this editor until today, but I dont come into any of this GMO, pesticide, herbicide content too much (normally staying in other genre). Therefore, I dont think there is even a dispute, other than the editor's very aggressive stance that I deserve some sort of sanction for having the gumption to ask for clarification of KOAs self-stated (albeit ambiguously) COI. I possible solution to this situation is to give a t-ban for WP:DE and WP:SEALION to this editor and if and when they later drop the COI-defense stick, first by clearly disclosing any COI without legalese, then they can apply to come back and edit that topic. Maybe simply a statement on their talk page that says something like 'I do not, nor does my employer, receive any funds either indirectly or directly from herbicide and/or pesticide companies or industry organizations that include these entities.' Alternatively if a user cant be civil (lashing out and requesting bans for anyone that asks about a COI is very un-civil), then maybe the user should edit categories that they can be civil. If I had seen a disclaimer like that, I wouldn't even have asked the question about the COI. When I saw legalese it alerted my WP:QUACKometer. Just this section alone begins with, the user states "I didn't intend to be back here". What comes around goes around...C'mon... Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by JoJo Anthrax

Regarding the above comments of Jtbobwaysf, and directly from KoA's User page: "I don't receive funding from private companies (i.e., pesticide companies), nor do I have any personal or financial connection to pesticides or companies marketing them." That seems like a clear and unambiguous statement to me, and Jtbobwaysf's apparent confusion about it was adequately addressed on KoA's Talk page here. And yet here is Jtbobwaysf, claiming at an ArbCom case in which they have not participated until now, that this statement is ambiguous and somehow requires clarification, all the while throwing around bad-faith phrases like the editor's [KoA's] very aggressive stance, lashing out and requesting bans, When I saw legalese it alerted my WP:QUACKometer, absurd abuse, and the clearly threatening What comes around goes around....

Perhaps the Talk pages of ArbCom cases are exempt from conduct one normally associates with WP:HA. But this case is already populated with far too many personal attacks and aspersions against KoA, as presented, in part, in my Evidence section. Such conduct has even continued after the close of the evidence phase. Enough is enough. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Goldsztajn

I'm only commenting on a single instance where I had direct experience. I do not quite agree with the wording of the FoF: Personal attacks by Leyo at Pesticide Action Network. I do not think Leyo's contributions there constitute attempts to "personally discredit", which implies that he was attacking them on a personal basis (for who they are), rather his comments attacked the intent of their contributions (which to be clear is inappropriate). Nevertheless, on a scale of infraction, especially in the context of the AfD discussion spilling over from the article's talk page notability discussion, which in some ways might be seen as a continuous process, the comments are about the nature of the contributions and their intent, and not per se about the contributors. It is perhaps a fine distinction, but in those comments, the closest Leyo comes to a statement about someone's overall nature (ie an attempt to personally discredit) is with regard to Smartse, with Leyo directly quoting a userbox statement appearing on Smartse's user page. In the two cited instances for this FoF, it is only the statement from Leyo "not really a surprise" which is a clear, unambiguous personal attack, again, albeit on the lower end of the scale and this is not directed at KoA. The point, however, is these must be viewed overall and with the understanding that these three different editors should have been be treated as contributing in good faith. Therefore, I would agree with the title of the FoF, as the comments are ad hominem and not directly with regard to content, but would suggest a nuance to the statement's finding of fact: "On 27 September 2023, an IP editor started a deletion discussion for Pesticide Action Network. Leyo impugned the intent of three participants who voted for deletion, including KoA." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)