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

Case clerks: ToBeFree ( Talk) & MJL ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Enterprisey ( Talk)

The Evidence phase for this case is closed.

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

Evidence Information

Evidence presented by KoA

In short, Leyo has not followed WP:FOC and has chastised me for years for sticking to the expectations from the 2015 GMO Arbcom case.

Aspersions (2015 case background)

Editors frequently would engage in battleground behavior and cast aspersions to bludgeon editors in content discussions while ignoring WP:FOC policy. That especially applied hinting that an editor was supporting pesticide companies, having an agenda, etc. This principle was passed in response and was intended to prevent the behavior from destabilizing the topic with a low tolerance for it when brought to AE.

Editors frequently needed to ask for help with this battleground behavior, though how much aspersions destabilize the topic tends to initially be underestimated at AE. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Edit warring (2015 case background)

Editors would frequently try to insert content without gaining consensus and keep trying to reinsert content in violation of WP:ONUS policy. 1RR was imposed in the pesticide topic, and when asked about scenarios I frequently deal with that would skirt 1RR, arbs mentioned to treat it as WP:GAMING handled by DS as part of 1RR. The key take-home here was to get editors to talk pages.

Leyo engages in battleground behavior, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and poisoning the well in content discussion (2016-2018)

August 20, 2016 The single user opposing it by stressing non-applicable guideline/essay might have some kind of agenda. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS
August 21, 2016 First warned of GMO/pesticide DS after the above. I also walked them through how casting aspersions was considered disruptive in the pesticide topic by ArbCom. This was also the time Leyo should have considered themselves definitely WP:INVOLVED in the subject and with me.
October 17, 2018 Leyo joins an edit war with edit summary no man-on-a-mission removals anymore, please In the previous edit in that diff, I had reminded editors about 1RR expectations in the topic and to use the talk page. Leyo ignored that.
October 17, 2018 On article talk, You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. WP:TPNO/ WP:FOC again.
October 17, 2018 I wouldn't call it filibustering, but the fact that he explained his point of view (that has been well known before) in detail does not make it more valid. Switching to veiled accusations.
October 17, 2018 Reminded again of the pesticide DS, especially for the "man-on-a-mission" sniping and cautioned by SmartSE. [6]

Leyo's WP:INVOLVED threats (2019) to JzG

Leyo opens a pesticide-related ANI against JzG [7] that became a semi-boomerang for threatening to block JzG:

See JzG's [8] and Black Kite's [9] summaries.
I remind Leyo that they are WP:INVOLVED in the pesticide subject and with those of us they have been interacting with there. [10]
Leyo responds with Well … I think it's better if we try to avoid each other. [11] What Leyo links is more sniping trying to paint me as edit warring for working with a new editor. This history shows actual edits (Oct 21 - Nov 1).

Leyo engages in aspersions and WP:FRINGE promotion (2023)

I was dealing sourcing issues we'd been having in the topic that eventually led to this discussion on Headbomb's usertalk page.

Leyo posted there just a few hours after I did (first run-in in years):
June 2, 2023 Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. More veiled accusations with "certain users".
This encouraged Gtoffoletto, [12] which contributed in part to Gtoffoletto's block for harassing me. [13] (see JoJo Anthrax's evidence).
Leyo promotes a WP:FRINGE organization (denial of scientific consensus on GMOs) as reliable in this discussion.
June 4, 2023 3rd notification of pesticide topic (now CT instead of DS at this time) after the above.

Leyo's involved block of KoA, WP:HOUNDING, sidesteps addressing battleground behavior

This revival of the battleground attitude led to Leyo following me in August to Dominion_(2018_film) outside the GMO CT where they had never edited and blocking me for edit warring. [14]
The block was removed by Doug Weller seeing no editing warring and that Leyo was INVOLVED. [15]

Block review

Doug opens an XRV on Aug 6; closed by Thryduulf Consensus is clear that this block is not endorsed, both considering only KoA's actions and also for being a WP:INVOLVED block. suggesting the behavior side of Leyo is dealt elsewhere.
I walked through my edits navigating other editors/SPAs edit warring while sticking to WP:ONUS policy myself. [16]
When pushed at XRV about following my edits, Leyo claimed they just picked me out of RecentChanges log, which editors were highly skeptical of. [17] [18]
Leyo finally admits INVOLVED, but sidestepped addressing any of the battleground behavior and the problems it caused.

Prior AE request

I ask for help with only the pesticide behavior aspect (I have never pursued desysop) at AE. No action.
I'm actively trying to avoid Leyo at this point.

Leyo resumes sniping at KoA, JzG, and SmartSE in content discussion

Sept. 2023: Leyo opened this discussion at MEDRS talk about a content dispute they were involved in with me. I avoid replying to them directly. Leyo snipes at me about a "royal we" [19], I remind them I'm trying to avoid them. [20]
Leyo at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pesticide_Action_Network:

October 3, 2023 Comment on the two users who voted for deletion of this article: Smartse states on their user page “This editor is an exclusionist.” KoA has removed valid content from this article in edit warring mode.
October 5, 2023 This is not really a surprise bearing in mind that JzG’s only contribution to this article was deletion of content.
I ignore this until others ask Doug Weller for advice, says AE is needed. [21]
I open AE2 clear I'm only there because Leyo was continuing pursuit. [22]
October 6, 2023 Continued dismissal of WP:TPNO/ WP:FOC, selectively removing talk page sniping, but choosing to let sniping towards me and JzG remain.
Leyo was partially blocked from the AfD page during AE2. [23]

KoA's actual editing practices

At this case, Leyo has been repeatedly casting more WP:ASPERSIONS, such as always in favor of industrial agriculture or pesticide/chemicals. . . [24], That's despite:

Clearly stating on my user page I work on alternatives to pesticides and effects of pesticides (and importance of good science sourcing).
Varroa destructor, the last agriculture article I recently got up to GA status (delayed as Leyo blocked me when I had time set aside), focuses on harmful effects of pesticides on bees, pesticide alternatives, etc. [25] [26] [27]
Editing on Thiamethoxam toxicity. [28]
Removing industry jargon. [29]
Removing pesticide advertising. [30]
COI/ WP:PUFFERY removal at Syngenta [31]

2019 block by sockpuppet Lourdes

To clarify what actually happened with this 2019 block:

I had been partially reverting edits that had issues, but they were often blanket reverted back into the articles without discussion. [32] [33] [34]
I was blocked by Lourdes (a sockpuppet with other admin conduct issues) [35] before I was able to respond to that AN3 to show the edit warring I was trying to navigate.
On block substance itself, Doc James reviewed the unblock request and did not find issue with the edits, much less for a one week block when I had never been blocked before. [36]
The block though was ultimately because I made an edit that was requested on the talk page. I didn't have plans to touch the edit button anymore prior to that due to continued blanket restorations escalating, though FeydHuxtable did engage on talk at this time and asked me to retry those removals they had restored. [37] It just was messy all around as summarized here.

I became much more careful about reverts after this 2019 incident even when justified and checking with others on how best to balance reduction of heat and battleground issues while still trying to avoid issues with WP:GAMING of WP:ONUS policy or 1RR.

Handling of edit wars and WP:TPNO

As one of the main parties at the 2015 case trying to reduce issues with edit warring and comments on editors/aspersions, I often provide the CT notification to new editors and give them a followup about 1RR expectations and WP:ONUS when needed. I'm also often the one walking editors through WP:FOC even on my "side" in a content dispute trying to reduce heat. [38]

Edit warring is still a major issue in this topic and combativeness about it. [39] [40] [41] Battleground editors like that are not an uncommon, but often inflame the topic putting editors on edge and less flexible, especially when badgered.

If I do revert content someone has re-restored, [42] I still give thorough edit summaries of the issue (never WP:STONEWALLING) to attempt to steer them to talk. This plus reminders about process, 1RR, starting on talk first before reverts etc. are all done case-by-case in the hopes that edit warring that's been hard to address at AE is reduced.

I'm definitely open to a different course if arbs have better ideas that will help settle the topic while reducing instances of editors reinserting content that was removed in good-faith (i.e., a legitimate issue raised in edit summaries/talk, and not stonewalling). Maybe a principle reiterating that for GMO 1RR might cut down both edit warring of that nature and heat editors get for responding to issues and trying to guide the consensus building process.

Evidence presented by Leyo

Violation of pillar 2

WP:ASPERSIONS says “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence.” However, there clearly is evidence that KoA has been pushing several articles on topics critical of industrial agriculture/chemicals away from “NPOV”. Just a few recent examples:

Pushing to make appear Dominion (2018 film) being a biased documentary already in the introductory sentence by changing documentary film to anti-farming film/ vegan anti-livestock farming film in slow editwar mode ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and against discussion.
Removing almost the entire content in the article on the NGO Pesticide Action Network, still calling it WP:FRINGE organization (see above) although according to literature it’s the most influential NGO in the field of pesticides.
Misusing MEDRS claims to prevent a section on EWG’s activity on PFASs. KoA also warned admin Steven Walling after a single revert, while he has done several reverts in this article.

Older cases include e.g. Decline in insect populations ( discussion; [43] [44] [45]…) resulting in KoA being blocked for edit warring against talk page consensus and later nearly indef blocked. Tryptofish noticed similar issues with KoA:

When you keep reverting back, you are engaging in a slow edit war, and you do look like "the pesticide police" as well as "status-quo stonewalling".
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.

FeydHuxtable is also among the users who noticed POV editing (case declined as premature at that time). Pillar 2 is among the most important to me. For many years, I’ve been trying to ensure that this principle is followed by users in contentious topics, especially in articles that are not of primary interest to me but are still within my broader area of expertise (primarily in deWP but also in enWP). Could I have a (significant) bias myself? The fact that I’ve been accused by both sides, i.e. for e.g. advocating for a user who was indef blocked for suspected industry POV pushing to receive a fair process and for (suspected) greenwashing (together with several other users) vs. promotion of NGOs by KoA (see above), indicates that I haven’t acted in a biased manner.

Inconsistent behaviour in edit wars

KoA is regularly involved in edit wars. There, he has two distinctly different approaches to content disputes, depending on whether he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version or the other one:

If he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version, he won't allow any changes, unless a consensus on the talk page is reached (which can't be reached since he opposes, even if the majority would agree). Even when KoA is involved in the reverting/edit-war (sometimes even as the only one from "his side"), he uses edit summaries that give the impression that he is acting as an uninvolved user or even as an admin. Recent examples:
As seen in e.g. Dominion (2018 film), the attitude is completely different, if KoA disagrees with the pre-edit-war version: In such a case, he considers several reverts to be fine, after only waiting a few days to see whether the other users keep repeating their disagreement.

Strategic misinterpretation of policies and guidelines

There is a pattern of misuse of MEDRS as a (nonapplicable) argument to remove content, always in favor of industrial agriculture or pesticide/chemicals: example conclusions by closing admin, Peaceray, Yilloslime, Dialectric. Furthermore, e.g. WP:ONUS, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE are occasionally stretched in a strategic manner. Also Tryptofish cautioned KoA: Please do not engage in slow edit wars, and please do not misrepresent policies and guidelines. These statements by SlimVirgin, FeydHuxtable, Tryptofish and Montanabw provide additional evidence:

he was interpreting WP:ONUS to mean that he personally had to approve all edits; and he kept on reverting
I've gotten to know King quite well over the last few months, and have spent several hours writing long diff rich responses to his half truths and mis-representations. At this point I'm starting to think responding in the normal collegial manner is a waste of time.
I also think that he is wrong about WP:ONUS
I have to say that this style of reverting and personally attacking people in very aggressive ways is his classic tactic.

Impact and counterexample search

KoA acts very smart and is a skilled writer. With the methods described above, he is very forceful in content disputes/discussions. It takes several users to defend a more neutral position. This is especially problematic for less watched articles. The examples of the three articles mentioned at the beginning ( Dominion (2018 film), Pesticide Action Network, Environmental Working Group) show that:

as more users became aware of the articles in question (partly due to the AE against me), the tide was turning against KoA’s attempts.
his views were against the consensus in all cases

-- Leyo 01:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have searched for examples, where KoA has used methods as described above, e.g. to remove inappropriate criticism from health/environmental NGO articles or to make a documentary about the negative aspects of industrial agriculture look more credible, but without success. Also, vice versa, i.e. pushing (against other users) for changes that make an industry association such as CropLife International look less credible. If KoA can provide a number of such examples, I'm willing to revise my opinion. -- Leyo 00:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)/22:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Page block of Leyo at AE was preventative

In his statement at the case request, Leyo wrote: "I am not sure whether the block was rather punitive than preventive." At AE, the blocking admin, HJ Mitchell, wrote: "I've pblocked Leyo from the AfD for a week. Hopefully it will be closed by then." [46]. That clearly indicated an intention to prevent further disruption for the remaining time the AfD would be open. In Leyo's comments at that AE, [47], there is no statement about stopping activity at the AfD, nor is there any at the AfD itself, so there was no way for admins to know if he were done with it. Admins should know the difference between punitive and preventative. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Even after that, on this case page, Leyo says in his evidence that KoA was wrong to remove content from the page because "it’s the most influential NGO in the field of pesticides". He cites that to a single comment by one editor on the article talk page. Yet, at the AfD from which Leyo was pblocked, multiple editors commented that secondary sources only mentioned that NGO in passing, while commenting at length about other more prominent NGOs in "the field of pesticides": [48], [49]. Thus Leyo is continuing here the kind of crusade for which he was previously pblocked at AE. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Leyo's view of his own responsibility as an admin

Leyo currently emphasizes in his evidence, [50], what he sees as slow edit warring and POV-pushing by KoA at Dominion (2018 film). However, it's important to note that the community examined these claims at the block review, and a reading of that discussion shows a consensus that KoA had not edit warred or otherwise acted disruptively there. In fact, the only evidence Leyo presents of KoA doing things where there was a consensus against KoA, as opposed to Leyo's individual opinion, are from 4–5 years ago. The fact that, even on case pages, Leyo continues to pursue his POV dispute with KoA demonstrates the WP:INVOLVED nature of the block, and a lack of concern for consensus.

I think it's worth looking closely at this comment from an uninvolved editor near the end of the block review: [51]. Leyo's block of KoA was his only block ever of an established editor; the other 190 blocks were of new or newish accounts. And even by the end of the block review, editors perceived that Leyo had not adequately acknowledged that it was a bad block, and Leyo appeared to be dancing around the issue. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Leyo's actions towards someone else

In 2019, Leyo was criticized by multiple administrators at ANI for poor conduct in edits relating to the same kinds of NGOs: [52]. (KoA comes into the discussion near the end, but is not at the center of it.):

Leyo's editing does look problematic here. Ordering other editors what to do because I know best is not a good start, especially when you then threaten to block them for something that isn't in the slightest blockworthy.
[T]his looks like grudge-bearing, which is not an attractive quality.
You don't get to do mass-reverts during a discussion, you don't get to threaten people with blocking for performing non-disruptive edits you disagree with, and especially you don't get to do those things when you are clearly involved with the subject concerned.

And all of that was about JzG, not KoA. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Z1720

AE1

In AE1, KoA supplied 5 diffs concerning Leyo's behaviour. I wrote that comments in 2016 and 2018 were too old to act on. I also wrote that an IBAN was not necessary at that time. I hoped that the affected editors (particularly KoA and Leyo) would act as if there was an IBAN and avoid each other as much as possible.

Talk page message

After posting my opinion, KoA posted on my talk page. My response was that KoA was too focused on Leyo's comments instead of editing Wikipedia. I recommended to KoA to drop the stick and return to AE if problems continued.

AE2

In AE2, the AfD discussion was posted as evidence. I recommended a warning for editors at the AfD for comments to focus on the article's notability, not editor conduct. It surprised me that Leyo would need this reminder, but Leyo was not using admin powers to cause disruption, so I did not think an ARBCOM case was needed at that time. My recommendation was posted on Oct. 8 and did not evaluate any edits after that date or Leyo's p-block.

Question of referring to ARBCOM

At AE2, admin that I respect discussed if this case should be referred to ARBCOM. This evidence is not meant to question any editor's judgement (except maybe mine) but question how the institution of admins responded, and if this procedure "worked".

Sample of comments: "Whether or not it's time to go to WP:ARC is above my pay grade," [53], "Broader questions of whether this conduct is becoming an admin cannot be answered at this board." [54], "If...people don't think Leyo is fit to be an admin (and I'm not offering an opinion on that), then this needs to go to ArbCom." and "your choices are accept the logged warning and use that as evidence if Leyo continues the battleground mentality, or we close this and refer it to ArbCom." [55], "while Leyo's conduct is concerning it does not rise to a level of desysop and I do not think it needs to be taken to ARBCOM at this time." (my comment) [56], "I think it's about time to refer this to ArbCom for a review of admin conduct." [57].

This case was referred to ARBCOM by Seraphimblade (time stamped in Preliminary statements) and AE2 closed by HJ Mitchell about 1.5 hours later. [58]

Questions to consider:

When admin conduct is questioned, should admin state whether to refer to ARBCOM?
Should admin have referred this case to ARBCOM sooner? Should it have been referred when KoA's block was declared a bad block, or when Leyo was p-blocked (similar to how WHEEL actions usually trigger automatic ARBCOM review)?
Posting a case can be daunting to non-admin editors and admin can sometimes give a more neutral preliminary statement. Should admin have initiated this review sooner, or should the burden to open the case be on the aggrieved party?
Should the AE have been closed when this was referred to ARBCOM? Should the same admin who posted the case here also close the AE thread? Z1720 ( talk) 15:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Gtoffoletto

KoA's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and lack of collegiality

I expanded Pesticide Action Network [59] and Environmental Working Group [60] after this discussion User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1#EWG.org Generally Unreliable? (in which KoA aggressively attacked NGOs and Leyo).

KoA followed [61] [62] They reverted most edits whole-sale in a strategic and shrewd way while only adding negative/discrediting content. They never attempted to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM but just reverted requiring WP:PERFECTION (it felt like WP:STONEWALLing progress) and often used aggressive edit summaries accusing others of "edit warring" and warning of 1RR [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] asking for "consensus on talk pages" where discussions would get bludgeoned/filibustered. This toxic environment frustrated editors who lost their temper or gave up stalling any progress.

KoA immediately entered battleground mode: not WP:AGF and casting WP:ASPERSIONS while checking old blocks and referencing them [69]. My "de-escalation" attempt was interpreted as "gaming the system" [70]. They even WP:CANVASSED admins that had sanctioned me years back [71] (and were rebuffed by other editors).

KoA's inability to compromise leads to editor time waste

Even alone against consensus KoA never accepted compromise. The only solution was to patiently include others with RfCs as suggested by Dialectric [72]. I initially resisted RfCs to minimise wasted editor time (can't RfC everything!) and because I had never opened one myself.

This RfC is emblematic [73]: after months of editor time wasted and despite unanimous consensus against them, KoA still asked for formal closure.

KoA's strong POV

In several months, and despite substantial editing, I never once witnessed KoA going against the interests of industrial agriculture companies or portraying NGOs in a non-negative way.

Alignment with other users and WP:TAGTEAMing

Moved from the 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) analysis comment ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

KoA and Tryptofish have been editing in an aligned manner ever since I've followed this topic area. They usually feign independence but rarely separate or oppose each other. There is evidence of them explicitly tag teaming to push their POV in this area dating back to 2019: User talk:KoA/Archive 5#All the fun at AE

I'd like to, frankly, engineer a period of time when all of the "good guy" editors (quote unquote) are together...Conflict II is over the possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate...I want to think a couple of chess moves ahead...I'm talking instead about a wiki-strategy. OK?
Would that timing be OK with you? Tryptofish
KoA: I may not be much help if it becomes prolonged for some reason.

This doesn't sound like building an encyclopaedia to me. More like: WP:POVPUSH and WP:GAMING.

Also not disclosing this "alignment" is quite disruptive in niche pages where just a few editors usually edit (such as in the industrial agriculture topic area) as it is very easy to "tip the scale".

A recent example of this "alignment" was here [74] where they prop each other up (emphasis mine): I'm particularly interested in what KoA thinks, since he is an expert on the topic.. Using this "expert" status to "gain an edge" while editing anonymously in content disputes is problematic to me: aren't there policies against this after the Essjay controversy? And, if they truly are experts in this contentious topic, should they be editing it in such a one sided way? {{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by JoJo Anthrax

Leyo's disruptive edits in the topic area

As evidenced by the many diffs provided by KoA, in this topic area Leyo has, for years, repeatedly displayed poor temperament and judgement, having engaged in battleground behavior and casting aspersions against KoA and others (note also Leyo's bad faith remark against KoA in this very case). The involved block of KoA by Leyo, which operationally silenced an "opponent" in this topic area, was quickly overridden here. At this subsequent discussion there was overwhelming consensus that the block was a misuse of administrative tools. During a later AE discussion about Leyo's disruptive actions in this topic area, Leyo was pblocked by HJ Mitchell to prevent ongoing battleground behavior.

Leyo's disruptive edits have created a poor editing environment within which Gtoffoletto has repeatedly targeted KoA for harassment

NOTE: This section, and its title, was edited on 10 November to better reflect the revised case scope.

Leyo is an administrator. When an administrator repeatedly engages in disruptive behavior and weaponizes administrator tools against an editor, a toxic editing environment is created. Part of that toxicity involves the implicit empowerment of editors to mimic the administrator's disruptive behavior against their "opponents."

An example of such behavior against KoA is evident here. The editor Gtoffoletto has, in particular, reflected Leyo's approach in this topic area by recapitulating their own history of disruptive editing, an approach for which they received an indefinite topic ban in another topic area. Gtoffoletto has specifically and repeatedly cast aspersions against and/or assumed bad faith toward KoA, to the point of harassment: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most particularly here. The last of those diffs reveals both a harsh personal attack against KoA, and vehement support for Leyo's weaponizing of administrative tools against KoA.

Editors should never be subjected to such relentless and aggressive attacks, but Leyo's disruptive behaviors seem to have drawn a figurative target on KoA's back. Additionally, it is notable that although active in this topic area, Leyo responded to Gtoffoletto's many personal attacks against their topic-area "opponent" with deliberate indifference, never expressing concern about, or taking action against, any of them. It instead required Doug Weller to block Gtoffoletto for that disruption.

Further echoing Leyo's poor behavior, Gtoffoletto has continued to cast aspersions against KoA and other editors in this very case; see, for example, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

Although not as egregious as their harassment of KoA, Gtoffoletto's disruptive beahvior in this topic area is also evident in this discussion (which I closed), an attempted RfC by Gtoffoletto that was characterized by their bludgeoning and WP:IDHT behavior, and which several editors (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) described as misleading and/or an attempt by Gtoffoletto to push their POV. Note also this ongoing discussion in the topic area that similarly displays Gtoffoletto's tendency toward bludgeoning and WP:IDHT behavior.

The evidence indicates that in this topic area Leyo has, for a long time, repeatedly engaged in disruptive behaviors against KoA. They have misused administrative tools, and they received a preventative block. Those disruptive behaviors and actions have contributed to a toxic editing environment within which Gtoffoletto (who also received a preventative block) has actively engaged in disruptive behaviors that include personal attacks, aspersions, and assumptions of bad faith against KoA.

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable

Leyo an awesome editor & admin; great asset to the global project

As noted in 2019 Leyo's "technical and scientific proficiency seems to massively exceed the typical science editor" . Their contributions span 182 wikis and total over half a million edits. As stated in their RFA they do "far more creation work than deletion work". "Multilingual cross project editors" like Leyo are "the glue that holds Wikimedia together." Most of their contributions continue to be the same sort of modest grunt work noted at their RFA.

Understandable a normally low-key editor like Leyo could act out of character in this area

Per my 15 year editing history, I invariably walk away from an article where its not easy to swiftly resolve differences of opinion collaboratively. KoA was the exception. I indicated that in his case I'd be up for a contest to the "permaban". At the time I thought KoA might be a net -ve; due to my since revised view that he may be a shill, and his exceptional forcefulness. When both Leyo & I first encountered KoA, he had a flawless track record in emerging unscathed from disputes, often succeeding in getting others sanctioned, such as the sweet & compassionate mainstream scientist DrChrissy. In the spirit of fairness, I advised KoA he’d be at risk of boomerang should he escalate against an editor like myself. When KoA escalated anyway, I signalled I didn't want my wiki friends getting involved. Id expected some of KoA's Skeptic & MEDS buddies would pitch in, so was hoping for an exhilarating test of skill. Sadly, they stayed out of it, while the independently minded Colonel did not, making it all too easy. I also had concerns on the industrial agriculture topic class (actual the whole biotech TA), hence requesting the Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing Arb case. As well as helping to deal with KoA, I thought it might flush out other problematic editors in the MEDS / Sceptic crowd. (I now think the Arbs were wise to decline, I've shifted to thinking its best to cut said crowd some slack due to the great job they do defending us from fringe.)

KoA an honourable mainstream scientist after all

Admittedly, I'd suspected KoA might be a corrupt scientist or some kind of elite PR guy from as early as 2017 (After he dropped an unwarranted DS tag on my talk, drawing attention to the GMO Arb case.) In 2019, after KoA tried to set blogs against quality WP:RSs including a meta study, said suspicion hardened to near certainty; per Leyo's evidence I made various statements suggesting KoA may be a POV pusher. But KoA's admirable conduct towards the end of the bug decline dispute made me revise that opinion. Additionally, after our dispute ended, a second meta study was published, suggesting KoA's position on insect decline was a valid mainstream perspective after all.

Evidence presented by Smartse

Leyo used administrative tools in an area that they had little experience and stated they would not contribute

In Leyo's RFA they stated that they were mainly requesting the bit to examine deleted edits and would not [their emphasis] be blocking users apart from obvious vandalism. In 13 years, Leyo has made only 187 blocks and the vast majority were straightforward vandalism blocks made between May and August 2023. Only 9 were for edit warring. The block of KoA was therefore an exceptionally unusual action for them. They acknowledged at the AAR that Unfortunately, it seems that my memory was affected by standard admin responses to slow edit-wars in other WMF projects demonstrating that they lack understanding of en.wiki norms. Their activity here is typically sparse (median of 22 edits a month over five years) punctuated by occasional periods of thousands of edits per month. This case demonstrates the problem with an admin getting the bit for one thing and then 13 years later, deciding to start using the tools in a way that was never anticipated, in a project that they are relatively unfamiliar with.

Leyo claims to coincidentally encounter KoA

There’s obviously no way of knowing for sure one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe that the most recent encounters between Leyo and KoA are entirely coincidental. After many editors had questioned how they noticed the edits at Dominion, Leyo stated that Every now and then, I follow the RecentChanges, where I noticed that there is an ongoing dispute. At the PAN AFD, they stated that the article had been on their watchlist since 2015, but they had never contributed to it or the talk page, even during discussions in June 2023, a month in which they made almost 2000 edits. In 300 edits between August and October, they happened to interact with KoA twice by coincidence.

Leyo continued to cast aspersions during this case

I was amazed by the final comment in this edit about pinging editors: For users who don't have anything to hide that could be brought up in the evidence, there is none in my view. The inference is that the only reason that KoA could have concerns about other editors being notified is because he has something to hide.

Leyo still does not understand the problem with bringing up previous edits at AFD

AFDs occur in isolation from the article – regardless of the sources or content present in the article, the only thing that matters is whether !voters can produce sources to support their claim of notability. Leyo considers it relevant to note whether a !voter has removed content from the article. I questioned this at the AFD, e.g. Z1720 did at the 2nd AE and it has been discussed here but still they do not see the problem. As with my first point, this indicates that Leyo is not sufficiently familiar with the norms of AFD and yet they have the technical ability to close them.

Evidence presented by Dialectric

I have edited in the GMO / Agribusiness area occasionally since 2006. I contributed to the 2015 Arbcom GMO case. I have had numerous interactions with KoA in this area since the GMOArbcom, and brief interactions with Leyo. KoA stands out as unique in this area for his unwillingness to compromise and his battleground mentality. Leyo's evidence includes numerous recent examples of this. My evidence is auxillary to his; while each of the examples here may be not be actionable in itself, in aggregate they demonstrate a pattern of behavior that has a negative impact on editor experience in the agribusiness area for many who strive to work collegiality.

KoA misapplies policies and guidelines

In August 2016, Leyo, KoA and I all edited Talk:Neonicotinoid, discussing a bee study which does not involve human health. Here, KoA repeatedly references WP:MEDRS in his opposition to inclusion. 4 editors raise concerns about repeated off-topic mentions of MEDRS.( Special:Diff/735176232) KoA ignores these concerns and goes on to reference MEDRS 5 additional times in the subsequent rfc for a total of 12 references to MEDRS. For a bee study. In July 2021, KoA again repeatedly mentions MEDRS in an animal context, arguing against addition of a statement about DDT-resistant mosquitos on Talk:DDT.( Special:Diff/1034272869). Leyo's evidence already includes misuse of MEDRS on the Environmental Working Group/EWG Talk.

KoA engages in battleground behavior

In March 2016, I posted an AE filing against Jytdog for editing Bayer CropScience Limited against his GMO topic ban. While a number of editors including Jytdog himself ( Special:Diff/708484378) agreed that Jytdog's violation was unambiguous, KoA responded with a call for a boomerang, asking admins to "nip it in the bud with a good look at whether it would serve the topic to take action against the filer"( Special:Diff/708499066)

In August 2018, Seraphim System and KoA discuss various sources used in Glyphosate-based herbicides, and rather than directly answer Seraphim System's brief question "why do you think legal content follows MEDRS?" KoA responds with a pointy 'Competence is required' reply.( Special:Diff/855053910) Seraphim encourages him to strike the comment,( Special:Diff/855058210) and instead, KoA responds in part with 'Please stop escalating for no reason and WP:FOC' ( Special:Diff/855123413)

In March 2019, responding to KoA's AE filing against FeydHuxtable, Vanamonde writes "your language suggests that any admin who disagrees with your interpretation of what happened is neglecting their duty, which itself smacks of a battleground mentality" ( Special:Diff/888400444)

In May 2022, on Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_7#Bt_cotton_and_farmer_suicides_in_India, KoA accuses me of "cherry-picking studies pushing a WP:FRINGE theory" after I argue against UNDUE inclusion of a 'Brief Communication' that only briefly mentions farmer suicides. He also accuses me, without evidence, of "misusing MEDRS sources".( Special:Diff/1086894571)

KoA's content removals

2016, removes source critical of genetically modified Golden rice without discussion, using a misleading edit summary that does not mention removals ( Special:Diff/727706447)

2019, removes the name of a Monsanto-linked scientist from Glyphosate without a policy-based explanation ( Special:Diff/923198526)

2020, removes referenced 'pro-industry' descriptor from lede of American Council on Science and Health ( Special:Diff/946881255)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Analysis of evidence Information

Place here detailed analysis of the evidence presented above. Analysis does not count against the word or diff limits, but use of this section to circumvent the limits will not be tolerated. There is room for comments on analysis presented by others; however, any statements should be brief and directed to the drafters. Discussions between individuals will be removed by the clerks without warning. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of Tryptofish's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Just noting that some of Gtoffoletto's depictions below don't accurately reflect the actual timeline you can check in my evidence. The sniping at myself and SmartSE on Oct 3 wasn't the only comment, but also a later one against JzG on Oct 5. During this time there was the request for help by SmartSE at Doug Weller's page I mentioned in evidence. [75] Gtoffoletto depicts the AE request that KoA immediately opened when in reality I was staying back for days until others agreed an AE was needed before posting.

They then characterize me editing with rapid succession after Leyo's block. I had already specified on Doug's talk page I didn't have much time to edit prior to that with I'm on extremely limited time through the weekend to contribute to that. Leyo's last admin tool abuse disrupted time I had off for vacation, but family time I have coming up I need to be a little more defensive of. I was also taking time to review all the sources at the AfD before posting later in the week. [76] There was a lot of followup discussion of new sources after that too. It's fair to say I am bothered by this depiction that I was out to post the AE2 right away and waiting to edit until after their block, especially with the actual context in mind. That kind of embellishment has no place here.

As for Trpytofish's evidence on the block, the key event that triggered the block was Leyo actively choosing to strike their comment about SmartSE after the AE started, but let the "edit warrior mode" comment about me remain as well as the sniping at JzG. That is where WP:PREVENTATIVE would come into play with the block since Leyo was in effect doubling down on the comments at that time. KoA ( talk) 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

On enclosing URLs on talk pages in nowiki tags [77]: Even when a source is not considered reliable (for articles), there is no good reason for putting it into nowiki tags on talk pages. This practice make sense for e.g. websites containing copyright infringement materials, violence etc. (if the links are not removed entirely). JzG's issue was a lack of competence to find and remove links to a specific website from articles without putting everything in nowiki tags in other namespaces (for which there is otherwise no reason). insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/ (which allows namespace-specific searches) is as easy to use as JzG's previous method (Special:LinkSearch). Moreover, JzG has continued putting the nowiki tags and removing sources from articles, while associated discussions at WP:RSN and WT:CHEM were on-going. This clearly is disruptive behaviour. Furthermore, I didn't threat to block JzG myself. If I do, I use active, not passive voice. BTW: JzG's response was quite interesting. [78] -- Leyo 10:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

On "Leyo appeared to be dancing around the issue": What about this statement? BTW: Anyone is invited to hide my admin buttons, except those related to files. -- Leyo 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Page block of Leyo at AE was preventative: preventative of what?

Tryptofish's claim that Leyo's Block was "preventative" seems quite strange to me.

Leyo was participating in the discussion in support of Keeping the page of this NGO (KoA and Tryptofish voted to delete) and several users were agreeing with them (the page ended up being Kept in the end and was vastly expanded).

Leyo made 1 comment on other users on October 3 (that was was partially struck by themself on October 6 [79] and one last unrelated comment after the strike on October 8 [80]).
Leyo never posted on that page again after this. He was responding to the AE request that KoA immediately opened
The page block came 3 days later on Oct 11. [81]
Tryptofish immediately pointed out in the AfD on October 11 that Leyo had been page blocked right under his comment showing support. [82]
KoA went on to make 17 edits to that page (10 of which in rapid succession after Leyo's block) [83]
On October 31, 18 days after the discussion was closed Tryptofish went back to move his note away from under Leyo's comment that he had been blocked [84]. Why?

So what exactly was the block "preventing"?

[The second half of this comment explicitly provided evidence, which has thus been moved to a new section, #Evidence presented by Gtoffoletto, above.] ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

{{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: Responding to the first section, about prevention versus punitive, my evidence concerned the reasoning stated by the blocking administrator, HJ Mitchell. As for the last point, about why I moved my note under Leyo's comment at the AfD, it was simply because Leyo asked me to: [85], [86], [87].; As for the second section, alleging tag-teaming, I don't think that it's analysis of my evidence, except as WP:2WRONGS (and I'm not a named party, although I offered to be one) – and it should perhaps be hatted or something similar. It seems to me to be something that should instead be presented as evidence in its own right, assuming it should be evidence at all. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Now moved to evidence from here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of Z1720's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties: Just noting for Arbs that Z1720's evidence meshes up well timeline-wise with the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial_agriculture/Evidence#Leyo_resumes_sniping_at_KoA,_JzG,_and_SmartSE_in_content_discussion section in my evidence, so I want to focus on where that intersects with their request for me to avoid Leyo (and Leyo me). At the time of AE1, I had repeatedly made it clear I was actively trying to avoid Leyo even though the behavior was one-directional towards me (and had forced me to spend what limited volunteer time I had then dealing with serious things like the block, XRV, etc.).; In the leadup to AE2, I was avoiding Leyo in my topic areas as much as I could, including not responding directly to them in content discussion we were both involved in already. It was instead Leyo that sought me out in cases like the sniping at MEDRS (where I had to remind Leyo I was trying to avoid them) or at the AfD in my evidence that leads into Z1720's AE2 description. Even though I was the filer of AE2, it's important to note I was still trying to avoid the issue altogether and did not post AE2 immediately after I saw Leyo's comments. It wasn't until days later when other editors besides me being sniped at asking Doug Weller for help agreed AE was needed again that I posted it. That's in part why I included it in my evidence to reiterate how I responded to Z1720's request to avoid Leyo. KoA ( talk) 17:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others

Analysis of KoA's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties: On warnings: I've just noticed that the sole user who has ever posted warnings concerning the pesticide topic on my talk page is KoA: 2016, 2018 (KoA warned me about risking a block for edit warring after a single revert by me), 2023 -- Leyo 22:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC) PS. KoA regularly posts warnings on user talk pages: October 2023, July 2023 (to admin Steven Walling), July 2023, June 2023, June 2023, June 2023, May 2023, … reply; On Smartse's comment below: I would like to quote myself: I felt it is an important piece of (factual) information for the closing admin that a certain user has removed (in my view) clearly valid content ( example) from the article (without which the views of uninvolved users in the AfD discussions). At the same time, I should not have mentioned Smartse's exclusionist user page tag, since it is unrelated to the AfD discussion. Apologies for that. That's why I struck the part on Smartse. -- Leyo 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply; Re I'm actively trying to avoid Leyo at this point: I opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:MEDRS to hear opinions from uninvolved users and about the issue of MEDRS for non- WP:BMI in general. KoA quickly joined the discussion. -- Leyo 02:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply; On the Wikipedia talk:MEDRS analysis from Leyo, I am a regular to MEDRS topics, it's been on my watchlist for at least a decade now. It was clear Leyo was talking about the article and me when they opened it, and they later admitted it, but only after editors were skeptical about how vague Leyo was being about what the actual article was. It was only after Polygnotus pointed out it was about the EWG page that I joined the discussion and only replied to other editors, not Leyo, at least until they came after me. The situation was kind of like going to RSN, but trying to keep others working on the article from the posting or not notifying them. KoA ( talk) 08:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply; I didn't state that you were following me. However, this is not what is consider "actively trying to avoid Leyo". As can be seen in WT:MEDRS#MEDRS required for activities of an NGO?, I sought input from other users on the general issue. The EWG article was just the most recent case that finally made me post a thread at WT:MEDRS.; On "sniping": I don't think this term is an appropriate description. In discussions, I'm generally exclusively focusing on the content and I'm rarely involved in disputes or even edit wars. However, I tend to use clear words when I observe that users violate e.g. WP:5P2. -- Leyo 00:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply; Concerning JzG, see my statement in #Analysis of Tryptofish's evidence. -- Leyo 10:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply; That's the diff to Dialectric's analysis below: Special:Diff/1158574246 -- Leyo 20:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

With Dialectric now participating, I do want to mention two items in my evidence where I interacted with them. They are not a party and have usually been more on the sidelines, so I won't get into the history I've had with them in this subject more than in evidence except their comment below on could be seen as KoA personalizing a dispute. That is continuing the battleground attitude from when GMOs were more controversial and editors promoting WP:FRINGE would lash out at those holding such issues back and trying to keep things relatively even-handed in articles. Some of that cycle is being seen here again. There's more on misrepresentation of my edits in my analysis of their evidence.

In my evidence though on the Groupsucule AE, Dialectric is one saying aspersions weren't so bad because Groupuscule had not called out specific editors and edits in their aspersions. They likewise did the same at Petrarchan47's, both of which resulted in bans. That has specifically been considered WP:GAMING of the aspersions principle by just not naming names while still making the insinuation. This is just reiterating for Arbs that this variation of battleground mentality has been around for awhile and still resurfaces (and defended), like with Leyo's "certain editors" comment. KoA ( talk) 18:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: I'd like to expand on what KoA posted in #Leyo resumes sniping at KoA, JzG, and SmartSE in content discussion. What I think is a striking and consistent feature about the comments directed at KoA, JzG, and Smartse, is that all of the comments take the form of arguing that those editors' views should be discounted because of who those editors are or what they had done in the past, rather than because of the substance of what those editors said. And I cannot see a logical reason to have stricken the comment about Smartse without striking the other comments, such that it appears as though the striking was not so much an actual attempt to correct an error, but a strategic attempt to give the appearance of making a correction without actually meaning to do so. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply; I'd like to thank KoA for doing such a thorough job of summarising. The comments at the AFD were contrary to the principle of " comment on content, not on the contributor". It doesn't matter what I have on my user page, or what anyone else has done before - what matters is whether the arguments made at an AFD are consistent with policy. This would be worrying coming from any admin, but after Leyo was so strongly admonished over the block of KoA, it was very concerning to see them not understanding this norm. The comment about JzG came even after I had made two comments pointing out the problem with their comment (although admittedly, I could have been clearer in explaining this!). It was also unclear to me why they decided to strike the part about me out - was it because they realised that exclusionism ≠ deletionism or because they realised it was inappropriate regardless? SmartSE ( talk) 20:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply; ~~(The comment just above should be in the Parties section.)~~ I'm going to comment on the post by Leyo, above in the Parties section, about the warnings given to Leyo by KoA. I suppose a case can be made that KoA's comments, going beyond the standard ArbCom templates for CTs, were not necessary, but there's nothing threatening intended by following ArbCom's requirements for awareness. I find it interesting that all the warnings cited here by Leyo occurred before the block of KoA. As such, they actually strengthen the argument that Leyo's block of KoA was "involved". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply; KoA's 'Leyo promotes a WP:FRINGE organization' item, rather than showing promotion of a Fringe organization, could be seen as KoA personalizing a dispute. While pesticideinfo.org may not be reliable, Leyo provides sources here to support his request. KoA could discuss these sources, or just wait for Headbomb, who's list this is, to reject the proposal (likely given his responses about EWG on the same page). Rather than discuss, KoA challenges Leyo's request as 'disruptive behavior'. This is a discussion on a little-viewed user talkpage that has no direct impact on content of the encyclopedia. As such, the request is not much of a disruption, and arguing that a source is something other than "Generally unreliable" is not equivalent to promoting that source. Dialectric ( talk) 11:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of Gtoffoletto's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Gtoffoletto's behavior is somewhat outside the scope of this case (excluding their behavior at this page), which is in part why I didn't post any evidence related to them. JoJo Anthrax's evidence though gives a pretty good layout of how Leyo's actions seem to have emboldened existing issues with Gtoffoletto and pursuit of me that seem to have started at the discussion at Headbomb's page I have in my evidence. Accusations of wrongdoing are very much lacking evidence or outright misrepresentation in Gtoffoletto's evidence though:

For behavior at this case itself though in their evidence/analysis, I'm still seeing a lot of bad-faith accusations and aspersions from Gtoffoletto here since their block for harassing me. [88]. Tryptofish addresses the absurdity of much of this below, but trying to paint editors as tag-teaming for collaborating on fixing linter errors [89] or other gnomish things (that actually took a bit of work) since the WP:GMORFC just comes across as pure battleground behavior to actively misrepresent editors at an admin venue. If you want to see what resulted from when Tryptofish and I were talking about times we were available to work on that undertaking, the WP:GMORFC AE request is right here. The mundaneness of that request should be apparent in contrast to Gtoffoletto's depiction.
On the expert editors comment, because of how often the GMO aspersions principle still gets violated, I bend over backwards on my user page to be clear that I have no connections to pesticide companies, etc. as an independent scientist, nor do I get any special privileges on-wiki as an expert editor. The irony here is that I'm often the one walking new editors through WP:EXPERT and that we don't get special privileges. Like with their block, this really gives the appearance of disregarding what I've actually said on these subjects and just painting narratives instead.
For analysis for Gtoffoletto's prelimary statement, I want to highlight it's easy for people arguing with them to loose their temper and make a mistake, as I very well know User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 3#July 2023. It doesn't take much to "eliminate the competition". That really comes across as a " Look what you made me do." statement effectively blaming the person being harassed.

For what it's worth, I have disagreed with Tryptofish often enough or as they allude to in their comments below, often need to convince them of something. When they came to my talk page with the "good guys" comment (not language I would have used), I viewed it as referring to editors who were behaving themselves, not gaming the edit warring restrictions, and using the talk page regardless of POV after some major disruption had been going on. KoA ( talk) 17:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others

I'm not a party, but KoA is.

I was a co-filing party in WP:ARBGMO. (The other filing editor is no longer alive.) KoA was a named party, and was not the subject of any findings. I'm also the primary writer of the language selected by community consensus at WP:GMORFC. Of course we both continue to edit in the topic area, and we frequently but not always agree on content matters, but that doesn't mean that we are coordinating anything in a way that is disruptive.

The first part of the evidence is about a discussion I had with KoA at his talk page, about AE. We were discussing two things. One was when I should start an AE request over the completely noncontroversial issue of correcting some linter errors: [90], under the header WP:GMORFC. The other was a thread a little higher up at the same link, about another editor who was, in that decision, given a 1-way topic ban with me; that one was closed by the time I talked to KoA about it. Hardly a matter of KoA (or me) tag teaming. In the rest of my opening comment at his talk, I disagree with KoA over some reverts that he had made (but nothing that violated 1RR under the GMO CT), and I suggest that he should do less reverting. I predict (correctly) that there would be future content disputes over possible health risks of glyphosate, and I say that I hope KoA and other good-faith editors will be careful to stay on the right side of policies and guidelines, and I use the term "good guys" (in scare quotes in the original). So I, not KoA, started that discussion, and I don't think that I was being disruptive or deceptive in doing so. It certainly wasn't a case of KoA being disruptive or deceptive.

The second part of the evidence includes a diff of me referring to KoA as an expert in the subject. He is. He discloses and describes it at his user page. It was a factual statement by me, not an effort to assert authority. Treating it as otherwise veers close to what ArbCom identified as casting aspersions in the GMO case: [91].

But let's take a broader look at the discussion from which Gtoffoletto's diff comes. It's at Talk:Glyphosate, about possible health risks (see, my prediction was right!). Let's start with where KoA, Gtoffoletto, and I begin to interact: [92]. You'll see that I'm actually starting off in a friendly posture towards Gtoffoletto, and he agrees with me. There's nothing like KoA joining with me in ganging up on Gtoffoletto. But as the discussion goes along, especially after the section break, multiple editors are all disagreeing with Gtoffoletto, and he is the only editor disagreeing with the consensus. This pattern becomes very apparent here: [93]. Not KoA and me tag teaming, but a consensus of multiple editors, including editors who have not been previously involved and who have come via the RfC listing, with Gtoffoletto dissenting. In the next section of the article talk page: [94], you will find Gtoffoletto and Leyo, as well as KoA, but not me, and KoA is certainly not being disruptive towards either Gtoffoletto or Leyo. In the next talk section: [95], you see a brief, helpful comment from Leyo, and a comment from me, but not KoA, and most of the discussion is from other editors. And in the (lengthy) most current section: [96], neither KoA nor I appear, but Gtoffoletto once again finds himself on the outs with numerous other editors. Take it all together, and Gtoffoletto's quote of me saying I would like to know what KoA thinks of the full-length EFSA source turns out to be nothing devious, but instead the clear pattern is that Gtoffoletto just isn't getting anyone to agree with what he says. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

How about the editors that came through the RfC and agreed with me? I opened an RfC on the subject Talk:Glyphosate#RfC: is the EFSA factsheet on Glyphosate an accurate summary of the EFSA's review?. You immediately claimed it was a disruptive RfC [97]. Even after this the only vote was by an uninvolved editors that agreed with me [98] [99]. You ignored them and dismissed them as "mislead" and immediately delisted the RfC to ensure no-one else would reply [100] since it was "clear" I was manipulating their minds. I didn't agree with your actions (I didn't think the RfC was misleading and we could have reworded it) and believe you unfairly canvassed and influenced the discussion. Even so I did not pursue further the topic recognising that it would have resulted in a loss of time for editors given the toxic environment. {{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Per the instructions at the top of this page, I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you. I've linked to that RfC in my evidence, and the Arbs can evaluate whether your description is accurate. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of JoJo Anthrax's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties: This is far-fetched: I guess, I'm also responsible for KoA being targeted by a block and nearly an indef block?! -- Leyo 00:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply; I've mentioned it in other areas, but JoJo's depiction is far from far-fetched. I do think Gtoffoletto's actions are mostly their own doing, and I want to stress that, but there is a case to be made that Leyo's actions have opened the the door for Gtoffoletto to behave as they have and has exhausted the community from getting more help on that.; Leyo's two diffs at the end of their sentence aren't evidence presented by JoJo Anthrax. Both don't involve Leyo and are in reference to actions by Lourdes, who we just found out was a sock with major admin conduct issues and shouldn't have been acting in an admin capacity back then. For here though, I'll just say the threat of an indef wasn't realistic even disregarding the Lourdes issue. The indef comment by Lourdes/Wifione was centered around Lourdes threatening me for explaining why I originally proposed the 2015 GMO aspersions principle. The actual initial block was quickly undone by Doc James, and I suggest reading the Investigation section by them here or when I managed to reply after the block at AN3. It was a messy and not so clear cut dispute involving many edits going on that I got over my head in that I can address when it's in actual evidence. KoA ( talk) 03:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others

JoJo Anthrax's section 'Leyo's disruptive edits have resulted in KoA being repeatedly targeted for harassment' has 0 diffs from Leyo or KoA ~~and as such is of only tangential relevance to this case.~~ The focus is instead on Gtoffoletto's disruptive edits, ~~which have no bearing on this case,~~ and, as Bishonen's March 2020 warning ( Special:Diff/948036266) shows, are nothing new for Gtoffoletto. The only non-Gtoffoletto diff argues that Leyo somehow induced (empowered?) WhatamIdoing into challenging KoA. Despite their username, WhatamIdoing's 100,000 plus edits, clean block log, and extensive editing in the MEDRS area suggest strongly that they know exactly what they are doing with this edit, and it has nothing to do with Leyo. EDIT: It now looks like JoJo Anthrax was prescient in his inclusion of Gtoffoletto diffs given that Gtoffoletto has been added to the case as an involved party. I have struck sentences that are no longer accurate. Dialectric ( talk) 22:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC) updated Dialectric ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

JoJo Anthrax's section 'Leyo's disruptive edits have resulted in KoA being repeatedly targeted for harassment' has 0 diffs from Leyo That is correct. I believe I should note here that it is also an element of my presented evidence. As I wrote in that section, "it is notable that although active in this topic area, Leyo responded to Gtoffoletto's many personal attacks against their topic-area "opponent" [KoA] with deliberate indifference, never expressing concern about, or taking action against, any of them." JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The first line in the first section of my Evidence is As evidenced by the many diffs provided by KoA. Perhaps I should have re-posted all of those diffs, or at least repeated that line at the beginning of the second section. Additionally, I interpreted the "broadly construed" part of Interactions between and actions of Leyo and KoA [...] broadly construed to mean exactly that. Within that framework it seemed, and still seems, to me reasonable to report Leyo's documented poor behavior in this topic area as a direct, contributing factor to the toxic editing environment in which KoA has been repeatedly, disruptively targeted by others. The arbitrators will of course determine whether such disruptive targeting against an Involved party is, or is not, relevant to this case. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 08:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of Leyo's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

I'll address this in pieces as I get time, but I think it's worth stressing that very little of this is about the core locus here, interactions between myself and Leyo. Leyo isn't really addressing their behavior even though this started as an admin conduct case, but going after past disputes I was in, some of which I especially had to deal with edit warring and harassment in complex situations. I do want to be clear that after the stress and timesink of Leyo's involved block of me, I had been asking for help just to get them to leave me alone. Instead, I'm now addressing even more mischaracterizations from Leyo here, and that is something the community should have been able to take care of. I understand the need to run everything through the process now that we are here, but I would ask that arbs be mindful of this for future admin conduct cases when someone just wants harassment to stop.

Turning to my edits now, it's worth noting that if it wasn't for Leyo's hounding of me and admin conduct, I likely wouldn't be here going through years of my edits in complicated and controversial topics. I'll obviously take the opportunity to walk through my edits to address mischaracterizations, what I've been improving since the 2015 GMO case, etc. Would my actions to-date from the last 2-3 years mentioned in this evidence really have been something that would have come up at admin boards on their own prior to this case though? No such post happened. If there were issues brought up with my recent editing, I sure would have been addressing that at relevant venues, admins, etc. well before it would ever have to come here.

The evidence outlines that I will work in messy situations as an experienced editor, but I'm generally trying to do it by the book while guiding people when I can. I will often give editors a reminder that it's time to use the talk page rather than try to horse content in that has a legitimate issue with a reminder about WP:ONUS policy (or the 1RR gaming expectations we were given at ArbCom). If I add content, then I'm a stickler for ONUS in the same way too and instead work things out on the talk page rather than carte blanche reinserting, which is quite the opposite of Leyo's depictions. Leyo has made many repeated accusations before this case that we just didn't have space to address at AE, so I will spend a little space finally addressing those accusations here. KoA ( talk) 04:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Leyo's depiction of the Dominion article. Remember that at XRV or my unblock response mentioned in my evidence, a block was not endorsed even just by my actions alone while discounting the involved part of Leyo, so this really isn't the place to relitigate that or keep making the claim. Many editors/admins walked through my actual edits there and found them reasonable like North8000 or BilledMammal's comments especially. Here is the ~~collapsed~~ walkthrough of mine from XRV I linked to in evidence:
(Un-collapsed by clerk) ~ ToBeFree 23:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1. 18:16, July 23, 2023: This was part of a much larger set of the July 23 edits as part of the cleanup of the article. I was careful about splitting up with edit summaries in case there was any particular issue that someone could address on the talk page.
2. 08:04, July 26, 2023: First true revert on my part, which was in response to the Victoria IP blanket reverting in that diff all changes in the previous edit, ref improvements, etc. and immediately slinging accusations of bad-faith in the edit summary. It was pretty clear the IP was going by personal POV and doing a pretty textbook disruptive blanket revert, so I reminded them in the edit summary to come to the talk page to discuss specific edits. That the one piece of lead text Leyo focused in on was a legitimate issue was not clear yet, just part of a large IP revert that seemed to have missed the description was directly sourced. There was another Victoria IP that very briefly visited the talk page on July 30, but they never really addressed specific content. This pretty inflammatory talk page section was opened by another very low edit account Jesse Flynn (pseudonym) on the 26th though, with comments later by another such account Person568. It was odd seeing that many "red-linked" near-SPA accounts, but I decided to focus on content, not to consider a possible sock-puppet investigation, and just focus on that none of them really brought up specific issues with the lead text other than not liking it.
3. 13:18, July 30, 2023: This was an update to the original version I had in the previous diff on the lead text after Psychologist Guy removed it (without initial explanation). [101] Based on the talk page shortly after their removal, it looked like there was just confusion that the text "anti-farming" (i.e., anti-livestock farming) was actually directly sourced and wasn't any type of editorializing. Once I had mentioned that, no one brought up any issues with that part of the text (and we were agreeing on ways to stubify the article), so it looked like the issue had been clarified enough that we were pulling the description directly from sources. That is why you see sources being moved up to the first sentence to avoid potential confusion on the origin. This was also very much a wordsmithing stage on talk, hence my very next edit summary move production detail down, happy to chat on talk if more wordsmithing is needed, but we should be fairly solid for a stub now [102]
4. 05:43, August 3, 2023: The last true revert, which was of the brand new account Stonerock10's calling the sources depictions of the film ridiculous on July 30. [103]. Instead of reverting right away, which could have been valid but not great by just responding to personal editor WP:OR (and a drive-by tag without talk page engagement), I instead posted to the talk page over 3 days prior to my last revert waiting for a response. [104] I'm not sure if they are the Victoria IP from earlier based on context they've given, but it looked like Stonerock10 was continuing the trend of the previous IP of being combative and not really engaging. I did revert here basically as a response to personal editor WP:OR after allowing plenty of time for them to explain if the issue was anything besides them not liking the source's depiction. Had someone spoken up on what the specific concern was, I would have been just using the talk page at that point as I alluded to in previous edit summaries. [105]

Here Leyo is doing the same thing they were criticized for at XRV, namely ignoring what was actually going on at the Dominion talk page where I was working with editors who were engaging while figuring out how to handle mass reverts from bad-faith IPs or unresponsive SPAs. See Doug Weller's unblock response among others at the XRV in my evidence. Once the interruptions from Leyo, edit warring, and SPA issues had settled (after much extra volunteer time), those of us working on the talk page finally got the article to a decent state. [106] I am concerned though when Leyo accuses me of biasing the article by trying to reflect what sources say. Most of the sources have some variation of focusing on it being a film produced by a vegan advocacy group, anti-farming (livestock specifically), etc. There are different ways to say that, but the idea itself never should have been controversial or something that rose to ArbCom. KoA ( talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Another piece I want to focus on here is the constant use of aspersions by Leyo in evidence, especially things like always in favor of industrial agriculture or pesticide/chemicals. This is outright posturing/poisoning the well and part of the problem of Leyo just engaging in editor-painting. You don't have to look much further than my user page or the last ag. article I recently got up to GA status, Varroa destructor, for examples of where I'm dealing with harmful effects of pesticides on bees, focusing on alternatives to pesticides, etc. Or you could look at Thiamethoxam toxicity [107], removing industry jargon [108], pesticide advertising [109], etc., though it's silly I have to go list such edits in the face of aspersions. I'll at times be dealing with industry promotional material/sources whether it's organic, conventional ag. industry, etc., though some NGOs also have a reputation for low reliability in this subject, like Environmental_Working_Group#Dirty_Dozen. I'm generally careful of all of those, which does not mesh with the narrative of me Leyo pushes.

Most of my work supporting WP:5P2, contrary to Leyo's claims on that pillar, is raising source quality in controversial articles and making sure advocacy, regardless of where it comes from, is tempered. What often happens though (and why we have the aspersions principle) is that editors go after those doing this work. In the GMO/pesticide subject, we're just more pre-disposed to fringe stuff revolving around GMO safety or pesticides like glyphosate, like less reliable NGO's denying the scientific consensus on that or other advocacy. That means there's just a higher volume of those types of issues than say, a pesticide industry source getting missed. The rhetoric used by such groups IRL often gets into things like the shill gambit or insinuating someone is pro-pesticide, supporting industry, etc., and that still seems to be reflected here at times with how quick editors are to accuse someone of being pro-pesticide. Especially as someone who does education on reducing pesticide use, I have not seen anyone in this subject yet that would come across as being pro-pesticide, but it is frequently used as a boogeyman to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. KoA ( talk) 04:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Pillar 2 comments Despite the characterizations in this section, Leyo presents evidence of me ironically supporting that pillar on NPOV, advocacy, etc.

First is claiming I was somehow trying to bias the Dominion article I mostly covered above as not being edit warring addressed at XRV already. I was upholding NPOV and generally cleaning up the article instead. The language they take issue with was me describing the film in neither a positive or negative light. It was simply that sources describe it as a film advocating for veganism produced by such a group, or by definition, opposed to livestock farming. To call that biasing an article is really reaching.
Then Leyo mentions Pesticide Action Network. What they leave out in that multi-diff [110] are multiple edits/summaries I made between. Most of that was content Gtoffoletto added I went through and had to majorly prune due to sourcing issues like this [111] where content couldn't be verified in the source or just fluff/promotional material. Of course that was going to be removed.
The third bullet deals with Environmental Working Group edits, but claims I was misusing MEDRS and was trying to prevent having a section on their activities. Instead, the RfC close they link validated what I was focusing on with MEDRS 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. The distinction left out was that I was opposed to having a section as Gtoffoletto presented it. I was never opposed to briefly saying what they advocated on in a neutral manner, but as the RfC close mentions, my issue was where it crossed into MEDRS territory with their research and promotion of it. I was opposed to locking in text that repeated issues already addressed on the talk page.
Leyo also mentions my warning to Steven Walling as if it's a bad thing on my part. Steven had just closed the RFP for the EWG page as declined [112] due to it being a content dispute and to use the talk page followed by immediately jumping into the edit war. [113] while this ANI about them was going on. Yes, I cautioned an admin about their behavior, much like others were doing at that ANI. KoA ( talk) 05:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Behavior in edit wars Since this section doesn't involve Leyo as much as it does me, I think it's worth focusing about what I've actually been doing in recent years with respect to edit warring against the context of Leyo's narrative. The main problem is Leyo is pushing hard in this section to portray me as inconsistent when I'm not, it is mostly just re-pasted from the block review and had no traction there. Since they've been repeating it though, I'll address some of my editing here directly:

I already covered the Dominion edits that were already considered not edit warring. When you discount the IP/SPA issues that made things messier to examine, I had one restoration of modified content after discussion on the talk page about how to approach the article. I won't rehash that further since that was already addressed at the XRV except to say the claim that I have a double standard on my approach to ONUS policy is Leyo's caricature of me, not my actual editing practice.
The other links Leyo gives on edit warring are mostly just copied from the XRV itself. Again, no fault was found against me with that justifying a need for action from someone uninvolved. I'm wary of cherry-picking here because those examples are cases where I was dealing with combative editors like us regulars often have to deal with in this subject where I needed to be firm to make an attempt stop edit warring and get them to the talk page.
Let's take the first link as an example where the edit summary states discussion had already been ongoing at the talk page. This was at Asian giant hornet where editors were dealing with a new editor trying to add the "murder hornet" moniker as an official common name and get rid of sections like Asian_giant_hornet#Common_names where other editors at the article including me had already discussed how to handle the issue before the new editor showed up. This was a case where it had to be explained to the editor as clearly as possible that they had to get consensus and they were contradicting existing consensus. When it was clear the diff Leyo linked would not worked and they still continued, I requested page protection finally stopped the edit warring. [114] You will see similar themes in other edit summaries trying to direct an editor to the talk page where a clear problem with their edits have been articulated.
Their last link [115] that goes to Paraquat though, highlights another issue I often address. In that case, an IP was trying to insert a source written by an organic industry rep/lobbyist. Besides writing for the newspaper, that author, mentioned at the talk page also is the research director for the US Right to Know organization, another fringe organization known for promoting pseudoscience and is an organic industry group. I'll note the irony give all the issues of accusations of pro-industry edits on my part when I'm the one dealing with COI-related sources here. In this case, I had removed the COI content once prior that the IP restored, [116], followed by Leyo's diff. Once the IP was alerted about ONUS policy in that second diff, the finally did come to the talk page, so that worked out well in terms of stopping edit warring.
Similar to Leyo's links, let's look at a very similar edit summary of mine in comparison over at Glyphosate, where most disputes happen in the topic nowadays. Editor had been previously notified of WP:1RR and expectation to get consensus on the talk page for this. . .. Then look at the edit history prior to that. Two editors prior to me had asked them to use the talk page section started a month prior and respect ONUS. I was reminding them also of ONUS and of 1RR expectations (even after posting on their talk page). Despite lashing out from them on their talk page The personal contribution of KoA about spiders is totally irrelevant and an insult to the stature of wikipedia. [117], guess what? They finally came to the article talk page after that.

So yes, often I try to get editors to the talk page often when they blanket reinsert or try to slow edit war content in against ONUS policy and the expectations we were given with 1RR in the 2015 case. One of my main concerns, in addition to supporting WP:5P2, is how we as regular editors deal with edit warring to avoid the need to frequently escalate to admins. Usually when I spot a problem, I'm clear in my initial edit summary if the problem can't be fixed immediately, often saying let's figure out what can work on talk. The types of diffs Leyo links are often when an editor has instead reinserted their content when the situation has been escalated a bit already where a clear reminder on process is needed. Often times I'm already at the talk page or already opened a section when this is happening. The reality is that I'm usually on the talk page working on it or just WP:FIXIT in actual edits. Often times when it's a sourcing issue, I point out what kinds of sources would be great for that particular content. Far from trying to keep content out as Leyo puts it.

There are limits to how well reminding editors about 1RR or ONUS works with edit summaries or even on talk though, and it's all case-by-case how much heat/light there is. At a point it's often better to avoid any further reverts even with ONUS policy and let it be violated just to avoid compounding disruption from edit warring. That WP:GAMING, especially in 1RR, isn't right, but it's been hard to get enforcement of that at AE unless there are other issues. The problem is that this creates an atmosphere that emboldens more edit warring. If you're instead firm, you'll get comments like Leyo outlines that try to pin those sticking to the guidance as stonewalling, "pesticide police", won't allow any changes, etc. when in reality it's ignoring the 2015 case findings and being used to distract from a legitimate problem with the content they are trying to repeatedly reinsert. Editors following the 1RR expectations and saying "Hey, here's the process we're supposed to follow in this controversial topic." become lightning rods for battleground prone editors lately, similar to JoJo Anthrax's evidence section on harassment. Sometimes reminders work, and other times you just need to move ahead on the talk page, launch that RfC yourself, or ask admins for help. I used to be much more firm on that until 2019 when editors started talking more about how best to deal with this problem more flexibly, like this conversation with Tryptofish on my actual editing approach listed in evidence already. [118] That leads into my last piece of analysis I'll post in a bit as we go to less recent topics Leyo brought up. KoA ( talk) 07:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The last bit I alluded to is included in my evidence, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial_agriculture/Evidence#2019_block_by_sockpuppet_Lourdes. The block Leyo mentions was done by a sockpuppet with other admin conduct issues, which makes the hasty 7 day block, threatening and indef, etc. a little less unexpected. That colors the incident, but the substance of the block is what matters. The unblock review was pretty clear that there wasn't an issue warranting that. Ultimately the block was for going through with a requested edit from the talk page though.

That was the wakeup call for me though problems were starting to build with heat in the topic. Regulars in the topic like myself, Tryptofish, etc. have different approaches to dealing with that, but this was the point I was really starting to look at how to balance disruption mentioned in my Nov 6 bullet. Situations have just been getting messy since then with editors charging in hot with edit warring and attacking regulars in the topic who try not to run to AE right away.

KoA ( talk) 05:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

On Smartse's comment "pior to 2021": KoA had requested to extend the scope that now reads Interactions between and actions of Leyo and KoA since the closure of WP:ARBGMO with a particular emphasis on the industrial agriculture topic area, broadly construed. My main concern is not the actions of KoA towards me (I have a "thick skin", also when being accused as acting pro agrochemical industry in deWP). My concern is KoA's regular violations of WP:5P2. I highly acknowledge Smartse's efforts to come up with more RS. However, I consider KoA's deletion of major parts of the article unrelated to that. Even before, it was clear that PAN is among the most influential NGOs in the field of pesticides. -- Leyo 22:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Leyo: Thanks I have struck the part about scope. Even before, it was clear that PAN is among the most influential NGOs in the field of pesticides How so? And even if so, why would that mean that poorly sourced information can be left in the article? SmartSE ( talk) 16:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you are supposed to post in the "Comment by parties" section. Even for non-experts in the field of pesticides like me, it is quite well known that PAN and CropLife International are among the most important actors. Also from the article and a 5 min internet search would provide this evidence. Since KoA (according to his user page) works in this field, it is unlikely that he wasn't aware of that. " remove fluff" doesn't mention sourcing issues (even though one section didn't have references at that time). Instead of removing poorly sourced content, adding {{ cn}} or {{ urs}} (and waiting a few weeks for others to provide references) would have been more constructive. -- Leyo 01:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Just to be clear, Leyo's depiction above that I requested the scope change for the current broad scope is not correct. [119] I only asked essentially for disputes involving the two of us (which would have covered essentially all admin conduct issues and behavior between the two of us since the GMO case). KoA ( talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

My statement above is not incorrect: You asked for an extension of the scope by changing the starting year. I didn't state you asked for the final wording. -- Leyo 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I did not state that KoA only makes edits in favor of industrial agriculture or pesticides/chemicals. I do, of course, also acknowledge that KoA has improved many articles considerably. However, this does not give him the right to violate the pillar on NPOV in some articles. I was emphasizing that AFAIK KoA has not used the methods described above, or a combination thereof, to push (against other users) in the other direction, especially when it comes to organizations (both NGO and industry) active in this area, or documentaries about it. -- Leyo 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I was never opposed to briefly saying what they advocated on in a neutral manner – So why did you simply revert every added texts [120] [121] [122] [123]… instead of providing an alternative text? Considering your exceptional writing skills in mind, that would have been an easy and pretty quick task for you. Instead, you were pushing so forcefully using your default MEDRS argument against Steven Walling, WhatamIdoing, NatGertler and others, despite clear statements such as: I do think you are overextending MEDRS somewhat. Going by Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_v._general_information, the claim that umpteen sites have dangerous pollution would be medical information, but the claim that EWG creates reports on sites they deem polluted would seem general information, and appropriate for an article that's on an organization. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) – It needed a RfC (and thus much additional volunteer time) to finally get rid of KoA's disruptive resistance against a section of their PFAS-related activities. It's much too late now to continue at this point. -- Leyo 01:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I decided not to go into KoA's lengthy arguments in defense of himself. I assume that the arbs are aware that KoA is so articulate that he could sell ice to the Eskimos. -- Leyo 23:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others

~~Much of the evidence presented appears to be out-of-scope of this case, since the diffs are prior to 2021 or do not involve any interaction between Leyo and KoA.~~_{see below} Regarding the edits made by KoA at Pesticide Action Network, it is important to note that the diff presented for the organisation being the "most influential NGO in the field of pesticides" was from October 2023, whereas the edit where KoA removed content was from June 2023. At that stage, the article had never made such a claim and nor had any reliable sources been presented which supported such a claim. Even if it had though, removing poorly sourced or unsourced content should not be used as evidence that KoA has some ulterior motive. As we discussed on the talk page in June it was incredibly difficult to find any sources which discussed the organisation in any depth and therefore determining weight was impossible. It was only after many hours of searching from the participants at the AFD that we finally had one source which contained in-depth independent coverage and this led me to be able to find more subsequently. SmartSE ( talk) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Leyo's evidence seems entirely in scope - others may not have noticed the new scope specified at the top of this page. The outcome of this case had seemed obvious until reading Leyo's submission. While Leyo had apologised for the mistaken use of admin tools and had in no way doubled down after the AE, it did seem they'd lost their objectivity in this matter. Perhaps due to ~~KOA's attractive qualities as an adversary~~ mistakenly seeing KoA as a net -ve, or emotional reasons relating to the industrial despoilation of nature. So I was thinking Leyo might benefit from an indefinite 1-way iBan with KoA. But reading Leyo's evidence I see they've sometimes defended editors accused of pro-industry pov pushing. So maybe they're truly unbiased, simply trying to uphold adherence to WP:PAG without fear or favour. If that's the case, it would be a shame to discourage them with even the mildest sanction. Perhaps Leyo warrants an exoneration or even a commendation, while KOA might benefit from a reminder on the importance of collaboration? I'd hope that whoever the Arbs see as most at fault, both sides are treated with leniency so neither of these exceptional editors are demotivated. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ FeydHuxtable: Thanks - I've struck that - I was looking at the preliminary decision. SmartSE ( talk) 16:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I would like to provide @ Smartse with more context on the situation. SmartSE demonstrated very high admin standards in all of this "saga" and a willingness to change their mind and analyse the situation objectively (I thank them and respect them a lot for that). In this case I believe with proper context they might interpret KoA's actions differently:

Sourcing that article wasn't easy because KoA kept removing all content and raising the level required for sourcing even basic information (such as the structure of the organisation) to extremely high levels and even claimed WP:MEDRS was required for basic information (see this revert for example [124] with several other editors challenging his removals and replying MEDRS did not apply to everything [125] and KoA just going into edit warring mode immediately [126] aggressively "accusing the opposition" immediately Undid revision 1158396966 by Yilloslime (talk) Undo edit warring, especially in a 1RR topic.. This toxic "stonewalling" approach and battleground behaviour just discouraged many editors from contributing (such as Yilloslime) further and is KoA's modus operandi (as described by Leyo) in this and other articles.
We had clear indications that the organisation was notable. I pointed out to KoA myself during discussion months ago (see Talk:Pesticide Action Network#ECHA EFSA) that PAN currently represents all "NGOs and Advocacy Groups" in the EFSA stakeholder bureau. That's a prestigious role in one of the most important international regulators in the world. All that was required was a little work sourcing the article. However the above "stonewalling" attitude by KoA on ANY proposed addition damaged the process of contributing to the article and made it impossible to improve it. If if wasn't for more "tenacious" editors or interventions such as those by Leyo that page would have been deleted and the encyclopaedia would have suffered as a consequence. To ensure that article was not lost I personally had to attempt to contain the destructive force of KoA (and others) almost alone, while facing overwhelming pressure, intimidation and harassment. This is not how editing Wikipedia should be. This is toxic.
KoA is a self described "expert" in the area of pest management. Thanks to the constructive contributions of several editors (including you, thank you very much for taking the time to help out) we have decisively proven that the organisation is notable and played an important role in the history of chemicals and pesticide regulation. The fact that KoA conducted such a staunch "battle" against that organisation raises several red flags. Why didn't they know about that history? Are they an expert in the area or not?
One last point: KoA never changes his mind or seeks compromise in disputes. Once it became clear that PAN's page was going to stay and would be expanded significantly other editors contributed to improving it (even ones originally against keeping the page, such as SmartSE). The only contribution KoA made to the page that wasn't a substantial deletion, removal or revert, was adding a paragraph on anti-GMO activities by PAN https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=KoA&page=Pesticide_Action_Network&max=500&server=enwiki (of note: the sourcing of that paragraph is rather poor. Another common trait in KoA's activities: their high standards for sources are applied selectively only to content that they do not like/agree with.) This is how the page of PAN would have looked like if some users had not pushed back (at great personal cost) against KoA's removals: [127]).

{{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm seeing some contradictions.

Although Gtoffoletto's evidence claimed that KoA and I have been editing in a totally aligned manner ever since I've been following this topic area. They usually feign independence but rarely separate or oppose each other. And yet, here we have Leyo showing me disagreeing with KoA, to the point of having given KoA a DS/CT notice in 2018 (which I had completely forgotten about): [128]. And there's been tut-tutting of my having referred to "good guys" when talking to KoA – yet this diff following up on the notice, [129], has me saying: First of all, it's important to remember that we do not have a situation in which the "pro-science" editors are always the "good guys" and the "let's present criticisms" editors are always the "bad guys"... And I'd hate to lose you from this topic area, because you know a lot more about the source material than I do.

Leyo links to this 2019 3RRN thread: [130], then pivots to quoting me from 2018. But let's look at what I actually said in 2019: [131], I've been watching this, and I think that there is some amount of blame on both "sides"... On the other hand, there was no mention in the original AN3 filing that KofA had previously reached out to [the other editor, who filed the complaint] at her talk page. And it is simply false to claim that KofA was reverting "against consensus". In reality, other editors at the article talk page had expressed agreement with some of KofA's arguments, something that was absent from the AN3 filing, and I think that a case can be made that there was no clear consensus going either way.

More broadly, what's very much absent from Leyo's evidence so far is that there is no evidence indicating that Leyo acted correctly in blocking KoA this year, or in the discussions that got Leyo pblocked at AE. It's all WP:2WRONGS, and the more that Leyo emphasizes his disapproval of KoA based on KoA's perceived content leanings, the more the KoA block looks WP:INVOLVED. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry Tryptofish but those are contradictions in your behaviour. I totally agree with your 2018 comments. But it seems in all subsequent comments you and KoA have edited very differently from those 2018 ideals. Since 2019 you seem to have been totally aligned as far as I can tell and from my recent experiences. KoA's "content leanings" are the original issue here. The evidence shows he consistently pushes for a clear POV in a civil and very strategic way. That is a form of disruptive editing as far as I know (one very hard to deal with) and I believe admins are supposed to intervene in such cases? {{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have not been able to find a single instance in which KoA has ever edited not in favour of industrial agriculture or pesticide/chemicals producers in the last several months. I have edited most of the pages discussed in the evidence in the last year extensively and I haven't found a single instance.

Leyo's claims that: However, there clearly is evidence that KoA has been pushing several articles on topics critical of industrial agriculture/chemicals away from “NPOV”. especially given the clear non neutrality in the diffs provided cannot be ignored.

Has KoA ever made an edit "against" an industrial agriculture producer's position? How about in the last 12 months? There certainly are a lot of scientifically legitimate reasons to criticise chemical producers, as well as many scientifically legitimate reasons NOT to do so. Someone so active in the topic should be making edits on "both sides". {{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Again, the instructions for this case page say not to get into back-and-forths, so I won't reply at length (as much as I'd enjoy exploring supposed contradictions in my behavior). But that question about KoA's edits is a valid one, albeit one that he can answer better than I can. But a quick look on my part found this: [132], where KoA removed a paragraph saying that glyphosate has no health hazards, because the source was a poor-quality source. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) Bold font added after reply below. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

That's from February 2022. And if you read the edit summary they claim that the source was a "good lay-article". Except it was written by the Genetic Literacy Project that has been described as a "PR front for Monsanto, Bayer and the chemical industry" [133]. Compare that to the sourcing rigour KoA has required when we tried to source a simple statement about the name of the regional centers of PAN (clearly not contentious) by using the Union of International Associations and KoA argued it was a "user-submitted database entry" that wasn't "independent" enough for supporting such a statement (see Talk:Pesticide Action Network#Removed source and [134]). {{u| Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There have been no replies to this comment yet, and they would be removed. Tryptofish addressed the issue by adding bold font above. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of FeydHuxtable's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties: My interpretation is that at the time when he showed " admirable conduct", KoA was still under the impression of his block (15 days before) and indef block threat (12 days before). He knew that the only way for him to act was in a collaborative manner (i.e. not using methods such as those presented in my evidence). If KoA had continued acting in this manner, we wouldn't be here discussing the case. -- Leyo 09:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: Was planning to sit this one out per Primefac indicating they wanted the community to think twice before contributing. I was worried I may have inadvertently annoyed Primefac twice before these past few years so didn't want to risk a 3rd time. But having been pinged and seen myself quoted in support of positions I no longer hold, making a submission seemed the thing to do.; I'd like to elaborate why KOA's conduct near the end of the Bug decline dispute was so impressive. The best way to know someone is to fight or fxxx them, especially if you get to see how they conduct themselves in extremis. One of the most beautiful stories I've heard was how at the end of WWI, several German officers sent their men home to decomm, but themselves chose to make lone advances on British positions, drawing their swords on top their white horses to charge to certain death. KOA's conduct after his block & indef threat reminded me of that. The Lourdes revelation casts an interesting light on the matter. But it was SlimVirgin herself who'd took KOA on his fateful trip to the AN board, the same person who had largely authored 3 of our key content policies and arguably done more to shape Wikipedia than anyone else save Jimbo Wales. KOA must have seen that by mid April 2019 the balance of forces were such that if he chose to continue the dispute he'd have no chance at all. Yet he kept coming at us, only moving on to other articles once Slim & the Colonel effortlessly deflected the final play he'd obviously spend many hours preparing. Almost anyone else who felt as passionate as KOA did about the topic might have resorted to under hand tactics, but KOA retained his by the book, policy adhering approach to the bitter end. (Albeit with the collaboration blindspot). On Wikipedia, it's desirable for editors to be always collegial. But if you are going to resort to confrontation, KOA's honourable example is most commendable. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of Smartse's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties: Just briefly, due to my currently limited time: As I had the PAN article on my watchlist, I obviously noticed the discussions in June 2023. However, I decided to avoid KoA at that point. I only started contributing when it was debated at AfD. As I was on holidays at that time with only my mobile, I was limited in helping to find additional literature.; As you stated, my RfA was 13 years ago – and more than 2 years earlier than KoA's first edit. During this time, I also got more experienced in other areas. However, it is true that my admin activities have been higher on Commons and in deWP. -- Leyo 00:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others

Analysis of Dialectrics's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties: Dialectric is taking a few things out of context here on older issues I had forgotten about.; On the Jytdog AE, I mentioned back then that ArbCom hadn't yet changed the scope of the bans to include companies that produce pesticides (something I wanted included). The technicality was that Jytdog could edit the company article (still a bad move in my mind), but not pesticide content, which didn't exist at that article. [135] That is what I was focusing on. [136]; On Seraphim System (yet another sock), Dialectric is taking my quote out of context in KoA responds with a pointy 'Competence is required'. The discussion was about MEDRS sources (e.g., EPA) being good sources for background on laws and regulations related to health effects of chemical formulations because those are the sources that are the most competent in that subject. There is nothing pointy about that.; For my golden rice edit, I did edit saying Provide more detail from source and move to body. Will fill in the redlink later. [137] I did just that moving a new source down to the body and expanding on it while replacing a newspaper source with an academic one that basically said the same thing. The source isn't exactly glowing about golden rice for those claiming I only edit to promote such things. KoA ( talk) 06:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I see more items have been added, but again they omit or misrepresent what I was doing.

For the Neonicotinoid comment, I'll just highlight what I said back then As is typical per WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS, we generally wait for secondary scientific sources (i.e. not news articles, but rather reviews) to comment on the publication to gauge the scientific community's acceptance of the paper. That's especially the case for freshly published studies since we want to avoid a breaking news approach to scientific content. That whole discussion was on how we navigate primary research studies on Wikipedia and giving concepts from MEDRS that largely stay the same outside of medical research topics when it comes to publishing.
For the glyphosate edit, there had been talk page discussion on how to handle that subject, sources, etc. previously at Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_14#Media_manipulation. Notice how much smoother hashing out content goes when we don't have to deal with battleground/aspersions? I just restored the previously settled upon text in that diff. Contrary to Dialectric's depiction, I ironically did link policy in my edit summary that was also cited at the very beginning of that talk page section. 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. I suspect that perception is coming from when editors don't get traction for WP:UNDUE content, which happens a lot in this subject.
For this edit on American Council on Science and Health, my edit summary was pretty clear If anything, "pro-industry" isn't really accurate since it goes after other industries too. Better to follow WP:LEAD and flesh something out form the body. That article was about an industry-affliated group that often goes after industry competitors (e.g., conventional vs. organic companies in this subject) or other groups. To label it as simply pro-industry in the lead didn't really cut the cake (kind of like calling Ford car dealers anti-industry because they're antagonistic to Chevrolet), so I suggested working on the related article body.

This unfortunately highlights some of the editor-painting that goes on in this subject towards editors who try to deal with nuance though. KoA ( talk) 00:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Adding a few more after recent changes

On the comment from Vanamonde, that is from the second FeydHuxtable AE. There was a lot that went on prior, but the short of it is that after continued harassment, I was asked to handle it at AE by Arbs, such as Joe Roe. Instead, some admins considered asking for help with the aspersions frivolous despite all the disruption going on. This was the comment Vanamonde was responding to where I had to walk those admins through what we had already set up at ArbCom on how serious the aspersions issue was and how it disrupted topics (as had been going on at the insect decline article). As I alluded to in that comment though, there had already been so many mischaracterizations about me that had been allowed to run rampant that editors started portraying me as the battleground editor for trying to stick to our ArbCom guidance and trying to steer things back to congenial discussion. That AE unfortunately did have a chilling-effect and highlighted what happens when aspersions are just left and the target is instead brushed aside. I ended up having to walk away from the insect decline topic due to continued the harassment, which never should have happened.
On the May 2022 edits, this involves the WP:FRINGE theory that GMO crops led to farmer suicides in India, a lesser but recurring issue in this subject. Part of the fringe theory is not addressing that suicide rates were actually decreasing in this time period (standard correlation does not imply causation warning both ways) and insinuating they were increasing or sustained by GM crop use. Dialectric had made some edits prior to that talk page conversation that started the issues that I was responding to, [138] [139] including earlier claiming a MEDRS source was not one. [140] It's worth noting I did go back and tweak the content, [141], but the pressing issue I was trying to deal with there was blanket removal by Dialectric of all mention that there weren't even increases in suicide and instead the opposite.

That is the context of my talk comments Dialectric highlights where I was already having to be firm in response to content issues from Dialectric. I think that's a key take home too. If I'm being a bit more terse or having to respond to a content issue that drifts into the edges of WP:FOC, I'm responding an issue that's escalated a bit already rather than being the source of it while trying to steer things to what's needed for content. KoA ( talk) 17:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: I suggest that Arbs ask whether evidence of this sort is only "KoA disagreed with me", and if it's more than that, then ask what would have happened if it had been taken to AE, and it it was taken to AE, then ask whether AE handled it sufficiently. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

If Arbs see the Aspersions principle from the GMORFC as relevant to this case, I encourage the Arbs to discuss the limits of that Aspersions principle. Comments in this case show that Aspersions are still is a matter of some disagreement. Is stating that you don't trust another editor in a given topic area an aspersion? Is describing edits as "man-on-a-mission edits" an Aspersion? Is stating that an article aligns with the POV of a corporation or industry an aspersion? Is describing another editor's edits as WP:FRINGE promotion an aspersion when they have cited RS and/or MEDRS sources? I have in the past argued that the aspersions principle as written does not clearly apply to general statements. If the intent is to cover general statements that do not mention specific editors or edits, I encourage you to update the wording to make this more clear. I personally avoid commenting on other editors and their motivations in article talk, as my edit history will show, but I am concerned that editors who are new to the GMO area and have valuable contributions could be subject to AE blocks if they are unaware that the aspersions sanction extends beyond the literal interpretation. Dialectric ( talk) 20:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Analysis of ...'s evidence

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Comment by others