Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrators[edit]

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator involvement[edit]

3) Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion".

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Decorum[edit]

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Being right isn't enough[edit]

5) Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. One of my favorite principles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is definitely going to be an "evergreen" principle. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
As I said elsewhere, I appreciate Barkeep, Primefac, and SilkTork writing this principle earlier this year and I think it'll stand the test of time. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing[edit]

6) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Casting aspersions[edit]

7) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another group of editors is biased or habitually violate site policies or norms, without evidence. A persistent pattern of false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Significant concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be addressed through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Building consensus[edit]

8) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I wrote this one new for this case, and I think I would like to most emphasize the second sentence: the goal in discussions must be to reach a conclusion in a timely fashion and in a way that makes everyone not too pissed off. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Use of policies and guidelines[edit]

9) Users should apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to achieve the purpose of those policies and guidelines, and never just to further one's position in a dispute. Policies should not be invoked purely for their own sake; rather, they should be used as records of best practices for improving the project.

Support:
  1. SilkTork (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Izno (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentatively oppose. Policies should not be invoked purely for their own sake is, literally, correct, but I think it could easily be read to be too expansive. This concern is especially applicable for procedural policies, where it is often hard to draw a line in the sand between enforcing policies "for their own sake" and enforcing them "to achieve the purpose of those policies and guidelines". Ultimately, I'm unconvinced this is needed in this case, and if it were needed, I would want this to be worded much more sharply and precisely than it is now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Following my comment below, I haven't found need for this in finding my trail through this case and I'm concerned for where it may lead us as it's worded. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kevin and Cabayi point to some of the practical difficulties here. I don't think this is necessary for the decision at hand, so I think it's best to just sidestep the issue. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I think this is supposed to be about FOF 8 but does not (quite?) hit the mark for me. Izno (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to think about this one. Principle 5 hits on a similar point and I am not sure if this is a useful extension. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, how would we tell? "I would not open windows into men's souls." As I get time to read further into the case I may rethink but my initial reaction is to oppose. Cabayi (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) Since the 2015 Genetically modified organisms (GMO) arbitration case, KoA (talk · contribs), formerly Kingofaces43, and Leyo (talk · contribs) have engaged in a series of ongoing disputes centered around industrial agriculture, agrochemicals, and the resulting effects of both. The topic area mostly overlaps with the contentious topic designation in GMO.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. added formerly Kingofaces43 per Izno, below --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Leyo's behavior[edit]

2) Leyo engaged in battleground behavior within the area of dispute. (KoA's evidence, also see [1])

Leyo also has a pattern of raising concerns about other editors in regular discussions instead of using the proper venues for those concerns (KoA's evidence).

Support:
Shows the background between GMO in 2015 and when things start to heat up in 2019. Part of the justification for INVOLVED. The second paragraph wasn't in my draft version, but I won't die on the hill of getting it removed. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In conjunction with the later findings. Izno (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't agree with the idea that any and all concerns about editor behavior must be done at "the proper venue," else they represent aspersions. The proper venue is the one that works. Sometimes, that means a gentle word at a talk page, or even an edit summary. Is that always ideal? No. But the breadth and diversity of interactions on Wikipedia means that concerns may be raised in a wide variety of manners. I don't like the idea that any concern about behavior must suddenly be escalated to a warning or a noticeboard. That discourages people from nipping problems in the bud, in a friendly, non-bureaucratic manner. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, I intended this FoF more to draw a distinction between starting to talk about editors in a discussion that was until that point about some content-related question. What do you think about clarifying "proper venues" to mean "user talk pages and other pages"? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enterprisey I also don't agree that editor behavior must be be talked about on user talk pages. Sometimes, article talk *is* the place to mention it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked evidence here is about aspersions and sniping, in a place that should be discussing content. I agree that's a concern in that evidence and that that's what "raising concerns" and "proper venues" is trying to discuss. (Well, one shouldn't be happening and one should be supported by diffs and in a different place.) Izno (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentative oppose. Given the age of the evidence, without more explicit time-bounding in the finding, I don't think this finding is justified by the evidence it cites. I could possibly reframe this finding as a finding of Leyo being INVOLVED in the topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think the more specific findings below get at this better than the current FoF. Like Izno I agree with the premise after reading the rest of the PD, but on its own I agree with Kevin that I'd need this reframed before supporting. Ultimately though, I don't think it's necessary given the more specific FoFs below. — Wug·a·po·des 22:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per the above. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leyo has been unpleasant and concerning at times, but I'm not seeing enough in the evidence for an ArbCom battleground behaviour finding. The evidence is tetchy stuff from 2018 or earlier. Then we have the block threat against JzG in 2019. This I find concerning. But then we have to wait four years until June 2023 for two tetchy personal comments: 1) "Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field." and 2) "You are describing your own behavior here..." in response to "You're trying to claim a science denial advocacy organization is reliable...". This is not battleground behaviour, this is two users not getting on and being tetchy with each other. SilkTork (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Appears to be true on its face?, but the evidence pointed to here is quite old. And the fact it is from only 2016-2018 doesn't do any favors to the word "pattern". (I am inclined to support it nonetheless.)
I'm also pretty concerned in these contexts about the attempt by KoA at passing off WP:SCIRS as if it were actually a guideline. There are some essays that have guideline-like status, but this clearly is not one of them based on the lack of extensive reference elsewhere and the general commentary on the talk page (both at the time and in the intervening period since 2016). Izno (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to think more on this. The evidence of battle ground behaviour used in the FoF is slight and very old. I'm certainly getting the impression of tension between Leyo and KoA, and there's some inappropriate and/or grumpy comments here and there, but I'm not sure that what we have here is significant and recent enough for a finding in an ArbCom case. And the claim in the second sentence doesn't feel significant enough for an ArbCom finding. Yes, it is more appropriate to raise concerns in the appropriate venue, and it can be dispiriting when someone, especially an admin, is making negative comments; however, I think for a finding which may lead to a desysop I think I would prefer to see more evidence than what we have here. SilkTork (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to agree with Eek that editor behaviour should be tackled with a gentle word but addressing conduct issues in the middle of a content discussion has the potential to permanently derail the content discussion. From the evidence it appears Leyo is more fond of introducing "you" into the conversation than is productive. Not yet sure it's battleground, but it's not model behaviour. Cabayi (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and lack of consensus-building by KoA[edit]

3) KoA engaged in edit warring within the area of dispute:

KoA has shown limited ability to compromise, even in otherwise civil and productive discussions (e.g. in the above discussions and at the EWG RfC).

Support:
I don't love the way this gives so much weight to the two edit warring instances and I think per the RfC close KoA deserves some consideration even if no editors agreed. I also would have preferred to call this battleground behavior for ease of applying a parallel remedy. That said these objections don't strike me as enough to propose an alternate FoF, which I had drafted. So here I am. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to Finding 3.1. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per discussion. Izno (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 3.1 says it better. Cabayi (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I do not think I agree with Tryptofish on the talk page about this. We have two incidences of edit warring here, one of which earned a block. In the very discussion at WP:3RRN, Tryptofish had this to say: I had advised KofA that he was doing too much reverting and he needed to dial it back, and he disregarded what I said. It may still need not be a finding, but it does KoA 0 favors. KoA rebroaching the subject regarding the first bullet in September this year is an indication of battleground behavior to me, and the last paragraph rings true to me based on the discussion regarding Dominion.
I do not understand what "the EWG RfC" refers to in the parenthetical. Izno (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, link added. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The community wasn't in love with the assertion idea that KoA was edit warring at Dominion when given the chance at Admin Action Review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground behavior by KoA[edit]

3.1) KoA has engaged in battleground behavior in the the area of dispute (e.g., in 2019 regarding Decline in insect populations; in 2023 regarding Dominion (2018 film); and in 2023 regarding Environmental Working Group).

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this accurately, succiently and most importantly fairly describes KoA's behavior. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First preference over Finding 3. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Much better. Props to Izno here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reinserting the material on Dominion while the discussion was still continuing on its talk page clinches this for me. Cabayi (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sounds good. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Discussion:
Per discussion above. Focuses less on the edit warring specifically and more on the overall unwillingness to let some decisions go. Izno (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could support a finding regarding KoA potentially being a battler. However, in the first link KoA was given a sanction, which is not made clear in the FoF. I think something like "KoA was blocked for one week 2019 for edit warring; despite this KoA has ....". Actually, the close in the Environmental Working Group discussion indicates that KoA was dissenting, and says "The fact that the consensus is against KoA does not mean we should ignore his concerns. KoA raises matters to which editors absolutely must have regard." Dissent, especially of the type which highlighted by the closer as appropriate, is not quite the same as "Battleground behavior". And in regard to the editing on Dominion - KoA was blocked by Leyo for edit warring, but the finding was that KoA did not edit war, and was unblocked. SilkTork (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were some thoughts here discussed offline. One was that explaining the specifics for each arbitrators' voting for it could be done as part of their vote. The one I had particularly is that this is still leaning on the evidence presented in proposed FOF 3 to point to specifics, hence the abridged links. Which I don't think is how it should be done but I wanted to get something on paper that made both me and Barkeep happy about FOF 3. As for edit warring, I have just had some discussion on the talk page about that: it is clear that the discussion was not "did not edit war" but instead "did not edit war sufficiently much to cause a block" with a side of "maybe wasn't an edit war" rather than "the conflict was (not) an edit war". Izno (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threat to block JzG by Leyo[edit]

4) In January 2019, Leyo threatened to block JzG (talk · contribs) for removing links to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names to win a content dispute. In the discussion at ANI about the comments, KoA, then Kingofaces43, claimed that Leyo was "WP:INVOLVED in the pesticide topic" and Leyo responded that they "think it's better if we try to avoid each other". (Thread on JzG's talk page; resulting ANI discussion; RSN discussion)

Support:
Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence is a bit for foreshadowing of the events that caused us to get involved. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, not hard over on having the back half removed, but otherwise see below comment. Izno (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are two separate issues here. One is the JzG threat. The other is Leyo's admission that he and KoA have beef. Both are true, though I'd have preferred they been separated out. As to the JzG threat, that's unsporting admin behavior, and notice about being INVOLVED. As to the admission of having beef with KoA, that shows the requisite understanding that of being INVOLVED with Leyo and/or the topic area. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both statements are true. I am not sure they need to be in the same Finding but no one seems to be jumping to split them. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weakly support. I would reword the first sentence as In January 2019, Leyo improperly wielded their status as an administrator in the context of a content dispute. Specifically, Leyo insinuated that they would consider blocking another user, JzG (talk · contribs), when involved in a dispute with that user and would therefore be prohibited from taking administrative action under the prohibition on involved administrator actions. In a subsequent discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, Leyo was informed by multiple editors that their actions were inconsistent with the prohibition on involved administrator actions. I would ditch the rest of the finding. I hope this addresses Leyo's talk page concern. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (And, for the avoidance of doubt, the role that "In a subsequent discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, Leyo was informed by multiple editors that their actions were inconsistent with the prohibition on involved administrator actions." serves is to establish that Leyo was on notice, at least in 2019, about INVOLVED in this topic area.) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC) 4.1 is clearer. Cabayi (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some general grumpiness being shown here, and I really dislike the block threat, though I assume the main reason for this finding is to indicate the involvement that led to the block at issue in this case, both in terms of the topic area and the friction between Leyo and KoA. What has given me a long pause is the title of the finding, and the difficulty for me in understanding the purpose of the finding. But that clearly is just me, as everyone else seems to have got it quite quickly. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer the reworded Finding 4.1. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In favor of 4.1 — Wug·a·po·des 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Placed here just for the paperwork as 4.1 has the most votes. SilkTork (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. prefer 4.1 Cabayi (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
The correlation between KoA and Kingofaces43 should probably be moved to the locus FOF. Izno (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a particular need for the entire back half of this FOF (In the discussion at ANI about the comments, KoA, then Kingofaces43, claimed that Leyo was "WP:INVOLVED in the pesticide topic" and Leyo responded that they "think it's better if we try to avoid each other".), or if there is a need for it, it should be made obvious in the FOF directly. KoA claiming Leyo is involved is uninteresting from an FOF standpoint and Leyo saying "let's not talk to each other"... is also not particularly interesting. That they threatened the use of their admin tools in a personal dispute in this topic area could very well probably stand alone. Izno (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Izno, I find the first half of this Finding to be the relevant part; the second is not necessarily unnecessary (as it lends additional strength to any interaction ban remedies) but it is not really related to the first other than being in the same discussion. I will likely support, but ideally I would prefer to split this into two Findings. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unsympatehtic to the concerns Leyo has raised about the wording here and would be open to alternative words, with the simplest for me just being to delete to win a content dispute but if that's important to others am good with this getting clarified. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threat to block JzG by Leyo and later interaction between KoA and Leyo[edit]

4.1) In January 2019, Leyo threatened to block JzG (talk · contribs) even though Leyo and JzG were involved in a dispute at the time. In the discussion at ANI about the comments, KoA, then Kingofaces43, claimed that Leyo was "WP:INVOLVED in the pesticide topic" and Leyo responded that they "think it's better if we try to avoid each other". (Thread on JzG's talk page; resulting ANI discussion; RSN discussion)

Support:
  1. First sentence rewritten to remove ambiguity, partially using L235's wording, and title updated. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I will admit that I had misread the Finding as originally written. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My understanding of Finding 4 is that it shows Leyo's involvement, and their willingness to use an admin tool and admin status to enforce their viewpoint. I think this wording is saying the same thing, though again it's not that clear. I'll support this, though I'm wondering if we need a clearer finding which says what we want to say: "Leyo uses admin status and tools when involved", and provide diffs of that? Is it just the two occasions: the threat of a block on JzG, and the later block on KoA? Are there other occasions? SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Wug·a·po·des 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This wording softens the finding, but it keeps the heart of the matter: Leyo is willing to wield their admin status to win content disputes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I would still prefer the wording I proposed above: In January 2019, Leyo improperly wielded their status as an administrator in the context of a content dispute. Specifically, Leyo insinuated that they would consider blocking another user, JzG (talk · contribs), when involved in a dispute with that user and would therefore be prohibited from taking administrative action under the prohibition on involved administrator actions. In a subsequent discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, Leyo was informed by multiple editors that their actions were inconsistent with the prohibition on involved administrator actions. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Izno (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:


Comments:
Note that Leyo has expressed (Leyo's 23:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) comment, for those of you without DiscussionTools) that they think their wording was too strong. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

INVOLVED block of KoA by Leyo[edit]

5) On 3 August 2023, Leyo blocked KoA for edit warring at Dominion (2018 film) after KoA made a series of edits between 24 July to 3 August. (Block notice; edits in question [2][3][4][5]) Community review of the block found that Leyo was INVOLVED when they blocked KoA. The committee agrees with this assessment. (Administrative action review discussion)

Support:
  1. We wouldn't be here if not for this action by Leyo. Truthfully I'm not in love with how this is written, but the content of it feels correct so I'm supporting. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In conjunction with FOFs 6 and 7, this feels worthy of support. I do note that Leyo agreed that they should not have made this block after review was brought. Izno (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. The involved aspect can be tricky when an admin blocks someone with whom they have had previous interactions. OK when those interactions did not involve editing the same articles and/or topic area. Not OK when the admin has been editing the same area. Always best to raise the concern with another admin or on ANI instead. What concerned me most when reading through the Admin Action Review, is Leyo saying "Every now and then, I follow the RecentChanges, where I noticed that there is an ongoing dispute." As BilledMammal points out: "KoA made the edit at 21:45; 22:58 is when you took the first action in relation to this dispute. In between that time there were 6000 edits to articles". Yes - RecentChanges moves very fast. I find it difficult to trust users who try to cover up their mistakes/errors rather than owning them. Even worse when it's an admin. I do feel that if Leyo had been more forthcoming at the AAR we wouldn't be here, but deliberately and it appears maliciously blocking another user purely through dislike, and then when that is pointed out, refusing to accept it, and making desperate implausible statements instead of admitting it and apologising, is not going to end well. Looking at Leyo's edits just prior to the block - they had been using Twinkle to make a series of blocks on users such as here, here (block) , here (block) , and here, and then stopped using Twinkle to make the block on KoA. The other blocks followed recent edits. KoA's edits were prior to all those. So, it appears that Leyo was checking RecentChanges just prior to blocking KoA, but the block was not as a result of seeing KoA's edits recently on RecentChanges. This seriously concerns me. SilkTork (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. However, this FoF feels like a much more appropriate place than FoF 4 to mention that Leyo previously stated that they understood that it was "better if we [Leyo and KoA] try to avoid each other". Like Barkeep, I am also not in love with how this is written. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No matter where we place the "better if we try to avoid each other" text it's clear flag that the block was WP:INVOLVED. Cabayi (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

AE threads[edit]

6) On 21 August 2023, KoA opened a thread at AE about Leyo mostly covering the events of #INVOLVED block of KoA by Leyo which was closed without action. On 6 October 2023, KoA opened a second AE thread about Leyo due to the actions covered in #Personal attacks by Leyo at Pesticide Action Network. The thread resulted in the case request for the current case, as well as HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) partially blocking Leyo from the articles for deletion discussion.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If an admin is subject to a block of any kind, that's usually a bad sign. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After the concerns raised around the inappropriate and involved block, that Leyo is continuing with inappropriate and harassing behaviour is a red flag. At this point I'm looking for reasons not to vote for a desysop. SilkTork (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What Eek said. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with Eek. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weakly, as procedural history. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Ok, now I'm seeing why there's some concern of enmity from above as less than ancient. Clearly indeed Leyo has not let go. Izno (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Leyo at Pesticide Action Network[edit]

7) On 27 September 2023, an IP editor started a deletion discussion for Pesticide Action Network. Leyo attempted to discredit several participants who voted for deletion, including KoA, with personal comments. ([6] [7])

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. By themselves these comments would be unwise and inappropriate but not worthy of a finding, but given the circumstances this is someone carrying a personal dislike and animosity too far, and is behaviour unbecoming of an admin. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. +1 on the "personal comments" text in the FoF rather than the "Personal attacks" of its title. "Play the ball and not the man". Cabayi (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per SilkTork. I agree with Primefac that these aren't that out-of-line especially given the venue, but they go towards establishing an interpersonal dispute. I find it valuable in that sense, rather than as a problem in its own right. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The first comment isn't great ("edit warring mode"? I mean, come on), but I'm really struggling to see how the second one is a personal attack. Pointing out that an editor is voting delete and also wiped the article of content is relevant. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If this is "the worst" of the comments left by Leyo at an AFD (or elsewhere), I am not particularly concerned. Snark, sarcasm, and cheeky replies are commonplace in deletion-related venues, much as we would like to have it otherwise. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The comments were not collegial but I don't think they rise to the level of sanction, and I don't think this FoF materially changes the situation. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I would support a finding that included these events in a longer timeline of incivility, if applicable. In the absence of that, I'm kind of reluctant. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Enterprisey and @Guerillero, out of curiosity, why "personal attacks" in the title of the FoF and "personal comments" in the actual FoF? Those seem quite different to me. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went to bed with one wording and woke up with this posted with another. The core of the FoF is that Leyo used ad hominem comments to try to win the AfD -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I changed the text; I thought the diffs presented met the actual definition of PA, just personal comments. However, it seems I forgot to change the title. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoA misapplies policies and guidelines[edit]

8) On multiple occasions, KoA has attempted to apply policies and guidelines, especially MEDRS and ASPERSIONS, where they do not apply, even when repeatedly informed of this fact by other editors. In September 2023, at an RfC on Environmental Working Group, KoA attempted to apply MEDRS to a discussion that was about whether an organization had produced a publication, not about human health. In the same discussion, KoA attempted to apply ASPERSIONS to statements that were not aspersions. (See also Leyo's evidence, particularly these 2019 comments, and Dialectric's evidence.)

Support:
  1. Looks like I'll be alone here (having written it) but that's fine. I would not want to be an editor on the other side of one of these discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think this goes way too far in describing KoA. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think I also oppose this version. Izno (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm seeing this as an ancillary issue at best. Reasonable disagreement about policy interpretation is a common feature on Wikipedia. We don't need to decide if KoA was right™ about policy to come to a conclusion on the overall issues. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I... can see it, and I noted a similar theme above regarding the suggested importance of SCIRS. Izno (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of tag-teaming and hounding[edit]

9) Some editors participating in the area of dispute have engaged in activity that others perceive as tag-teaming or hounding (Gtoffoletto's evidence).

Support:
Oppose:
  1. The level of evidence to show both tag-teaming and hounding is high. I don't think we meet that here. I also don't like the weasel word "Some editors" --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments below and Guerillero's here. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think there is probably something here but this evidence is insufficient to me to support an FOF. Izno (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The underlying evidence involves Tryptofish, who was not a party and not given adequate warning to refute this assertion. Beyond that, a single short conversation is hardly evidence of tag teaming. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overly vague, in addition to the comments above. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Best I have is "so what"? This is too vague to be a useful assertion. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. {{who}} Cabayi (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The "some parties" is, according to the link, KoA and Tryptofish, but there isn't much evidence of disruptive tag teaming; and as CaptainEek says, Tryptofish is "not a party and not given adequate warning to refute this assertion". Barkeep49's comment below makes sense. I think the intention to expand this case beyond the friction between Leyo and KoA into the wider scope of the case name has resulted in some confusion when presenting the case. I would have preferred a wider and deeper look at Leyo's behaviour (including the positive, as it does help to put a person into perspective when we see the overall contribution they have made, not just the tetchy comments - which we all succumb to now and again), as that is the main reason this case was brought to ArbCom, and ArbCom is the right venue for looking at concerns around admin behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
It seems like this is being used to justify the expansion of the contentious topic area. I will give the evidence more attention but at most the linked section of evidence to back this FoF is tag teaming by KoA and Tryptofish; there is no allegation, let alone evidence, of hounding that I'm seeing. And truthfully the A recent example of this "alignment" diff is for me completely uncompelling. I remain open to expanding the scope area but I'm having a hard time as seeing it necessary to stop disruption at the moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this position more or less. Izno (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Interaction ban[edit]

1) Leyo and KoA are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. There is bad blood and both Leyo and KoA should stay away from each other. 1-way i-bans are a mess. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like a two-way ban here. I agree with Guerillero that one-way bans are messy. I'm not seeing that KoA was without fault to the extent that only a one-way ban would be appropriate. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After discussion with Gtoffeletto on the talk page, I've changed my mind and prefer this option. Two-way is preferable because KoA also contributes to the issues here, and I genuinely don't trust that a one-way IBAN won't be gamed largely for the reasons layed out in proposed FoF 3.1. A topic ban seems, at this point, disproportionate to the level of disruption (and even more so if we point out KoA's battleground behavior and do nothing about it). — Wug·a·po·des 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think this is an appropriate solution. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. A two-way feels decidedly incorrect here. A 1-way may be in the cards. Izno (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Izno. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Izno, in part. I'm not sure a one-way is justified by the evidence, either. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Kevin; I'm not convinced the interpersonal issues are severe enough that the administrative burden of an IBAN is worth it. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Leyo interaction ban[edit]

1.1) Leyo is prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, KoA anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This feels like an important element in order for me to oppose desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to a two-way ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have come to believe that both one-way and two-way IBANs generally have undue negative effects in how gamable they are. I therefore need to see much stronger findings that justify the need for an IBAN specifically before I can support this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. One way i-bans are a mess that we should never bring back --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If we're to have an interaction ban (and I think it makes sense, enabling both editors to get on with what we are here for, building the encyclopaedia, without focusing on individuals) then a two way ban is cleaner. SilkTork (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Kevin; I'm not convinced the interpersonal issues are severe enough that the administrative burden of an IBAN is worth it. Also sympathetic to Guerillero's perspective. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I now think a IBAN is worth it, but I think a one-way interaction ban is not appropriate both because they're generally not good but also because the issues are not merely in one direction. — Wug·a·po·des 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 2-way. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Since another arb has indicated he might be favorable to a 1-way, I will add a proposal here. I generally agree with the talk page that the proposed TBAN is also fit for purpose here for the most part. Yes, I know 1-ways are out of the modern banning zeitgeist, but if we really want an IBAN, this is the most I can sign up for. We've imposed a few in the past that don't seem to have been particularly problematic, and one was in HJP (albeit a slightly different purpose). Izno (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modify the contentious topic designation[edit]

2) Remedy 1 of GMO is replaced with:

All pages relating to genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Support:
  1. I get that this is probably going to be a just me, but I feel that looking at the evidence presented that the GMO CT misses areas of conflict that should be covered. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. While I understand the purpose of this remedy, also noting that the drafters of a case are always going to be better informed than most of the other arbs, I am not seeing enough here to show that industrial agriculture has become enough of a hotbed/problem area to necessitate expanding the scope of the original Remedy. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient evidence. Izno (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If there are concerns regarding the scope of GMO, I feel that would be better discussed at WP:ARCA, preferably with the involvement of AE admins. SilkTork (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unjustified by the supportable findings of fact. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Primefac, Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree with SilkTork. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. While I appreciate Tryptofish for answering my question, I otherwise don't think we got enough community input to make the determination one way or the other. If the community wants this, I suggest bringing it back up at ARCA. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ^ Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
See comment in FOF 9. Izno (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I'm on the fence here because I'm worried that the community didn't give us this mandate in terms of scope. This felt like very much an admin-conduct case. If any community commenters have thoughts about this, I'd love to hear. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have voiced some prior commentary on mandate to remedy. Izno (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't plan to support this remedy absent some compelling new FoF which I've been asking for and hasn't been coming. But I have no clue how to judge the concept of community mandate for scope. What I do have a sense of how to evaluate is our mandate to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve; and we've done that at times through through contentious topic designations. I also know that modifying our contentious topic designations is part of our mandate to revisit any proceeding at any time. So if there were a good reason to change this scope I'd be in favor regardless of what might have been said at ARC - the community shouldn't have to pay attention to developments in a case the way we expect arbs to - but I just don't see what that reason quite is or why our existing CT is insufficient to handle disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. The issue is not a community mandate per se; it's the lack of a finding of fact (supported by evidence) that compels this remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo[edit]

Leyo desysopped[edit]

3a) For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Leyo's administrative user rights are removed. They may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. At a minimum --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am as concerned about the involved block as I am the incivility and what appears to be some sort of stalking/harassment by the time this showed up on our doorstep. Administrators must do better. Izno (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: I think I'd be more convinced by this if there was a supportable finding on the incivility and what appears to be some sort of stalking/harassment. Would you be willing to write one, or work with me on writing one? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The involved block, not being truthful about it, and refusing to listen to concerns is what has brought me here. The tension between Leyo and KoA is something that does happen on Wikipedia. When any editor becomes aware that there is friction between themselves and another editor, they can attempt to be professional about it and work together without personal comments, they can attempt to talk it over with the other person, or they can as far as possible avoid the other person. These things are not that hard. Even so, I have some empathy with friction relationships when a person cannot do those things, and the community is also understanding, and will overlook minor clashes when friction editors are working on the same article. But seeking them out in order to harass them is not what we want. And using an admin tool to block them is unacceptable. The admin tools are not there for personal vendettas. SilkTork (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am holding back on this vote for the moment per discussion with Leyo on the talkpage regarding the details of the involved block. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Leyo's conduct has been sub-par, but admitting that the INVOLVED block was problematic shows a deal more cognisance of the situation than similar admin conduct cases we have seen this year. The rest of the behaviour in this topic area is troubling, but as mentioned by Barkeep49 below, a topic ban and/or warnings will likely serve to mitigate these issues. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments below - essentially I think the problem is Leyo in this topic area not Leyo as an admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose, largely per Barkeep's comment below. I'm deeply suspicious of how well this might work---imposing a topic ban but retaining an otherwise fine admin---but I'm willing to give it shot and this seems like the case to try it. The issues seem very restricted to this topic area, and they appear to be interpersonal rather than expansive. It's not as if Leyo is out-of-touch with community expectations, and I haven't been given any reason to think the tools will or have been misused outside the topic area. That sets this apart from a lot of other admin conduct cases I've seen recently. I worry that if we're wrong, any further issues will eat up more community time, but I think this is the closest we'll get to a low-risk situation. I'm willing to give it a shot. — Wug·a·po·des 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. I still stand by this, but with regards to an interaction ban rather than a topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're wrong I hope someone comes quickly to us and we can, via a motion or via Level 2, correct it. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I find the conduct in question borderline. We don't want admins making involved actions, and admins have ben well informed about this. But mistakes happen, and this issue was mild compared to many others we've seen. Ultimately, I echo what I said in the comments: Leyo admitted it was a bad block (even if that took longer than it should have), which is really a big part of what we ask from our admins: own up to your mistakes. That brings me over the line into oppose territory. Still, this should serve as a wakeup call to Leyo. If we have to hear another admin conduct issue against Leyo, I suspect that it will be a fast desysop by motion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I end here. The involved block of KoA, and the block threat against JzG are not what we expect of an admin, but neither are clear cut, and the two incidents are years apart. Leyo's account of the block of KoA is uncertain, and the facts do show a significant delay between KoA's edits and Leyo's block which could suggest an seemly intent by Leyo (concealing a personally motivated block as part of a RecentChanges block). However, there is room for other readings, and Leyo has given an explanation which makes sense. Provided Leyo and KoA are separated by an i-ban, and Leyo is given an ArbCom caution/warning/admonishment I don't see such an incident occurring again. SilkTork (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What Primefac said. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Leyo's comment "You are not going to remove..." was so imperious and condescending that I'm amazed "arse" didn't get bandied about sooner. It may be an ESL issue? JzG's "Do you know who I am" response ("feel free to check my admin status") was almost equally as tone deaf - every user is due CIVIL treatment. The interaction shows WP:INVOLVED in play, but a single incident 4 years before the #INVOLVED block of KoA by Leyo doesn't imo establish an ongoing pattern of behaviour.
    If this were an RfA I'd oppose as Leyo's arguments for needing the tools are not focussed on the good of this project. But it's not, and there's not enough to desysop Leyo. Leyo's proposal to abandon an area of the admin tools for 6 months hints at the return of an even more out-of-date admin in 6 months time.
    Leyo, you ought to consider why you want the tools and how you will use them. Cabayi (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I think a desysop isn't an unreasonable outcome here, and if a majority of arbs hadn't already opposed this remedy, I would take the time to write out FoFs that I think would justify it, especially around Leyo's approach to civility and decorum. I worry that we'll be here again in three or ten years to hear a case that isn't about any one thing in particular but rather about a broader set of civility concerns. That said, I can live with no desysop. Leyo is a deeply valuable Wikipedia editor, and I am grateful for their engagement here and am willing to take a chance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I am fairly certain I support this. Izno (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The INVOLVED block feels quite clear to me, and we have had enough cases in the last few years about INVOLVED that this shouldn't be news to admins. But given that I'm otherwise struggling to find issue with Leyo, I'm on the fence here. Leyo admitted it was a bad block, which is really a big part of what we ask from our admins: own up to your mistakes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think INVOLVED isn't the only aspect at issue here that we should be considering. The sniping also is not conducive and has been present for a Long Time. While I'm not one of the ones who argues that an admin who has a lesser sanction should not be an admin, their incivility in this topic does also weigh on my mind. That was the actual point of FOF 2 that you may not have picked up on or simply disagree as displaying incivility. Administrators are held to a higher expectation. Izno (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially thinking that the block was inappropriate, but not deliberately malicious, and so a warning would be sufficient; however, there is clearly a tension between Leyo and KoA, which continued after the block, and looking through the AARV, and noting that Leyo was not owning the mistake, and was indeed making a statement that couldn't possibly be true, made me feel that this was an admin in which I had lost trust. Make a bad block - yeah, possibly a warning is enough; dissemble about the block - serious cause for concern, borderline desysop; continue the fight with the individual when there is no desyop or i-ban consequence, and so the matter is brought to ArbCom....well, I don't think we have much choice. I'm still looking for a reason not to desysop, but I'm not seeing it. SilkTork (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently leaning against this, a bit to my surprise. I've always been squishy on "restriction means someone is unfit to be admin" and I think I"m on the "disagree" side of it for this case. I'm leaning against because for me the problem seems so squarely to be about this topic area. We received zero evidence that I'm aware of, for instance, about Leyo's use of the admin tool with file deletion or the other ways they're using the tools. So we have someone who is productively using the admin tools, except for this topic area, admittedly with some arbs concerned about their conduct in this case (e.g. sniping) being indicative of their overall admin conduct. Given that Leyo is regularly using the tools and the complaints and evidence that we do have, I think the overall record weighs in his favor. That for me means a topic ban (and perhaps 1-way iban) is called for rather than a complete desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a good point, though as L235 says below, we don't appear to have a coherent set of FoFs because the focus of the case went away from admin conduct into an examination of general behaviour in a topic area. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I recall the discussion on the mailing list, and the desire to get away from naming ArbCom cases after the admin at the centre of the case because it may prejudice the Committee as a jury. I think future Committees may want to look at this case as an example of what can happen when avoiding naming a case after the admin who is the cause for concern. Seraphimblade's case request was fairly straightforward: "At this point, I believe ArbCom needs to evaluate whether Leyo's conduct is appropriate for an administrator." SilkTork (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see myself supporting this, but probably not with the current FoFs. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo topic banned[edit]

3b) Leyo is topic banned from all pages about genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This clearly needs to be done regardless of what we do for desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comments in 3a. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per BK, Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Wug·a·po·des 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I am just not seeing the evidence to support this. Sure, the topic area is a bit rocky, and Leyo was hardly an angel. But this is one of their main topic areas. Of course we could pull out a few not so great looking diffs. I'm just not seeing a pattern that is commensurate with their exposure and interest to the topic area. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not seeing enough specific problems in the topic area to support this. SilkTork (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After discussion on the talk page with Gtoffoletto, I've changed my mind and come to agree with Eek's perspective on this. The evidence to support this is thin, at best, and the rare bits of evidence unrelated to KoA can be understood better as momentary lapses (e.g. FoF 4.1 and 7). We also risk non-negligble harm by casting too wide a net for what really does seem to be an interpersonal dispute being trumped-up (Eek's point). — Wug·a·po·des 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Eek's final sentence. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shifting per the others. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my previous comments. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I am fairly certain I support this one as well, with(out) modification of the CT regime. Izno (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite there yet, and may not get there. I can see the inappropriate behaviour against KoA, and that there's a certain brittleness about Leyo, but much of the evidence about that brittleness comes in relation to KoA (and those who support KoA) who has a different approach to the topic area. If there's an i-ban in place, would we also need a topic ban? SilkTork (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and those who support KoA is the crux. We can't do an IBAN that's "KOA and unspecified editors who share a similar approach to the topic area"; that's plainly unworkable. Even in the AE request that precipitated this case (see FoFs 6 and 7) we see evidence that Leyo's picking on more than just KoA in this topic area. I'd rather a topic ban than play whack-a-mole with interaction bans (especially since they'd probably be largely one-way which doesn't work well). — Wug·a·po·des 20:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I think the findings need to be strengthened to justify this as well. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it seems like Leyo prefers a desysop to this topic ban. We should ask ourselves whether we would topic ban Leyo if they weren't a sysop. The answer might be yes, but I don't think the current FoFs get us there. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo admonished and restricted[edit]

3c) Leyo is admonished for battleground behavior, personal attacks, and use of administrator tools while INVOLVED. Leyo is INVOLVED in the topic area of genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. Future instances of this kind of conduct may result in sanction, including removal of adminship, without warning, especially if it is INVOLVED tool use.

Support:
  1. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Iff Remedy 3b does not pass. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If desysop does not pass. Further problems, even in this topic area, could indicate to me enough of a problem to desysop Leyo. However, I am hopeful that will not happen and so the restrictions above, along with this, will be sufficient. I like that this has overlap with the general topic ban which might allow a future committee to rescind that restriction while still not allowing Leyo to admin in the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is supportable as is. But I would reword the second and third sentences to read as follows: Leyo is warned that, under the prohibition on involved administrator actions, they may not take administrative actions within the topic area of genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. Repetition of conduct that led to this case may lead to sanctions (including summary desysop), and any editor who believes that such sanctions might be warranted may file a request at WP:ARCA. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. at a minimum, Cabayi (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Wug·a·po·des 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I considered writing a new admonished remedy as I feel the wording regarding the restriction is a little awkward, and possibly not quite on point for me, as I feel the evidence mostly points to a tension between Leyo and LoA; however, I feel we need to bring this case to a close, and this remedy is close enough. The part I am supporting is "Leyo is admonished for ... use of administrator tools while INVOLVED...Future instances of this kind of conduct may result in sanction, including removal of adminship." Like L235, I'd prefer "file a request at WP:ARCA" rather than "without warning". SilkTork (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For me what the "without warning" part does is say WP:LEVEL2 is on the table. There is some sort of warning there - they have to be asked before being removed under that procedure - but it's not the same as a case, or even an ARCA motion. If you and L235 don't want this, or something comprabable, I'd suggest actually doing your alternative motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sure. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not believe that Leyo should remain an administrator --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient. Izno (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Probably at a minimum for me. Izno (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly support an admonishment as a minimum. I am not clear on the "and restricted" - my assumption is that there is an intention to restrict the use of tools in the topic area of genetically modified organisms. I think I'm probably more in favour of a desysop and a topic ban. But I think it's appropriate to have this as an alternative, though if I am to support I'd probably want to do some copy-editing to make the intention clearer. SilkTork (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I do end up oppose deysop, I'll be supporting this. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo placed on probation[edit]

3d) Leyo is placed on indefinite probation. If they are found to be edit warring, engaging in battleground behavior, or engaging in tendentious editing within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: Leyo is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed A topic ban imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.

Support:
  1. Iff the other remedies against Leyo do not pass. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I believe this remedy would be warranted in the absence of a topic ban. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is insufficient to me. Izno (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sometimes bespoke sanctions are worth it, but this one just kicks the can down the road. It is our job to make the decision here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per JSS on the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This adds nothing to the scrutiny that this case will already have attached to Leyo's activity in this topic. The conduct listed is sanctionable in any topic area. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per JSS on talk. — Wug·a·po·des 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not seeing significant enough problems in the target area for this. If moving forward there are problems with editing in the area of dispute then the community can issue a topic ban. If the community find difficulty agreeing on a topic ban, then that would be an appropriate time to bring concerns to ArbCom. I'm still seeing this as mainly a) an interaction issue between Leyo and KoA, and b) an admin conduct issue. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Just Step Sideways on the talk page, third paragraph. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I used this in AA3 as a final chance remedy, and I liked it. So I proposed it here in the same vein. I can't yet decide if Leyo needs separated from the topic or not --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoA[edit]

KoA topic banned[edit]

4a) KoA is topic banned from genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I don't see this as a viable option, but felt that it needed to be presented --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You suggested below that this is probably one of the better ways to deal with slow edit warring. Do you still oppose? Izno (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Far too disproprotiante relative to KoA's conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per below. Izno (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Just not seeing it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I land very weakly here; there is disruption in the topic area, yes (that has been demonstrated). It does not appear, however, to be significant enough disruption to merit a full topic ban. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. At present, this is not justified by the supportable FoFs. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
With the FOFs presented, I think this is too harsh. Izno (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoA admonished[edit]

4b) KoA is admonished for edit warring and misrepresenting policies, and is reminded to assume good faith of others and treat their viewpoints with respect.

Support:
  1. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Oppose in favor of the warning below. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per BK. Izno (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my vote on the relevant FoF. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 4b.1. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. due to the reminder --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

KoA warned[edit]

4b.1) KoA is warned for edit warring and is reminded to engage in good faith when resolving their disputes.

Support:
  1. As proposer. I think this is the right way to acknowledge KoA. The second half of the sentence is lightly modified from WP:DR and is intended to parallel the FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am on board for this. Izno (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KoA was edit warring here. That's got to stop. You can resolve a conflict without having to make a bunch of reverts. Sometimes, the page will say something you think it shouldn't, and you need to have the patience to let the dispute resolution process work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am in favour of everyone engaging in good faith, in opening neutral discussions about concerns, and not using the revert button. SilkTork (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I continue my long-standing position that singular-person reminders, warnings, and admonishments are all the same at the end of the day. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

KoA placed on probation[edit]

4c) KoA is placed on indefinite probation. If they are found to be edit warring, engaging in battleground behavior, or engaging in tendentious editing within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: KoA is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed A topic ban imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I am still evaluating the KoA evidence, but this is far too strong a remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Again per Just Step Sideways on the talk page, paragraph 3. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

KoA revert restriction[edit]

4d) KoA may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I think the warning is sufficient. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The problem wasn't that bad. But if KoA gets dragged back before us, or AE, or AN for edit warring, this would be the obvious solution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Guerillero below - the edit warring was too slow. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
This... doesn't deal with the slow edit-warring behavior of the recent activity. Which according to at least one historical discussion with one of the other non-parties present here, is not a new behavior. Izno (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no good slow-moving EW remedy outside of a topic ban -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto[edit]

5) Gtoffoletto is offered apologies by the committee for the stress and anxiety that including them as a party caused. The drafters are reminded that adding parties is an extraordinary step and should only be done with a clear vision in mind.

Support:
  1. Guerillero had the initial idea for this one; it's a great idea and I whole-heartedly support it. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I wrote this and agree with it --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I want to support a version of this remedy and the one above has some problems for me. If it were just the first sentence I'd have already cast a support for it. I'm struggling with the 2nd sentence. On the one hand I appreciate the drafters proposing something which criticizes themselves and I think having such a remedy is an important signal to the community. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to intepret adding parties is an extraordinary step and should only be done with a clear vision in mind. outside of this case. In any number of cases we've created a formalized process for adding parties during a case. In those cases adding a party is most decidedly not an extraordinary step. Further, and I have written this into what I will hope will eventually become an official Guide to ArbCom for parties, I strongly believe being a party does not equal guilt. It should, instead, signal that the editor is an important (essential?) part of the dispute and so a closer look into their conduct and an increased desire to hear their perspective is required. I don't think that happened particularly well in this case, hence my support for the apology below. But I also don't want to endorse a message about what it means when I, as a drafter, advocate for adding someone as a party to the case, especially in situations where we've decided to ask for evidence with the intent of doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this concern wholeheartedly. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Due to the second sentence. Izno (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Eek's oppose on 5.2 — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I have not been following the case closely enough to feel comfortable opining on this aspect of the case. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I will use this space to note, for transparency's sake, that the drafters did indeed consider substantially expanding the number of parties (to at least four) and the scope correspondingly, but ultimately the schedule (and community mandate) were not in our favor and so we went back to the scope we had started with. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "is removed as a party" as it was noted to me that this is procedurally weird. Of course, Gtoffoletto will not be named in any other remedies. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the dark olden days, removing someone as a party was something that was done. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even at the PD stage? Current practice has been that they just fall off if not named in the PD but not actually formally removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto (alt)[edit]

5.1) Gtoffoletto is offered apologies by the committee for the stress and anxiety that including them as a party caused. The drafters are reminded to consider the impact on editors, the overall case, and especially parties to the case when exercising their authority to make substantial changes to the case structure, such as by adding a party or changing the scope of a case.

Support:
Per my comments above, I'm pretty open to a version of this remedy that is just the first sentence. However, because I like the concept the drafters have of sending a stronger signal to the community, this is my attempt at a second sentence that I could support. I am very open to other formulations of this that address what I see as the flaw in the version proposed above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am fine with this. Izno (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can support this too. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't like voting to remind ourselves, or otherwise using this to single out the drafters, which feels deeply unfair to Guerillero and Enterprisey. I know they wrote the first remedy, and they endorsed it, but that feels...self-flagellating. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Eek's oppose on 5.2 — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I can't support this version either. "The drafters are" remains ambiguous—are we reminding the drafting arbitrators of this case or generally? If the former, I really can't support a remedy that applies to two specific arbitrators without those arbitrators first recusing, becoming named parties, and given an opportunity to respond. I'm OK with something like this but with "Drafting arbitrators in arbitration cases are reminded [...] in future cases". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I'm open. So @L235 if you were to propose just the first sentence I'll support it as an equal first to this one and I'm very open to alternate wordings here. So ultimately if we need to do it as a generic "reminder to drafters" I'm on board. However, I strongly disagree about what the impacts of a remedy about the drafters of this case would mean. The Drafting Arbitrators were acting in their role as Arbitrators. This doesn't make them involved or parties. I would certainly agree that they would need to recuse on this remedy in that case, but I think this process would limit how much self-reflection and self-criticism ArbCom is willing to do publicly. As someone who believes in transparency of the committee that would be, for me, a bad thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing me to recuse on something I wrote about myself seems overly legalistic --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guerillero, I also think that is overly legalistic especially since they wrote it and both supported the initial version of this remedy.
I think I'm fine with either interpretation of "the drafters", the general or specific. I think the looser general interpretation is probably enough for future committees, though I think there is enough experience on the committee and/or drafting team generally to dodge this outcome typically. Izno (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto (alt 2)[edit]

5.2) Gtoffoletto is offered apologies by the committee for the stress and anxiety that including them as a party caused.

Support:
Equal first to 5.1 as per above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think this sets an inappropriate precedent. Gtoffoletto made a statement, gave evidence, and is mentioned 57 times on the evidence page. It seems to me appropriate that if the drafters have concerns about someone who appears involved in the case that they bring them in order to look more closely at what is going on. I have no objection to those individuals who name someone as a party apologising to that person individually if they feel that is warranted, but I don't think that the whole Committee should be involved in an apology of record. There is also some kind of Streisand Effect here, as I think most people were not even aware that Gtoffoletto was named as a party, whereas now they are possibly looking into Gtoffoletto's edits to see why they were named. SilkTork (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sometimes a party is not the subject of FoF or remedies. That is a fine and dandy part of the process. If bringing a party in was the right decision at the time, we shouldn't second guess ourselves when we ultimately exonerate them, or otherwise find their conduct not worthy of mention. In suggesting that we ought apologize to a party we don't sanction, we only reinforce the idea that the Arbitration process is a criminal trial, and every party is accused of crimes against the 'pedia. But that's not at all how Arbitration works. This is a truth-finding, dispute solving, process. That means parties might be people who were adjacent to the dispute, even if they didn't do anything wrong. Parties may be witnesses, bystanders, reporting admins, and more. Having Gtoffoletto as a party helped provide perspective. I understand being a party is stressful, and all the parties to this case are thanked for being an engaged and active part of the process. But I struggle to say that we somehow wronged Gtoffoletto by asking that they help us to resolve this issue. Gtoffoletto is owed our thanks, as would any engaged party, but that is all. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this statement. SilkTork (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tentatively oppose. To support this, I think we would need an FoF detailing what went wrong with the Gtoffoletto situation here. @Gtoffoletto: I'd like to extend my personal apologies for what was a stressful experience, more so than it needed to be. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Eek — Wug·a·po·des 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. No strong opinion. Izno (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 14:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC) by ToBeFree.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Administrators 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Administrator involvement 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Decorum 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Being right isn't enough 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Tendentious editing 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Casting aspersions 11 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Building consensus 11 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Use of policies and guidelines 2 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of the dispute 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Leyo's behavior 1 5 0 NOT PASSING 5
3 Edit warring and lack of consensus-building by KoA 1 2 0 NOT PASSING 5 +1 support if 3.1 fails
3.1 Battleground behavior by KoA 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Threat to block JzG by Leyo 3 4 1 NOT PASSING 3
4.1 Threat to block JzG by Leyo and later interaction between KoA and Leyo 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5 INVOLVED block of KoA by Leyo 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 AE threads 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Personal attacks by Leyo at Pesticide Action Network 7 3 1 PASSING ·
8 KoA misapplies policies and guidelines 1 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
9 Appearance of tag-teaming and hounding 0 10 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Interaction ban 7 3 0 PASSING ·
1.1 Leyo interaction ban 2 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass +1 support if 1 fails
2 Modify the contentious topic designation 1 6 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3a Leyo desysopped 2 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3b Leyo topic banned 4 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3c Leyo admonished and restricted 8 2 0 PASSING · -1 support if 3b/tban passes (Primefac),
-1 support if 3a/desysop passes (Barkeep49)
3d Leyo placed on probation 1 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass +1 support if 3a+b+c all fail
4a KoA topic banned 0 10 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4b KoA admonished 1 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4b.1 KoA warned 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4c KoA placed on probation 0 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4d KoA revert restriction 0 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 Gtoffoletto 2 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5.1 Gtoffoletto (alt) 2 5 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5.2 Gtoffoletto (alt 2) 0 5 2 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · passes automatically per procedure
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · passes automatically per procedure
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. SilkTork (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We're at the point where my votes wouldn't make a difference on the open remedies, I'm fine closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Many thanks to all who have participated. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial_agriculture/Proposed_decision&oldid=1190374259"