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

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Seraphimblade

Leyo was previously cautioned at XRV [1] for their behavior towards KoA, specifically making a block while involved. Following this, while no sanctions were imposed at the subsequent AE request, there was a general consensus that Leyo's conduct was not appropriate. Following this, Leyo's participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network led to a one-week AE partial block [2] from the AfD discussion for, among other things, attacks against KoA.[3] At this point, I believe ArbCom needs to evaluate whether Leyo's conduct is appropriate for an administrator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leyo

I have been offline for real-life reasons (work-intensive business trip) and can only comment now.
I completely agree that blocking KoA was a big mistake that should not have happened. I have therefore taken a voluntary admin break for at least half a year, except concerning files. As far as I remember, this was by far the biggest mistake I have ever made as an admin in more than a decade.
My statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network was not intended to be an attack, but to inform the closing admin of the removal of valuable (in my view) contents of the article and which potentially could have unduly influenced the outcome of the AfD. Moreover, I did not intend to participate in the AfD any further. In any case not other than purely content-specific, as I have understood the clear message from the AE. Therefore, I am not sure whether the block was rather punitive than preventive. This was my first block in more than 18 years, while doing approx. 620,000 edits. --Leyo 20:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC) PS. I would consider Tryptofish to be an involved party, too, considering previous interactions going back several years.[reply]

@SilkTork: Thank you for your statement. However, I'm not sure I understand the sentence Also, that being sanctioned via a partial block has not stopped them from behaving inappropriately.. I haven't edited since then, except for my statement above. --Leyo 20:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Guerillero and Enterprisey to draft the case in an objective and fair manner.
The only thing I would like to point out is that KoA's diverging way of dealing with editwars, depending on whether or not he prefers the pre-editwar version (see the second part of Special:Diff/1169418959, while the first part is mostly outdated), should also be taken into account. --Leyo 23:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

As Seraphimblade mentioned, I've been the main target of Leyo, though not the only one. I've been trying to avoid Leyo for years, but especially after the bad block. The XRV and the two AE's Seraphim links should include all the relevant links to diffs, warnings, etc. that would be discussed, though I could work on giving a more organized timeline in the evidence phase. I just want the harassment of me to stop as well as the disruption in the pesticide topic, so I only asked for help at AE with that rather than going for desysop here. The combination of the behavior escalating and the use of admin tools does have both a confounding and multiplier effect though that makes AE alone dealing with this complicated, so maybe it is best for Arbs to weigh possible remedies, both on admin tool use and behavior.

The short of it is that I had been dealing with behavior from Leyo in the pesticide topic sniping at me since 2016 and violating one of the key principles we passed at the GMO ArbCOM case in 2015. Part of that is alluding that an editor is paid off by pesticide companies, forwarding their agenda, etc. The other part is using that or other attacks as a bludgeon in content disputes (i.e., outright ignoring WP:FOC). As mentioned in the first AE, Leyo was reminded of that by me prior to the XRV. They had also been warned about this behavior at ANI in 2013. They never seemed to take warnings seriously, but instead struck out a very clear battleground attitude against me.

Prior to the XRV, there was another ANI in 2019 were Leyo also went after JzG in the pesticide topic threatening to block JzG if Leyo didn't get their way. Leyo got some cautions there they were already WP:INVOLVED. Then there's the first AE and XRV. That's where Leyo followed me outside of topics on the periphery of the pesticide subject into another agriculture topic (I'm primarily an ag. editor) to block me. BilledMammal had a good summary of that WP:HOUNDING at XRV detailing how Leyo followed me into a topic Leyo had not edited otherwise.

Leyo briefly acknowledged the block as bad at XRV, but consistently has deflected from addressing their battleground behavior towards me as multiple editors have noted. Some after the XRV misinterpreted Leyo's comments about stepping back from admin tool use as also stepping back from the battleground behavior. That came across as Leyo just trying to get the heat off themself without addressing the behavior side of the problem when new sniping started that eventually led to their block at the current AE. I just ask arbs that the admin tool question doesn't distract from preventing the other behavior issues in this topic as it's become a major timesink for those of us who do edit this controversial topic regularly. KoA (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope questions

Guerillero, just some thoughts to consider on how scope works out if they haven't been already in trying weigh what the focus should be. I'll be away from now until the case opens:

  1. Year cut-off: The last AE was because Leyo was going after editors besides just me on talk pages, including JzG, so there's more than just the interaction. The 2019 pesticide ANI involving Leyo and JzG would be important to include for admin conduct (i.e., threatening an involved block). 2019 is an ok cutoff, but post 2015 GMO case makes sense since that's when my interactions with Leyo started. That would exclude the 2013 ANI warning about aspersions in pesticides though.
  2. Would it make sense to focus the scope language a bit? If the scope is simply direct interactions or disputes where Leyo and KoA have interacted (Kingofaces43 earlier), that would include all important comments from Leyo except the 2013 ANI I wasn't involved in. I edit pesticide topics a lot (see my user page), so like Tryptofish mentions, since-2015 on all of my other topic edits would cover a lot of unrelated ground on my end, but not really add anything for Leyo I'm aware of. If my behavior outside of the interaction is a problem, that can be handled at AE still. The only time I've been brought there was in 2017 that resulted in a boomerang, so I'm mostly trying to make sure we aren't having to rehash unrelated disputes. Happy to discuss my edits when we get there though.
  3. The topic area would exactly be that of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Contentious_topic_designation if it wasn't for Leyo's block at the Dominion article (no other edits there). Not sure if it makes it simpler for topic names/past principles, etc. to treat it as under the GMO/pesticide area (i.e., GMO2?) with one outlier or if the new title is needed. KoA (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hurricane Noah

Personally, I believe any admin who needs to be blocked in any capacity to prevent disruption should be desysopped. Clearly, they are not deserving of the community’s trust at that point. Arbcom should accept this case. Noah, AATalk 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

ArbCom should accept this case, and resolve it by motion. It's important to note that the troublesome conduct, inappropriate for anyone, but particularly for an admin, continued after the block review and first AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the dispute, and I'm pretty sure that all of the evidence that could be presented in a full case can be found by going to the links in the filing request, and looking at what is, in turn, summarized and linked to there. Of course, there might be something more that I'm not aware of, but I'm reasonably sure it's all there. I think a full case would consist of that evidence, plus a lot of commenting about the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Leyo's statement that we allegedly have previous interactions going back several years, I have no objection to being added as a named party if this is made a full case, but I also do not feel any need to do so. Fine with me, either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: The link that Extraordinary Writ posted is from 2019, not 20 years ago. It looks older because it begins with a quote from much earlier. Starting at 2019 might make more sense that 2021. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that ArbCom posted the instructions to clerks several days before the scheduled start of the case because you are open to feedback about it.
Most of the Leyo-KoA interactions have not been in the area of industrial agriculture, but rather, in pesticides/agricultural chemicals, which are already a part of the GMO CT topic area. It may not be obvious, but these are different things, because pesticides are also used on a small scale. (The one exception is Dominion (2018 film), which is indeed about industrial ag.) "Broadly construed" can always do a lot of work, but I want you to be aware of it.
I'm worried that the case structure will lend itself to "blame the victim", in the sense of second-guessing the community consensus at the block review and opening the door to "KoA had it coming". What the community brought to ArbCom was an administrator conduct issue. There hasn't been any credible claim brought to ArbCom that the GMO area has been a locus of disruption that AE cannot handle, such that ArbCom needs to reexamine it. When ArbCom took the unprecedented step of making yourselves the filing party in the Polish Holocaust case, there had been previous case requests along with new evidence, so there was a rationale for saying that ArbCom should look at it. Here, there is nothing like that, just an admin conduct request.
ArbCom needs to look at evidence within the case time frame that is relevant to Leyo's adminship, even if it does not directly involve KoA. However, there's a real danger of admitting evidence about KoA that does not involve Leyo. That's asymmetrical, but it's the only way that's appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Harry Mitchell

What is alleged is a pattern of tendentious editing by an administrator at the edge of a contentious topic. Arbcom is better suited to evaluate the wider patterns of editing and is the only body that can review adminship. Please consider this a referral from AE in line with the procedures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get tied up in bureaucracy but that procedure states referrals goes to ARCA and was envisioned as more a way for AE admin to punt something which got too complex. This is different. But also I don't know ARCA, based on the limited times it's been used, is the right place anyway. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite what was envisaged but it's also not that far off. We could refer the whole GMO topic back, but I think AE can handle everything except the admin conduct issues. I'm also not convinced ARCA is the right venue but I've never been keen on procedure for its own sake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

My goodness, this certainly sounds like a problem for the ArbCom. I am forced to agree with Hurricane Noah and Tryptofish. This sounds appalling and unbecoming.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Alas, and this might have already been noted, Leyo has not edited since Oct. 10. I read somewhere he was taking time off for reflection. (sigh) Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GhostOfDanGurney

Another WP:ADMINCOND case where going to ArbCom is sadly the only applicable venue, whether via case or via motion. Having not followed this incident in the slightest, it is indeed a bad look to see someone previously trusted enough to be given tool usage permissions have that big ugly current block notification on their contribution page. Is it time/possible for ArbCom to look into an auto-revocation of those perms while under sanction? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Z1720

I commented on the first and second AE request above in my capacity as a non-involved admin who had, to my knowledge, never seriously interacted with any involved editor.

I commented in the second AE on Oct 8 that I thought Leyo had demonstrated terrible judgement with their interactions with KoA and others. However, I did not think an ARBCOM case was necessary at the time. This determination was made before the pblock on Oct 11, and I have not investigated Leyo's behaviour since my Oct 8 comment.

If this case is accepted, I would like Leyo's actions to be investigated in relation to the actions of other editors, particularly KoA. In the first AE, I recommended to KoA that they drop the stick as their comments on Leyo's behaviour were, in my opinion, not productive and negatively escalated the situation. I have not investigated if this advice was adhered to and might be relevant to this case.

An extremely minor point: if accepted, ARBCOM might also want to make a determination on the relationship between AE and ARBCOM case requests, and what should happen after an admin action against another admin. Should editors seek a recommendation from admin at AE before filing a case? Should an admin who has been sanctioned with a pblock be automatically referred to ARBCOM, and should that be an admin responsibility? Is this too much wikilawyering and this should be left to editor's judgement, advantaging those who know Wikipedia's bureaucracy better because they know these sanctions for admin exist and how to navigate them? Per WP:WHEEL: "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate request for arbitration." Should the requirement for immediate request for ARB be expanded out to other behaviours? These are questions that ARBCOM can consider when determining the scope of this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1720 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gtoffoletto

I'm out of my depth here but this report is extremely troubling.

I would like to point out as I have here [4] that I believe there has been a witch hunt by Koa and others (e.g. Tryptofish) against Leyo for the last few months.

I see a pattern where users are attempting to misrepresent the reality of what is happening in order to convince other editors that Leyo's conduct is problematic. They are then using the sheer volume of baseless reports and accusations as "proof" that this user's behaviour is problematic and to convince others users that "something must be done" (I see it worked great here).

It seems to me that Leyo has been "under attack" ever since they have shown an interest into the area of chemicals and pesticide regulation. There has been an ongoing attempt at removing pages related to NGOs in this area and this is quite worrying. I've pointed out some of the issues I see here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321#Statement by Gtoffoletto.

I invite editors/admins reviewing this to be extremely careful in reviewing this report and to try to separate the opinions of other editors (even mine) from the raw facts/actions of Leyo in order to analyse their behaviour in an objective matter.

The basic facts of this case are the following:

I invite others to verify the two points above. If they are true: why are we here? Because Koa doesn't like Leyo?

In all of this Koa's behaviour has been textbook Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. With some extremely skilled Wiki Lawyering in order to "eliminate the opposition". In the AfD discussion alone they left 18 comments making the same point over and over in response to ay negative vote. Few editors participate on those pages/votes and it's easy for people arguing with them to loose their temper and make a mistake, as I very well know User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 3#July 2023. It doesn't take much to "eliminate the competition". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Leyo)

The question before ArbCom now is whether to open a case about the administrative conduct of Leyo. It is not about whether any sanction on Leyo is appropriate. Too many preliminary statements by editors have to do with what the outcome of the case should be, when the issue should be whether a case is necessary. I have not been involved in the conflicts, but it is clear to me that ArbCom should open a case, and that a full evidentiary phase is needed. That is, ArbCom should not dispose of this case by motion. ArbCom should consider disputes that the community has been unable to resolve, and should also consider cases of administrative conduct, since the community cannot resolve such cases. This appears to be both a case about administrative conduct, and a dispute that the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement have not been able to resolve.

The issues in the case should be both the administrative conduct of Leyo, and other related conduct disputes that have been at Arbitration Enforcement. Leyo made a block that they admit was a mistake. ArbCom should consider both whether their apology is sufficient, and whether there has been any other questionable administrative conduct. Also, one editor says that there has been a witch hunt against Leyo. ArbCom should also consider whether there has been inappropriate conduct by other editors contributing to overall toxicity.

ArbCom should accept a full evidentiary case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Sounds it definitely needs review by Arbcom. BTW I see admin behavior when not using the tools as relevant to admin status in many ways (so non-use of tools is not an "out") One is as noted....significantly missing the standard as an editor means significantly missing the higher standard (in those areas) as an admin. Second, in disputes and other tussles, the admin is automatically acting with the admin imprimatur / intimidation factor. Also criticisms by an admin needs to be taken as a warning of possible admin action because it can always be claimed to be such after-the-fact. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

These sorts of narrow scopes are rarely a good idea, in my opinion. If there's evidence of problematic behavior by Leyo outside the time period (and I'm not saying that there is, but it's certainly been alleged, e.g. here), I would think the Committee would want to hear about it rather than instantly deeming it out-of-scope. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's excessive at all, along the lines of these comments by Beeblebrox, Joe Roe, etc. We should trust editors to submit useful evidence and trust arbs to give it the appropriate weight. But if you're set on a time limit, I think 2015 (the year of WP:ARBGMO) would make as good of one as any. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

The principle of WP:INVOLVED is that decision makers should be and appear to be impartial (see natural justice). An arbitrator publicly prejudging a case by saying it will end in a desysop before evidence is even presented is unfair because it implies the arbitrator will not take into account all the evidence before they make a decision. This is especially conflicted messaging when discussing removal of an admin for showing bias.

Editors would likely feel more valued & be more likely to get to the point if statements from arbitrators phrased participation from non-arbitrators as a part of the decision-making process from the beginning, rather than as feedback on decisions that have already been made. The arbitration committee is a part of the community, not separate from it. Arbitrators should emphasize what the desired behaviour is and how the avg editor can be helpful, such as "we highly value reasoning and details that we can rely upon to form our opinions", rather than just telling us that some of our statements are bad. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 01:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: to arbs, it's both without mentioning specifics. Regardless of how Beeblebrox intended the comments, the comments were interpreted by others as favouring a particular outcome. While it's true that past cases involving admins have often resulted in removal of permissions, a statement from you acknowledging this implies you might take away the bit because that's what arbs do when an admin goes to ArbCom instead of resigning.
You should be basing your decision on what the evidence in this particular case leads you to believe happened, not because other admins went to ArbCom instead of resigning and lost. The appearance of procedural fairness here is probably worth more than the chance that an administrator didn't know that an ArbCom inquiry into their conduct is a sign they're probably going to have a bad time.
In response to Primefac, I agree that there are a lot of redundant preliminary statements, but I would appreciate more direct guidance on what kinds of statements are helpful ("if you have a point please post" is no more clear than "don't make pointless statements"), and explaining how those statements factor into the decision making process. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 03:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More