Would it be appropriate to inform the (active) users involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms about the current case? They might be able to provide relevant evidence in the current case. Leyo 23:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather unlikely. The Committee is aware of this suggestion; if the arbitrators see a need for notifying a list of users, MJL or me will send the notifications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am one of those editors. I am aware of this case so I will try to follow it. However I feel quite scared and intimidated in participating in this process. Most of the users here have decades of experience in such matters and are extremely skilled at the "sanctions game". I am just a casual editor, with little time and experience to follow this and have been targeted and harassed by users in this topic area before. I believe Leyo should be allowed to notify other involved editors with more experience that might help him collect the evidence here. I have been part of this for a while and know what he is up against. He will certainly be against several aligned opponents (not just KoA).

Along those notes: is some sort of "Lawyer"/"support" figure allowed? I don't feel like I have the knowledge and skills required to participate in this case although I have been witness to most of Leyo/Koa's interactions in the last few months. I would gladly accept guidance/help by more experienced editors. Is that something clerks can do? Thank you. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gtoffoletto: If you have any questions about the Arbitration process generally, it will probably be answered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For things not answered by that guide, the clerks will do there best to address your questions. Anything beyond that is outside the scope of our duties to the Committee.
If you have evidence you would like to submit concerning the Interactions between and actions of Leyo and KoA from 2016 to the present, you may do so at the evidence page (also see "Evidence and argumentation"). It should be noted; for this case there is no workshop page. Analysis of evidence may take place here instead. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs who would like to understand where the comments about "several aligned opponents" are coming from can start by reading Talk:Glyphosate#EFSA and then Talk:Glyphosate#RfC: is the EFSA factsheet on Glyphosate an accurate summary of the EFSA's review?. I think it will be self-explanatory. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you also guide them here User talk:KoA/Archive 5#All the fun at AE: I'd like to, frankly, engineer a period of time when all of the "good guy" editors (quote unquote) are together refraining from reverting stuff, and instead taking it to talk. and I'm talking instead about a wiki-strategy. OK? --Tryptofish

That "good guy" editor's club sure sounds like fun. Can I join?

@MJL thank you very much for your tips. I'll have a look at the guide and will try to participate as much as I can within the limits of my available volunteering time. Unfortunately this editing area is extremely toxic (no pun intended) and dealing with other editors constantly piling on you and calling their friends to help is quite distressing. But I will do my best. Thank you for your work here. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 18:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion between KoA and me was about this: [4]. Correcting some linter errors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That and coming off the heels of an AE in the same archive where another editor had to be topic-banned for harassing Tryptofish, battleground/needling others in the GMO subject, etc. (I know Tryptofish tries to stay far away from even mentioning the editor). That's what the "fun" comment is referencing, and it sure was not fun. It's a good example of how frustrated editors can get who do follow the 2015 case advice and restrictions, but instead seek to lower the temperature in the topic despite ongoing disruption. That's as much as I intend to clarify here at least.

Clerks, there's definitely a bit of needling going on from Gtoffoletto again here with the above comments. They were topic-banned from UFOs for that kind of stuff[5] and recently blocked for toxicity and hounding me.[6][7] That block also included a warning to them that a topic ban was imminent in the GMO/pesticide topic. I don't intend to make Gtoffoletto a focus of this case, so I'd just ask clerks to keep an eye on the decorum requirement on this page given that history and limited rope they're on already. KoA (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Fixing linter errors: Conflict I was over the safety of eating GM foods, and Conflict II is over the possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The present AE won't be the last of it, unfortunately. So I want to think a couple of chess moves ahead.User talk:KoA/Archive 5#All the fun at AE Other editors will read and judge themselves. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 10:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that I don't consider KoA as an opponent of mine. --Leyo 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ToBeFree. I think everyone who has been involved in the core locus of this interaction that happened to be at the 2015 case has been notified because of recent involvement anyways. Tryptofish was there, and JzG is the only other main person who had some recent Leyo interactions, so I don't think we have any loose ends. Many of the others aren't involved or have since had to be topic-banned/sanctioned[8] to the point it would be a WP:CANVASSING issue anyways. KoA (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<partly re-added> My proposal was to notify all users involved there, who are still active, i.e. not a personal selection of users. --Leyo 20:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disagree. Basically KoA here is saying that only his friends Tryptofish and JzG should be notified? I can think of several others that have followed pages that KoA has recently edited in the area such as Environmental Working Group and Pesticide Action Network and Dominion (2018 film) and Glyphosate. None of them “have since had to be topic-banned/sanctioned”. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 11:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, I was already clear, so I would appreciate not putting very different words in my mouth. As already mentioned, the question was asked about those involved in the 2015 case that I was adding clarification to for clerks/arbs. Of those involved in both that and the recent Leyo interactions, only Tryptofish and JzG come up besides me. Editors like you or the articles you mention were from more recent disputes not involved in that 2015 case and I made no mention of those instances. That's all that was said and all I intend to say here. KoA (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope: Interactions between and actions of Leyo and KoA since 2015 with a particular emphasis on the Industrial agriculture topic area, broadly construed.

Hence, there are quite some other users who may provide evidence on actions by either me or KoA. Limiting the notified users may prevent important evidence to be reported. --Leyo 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread the original comment by Leyo and I see where KoA was reading it differently than me. Apologies for the confusion, it wasn't my intention to misquote you KoA. In any case, now that Leyo has cleared up his request (I think he means: users that might have had a meaningful interaction in the topic area within the scope of the case. That's a rather short list as there are so few that edit in those niche pages) I think other editors should be involved here. Some are even admins that have participated in the AfD and in editing the pages that I'm not sure are aware of this case and can provide valuable evidence. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose a list, I might be willing to green light it. Just remember that pings exist -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll propose a couple of names as soon as I have some time for this (hope it won’t be too late). Could you clarify what you mean by “pings exist”? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 23:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to get a clarification from Guerillero on this point. --Leyo 10:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo / Gtoffoletto: Please use ((noping)) when mentioning people who aren't already involved in this case. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be quite the opposite of Just remember that pings exist. --Leyo 15:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some experienced editors that have edited those pages include:

- SmartSE (an involved admin) participated in multiple discussions and has been mentioned in the evidence

- Whatamidoing from multiple discussions at the EWG page

- Goldsztajn from the AfD and multiple discussions at the PAN page

- Dialectric from multiple discussions at the EWG page

- Nat Gertler from multiple discussions at the EWG page

I haven't edited the Dominion page so I have less context but I see a lot of familiar traits in comments by Koa (strong POV+bludgeon). The result is several users just giving up due to the toxicity of the discussion such as Jeandjinni, Psychologist Guy and Sam Walton. Emblematic comment: There seems to be only one editor arguing for keeping the vague(/undefined in sources) phrase “shock tactics” to describe the film. Several editors on the page have concurred that the phrase is inappropriate or not addressed in an appropriate context in the cited sources, so there would appear to a lack of consensus that the phrase be kept in the article.. Since that page resulted in a contentious block of KoA some of those editors should be invited to provide evidence IMHO. Especially since some have claimed that the block was totally specious. Slow edit wars and bludgeoning are not easy to parse/identify. Involved editors know best.

(Please remember I am novice in how such cases work so I'll let @Guerillero decide. Also note that I believe those editors have an impartial stance in the disputes involved and have on occasion agreed/disagreed with KoA/Leyo. Also: they are experienced (even admins) but probably unaware of this case).

One last note: It seems to me KoA has used pings extensively in his evidence? Why this restriction on pigs for me and Leyo? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 15:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE seems to have come without notification, which lessens my thrill to rope more people in -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however they are also admins (so more likely to find this discussion I would imagine). Normal users (such as User:Whatamidoing and the others) are extremely experienced and have seen KoA/Leyo's interactions up close. However they are not admins. They should be made aware and should choose themselves to participate or not with evidence. I believe Leyo has acted in defence of the core pillars of Wikipedia. And the voice of editors that have recently edited in this topic area should be heard. Also are there rules preventing editors from being informed of an open case? is it ordinary to restrict who is made aware of an open case? If that was the case only involved parties would be allowed to comment. Why the gatekeeping? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was evidently not clear, but my reading of the original comment was: do not use ((U)) or ((ping)) here if you are suggesting users, because that will notify them, removing any opportunity for the clerks to decide. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, I was worried this would happen, but Leyo has started pinging editors in their evidence despite indicating there should be a list for you/Arbs to greenlight. Those pings includes those with interactions I had to ask for help at AE with aspersions like Folk could easily form the perception you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV.[9] KoA (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you do the same in your evidence? I see multiple pings/mentions of users in your evidence. Why do you complain when Leyo does it? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 15:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no signature added when KoA presented evidence and thus no pings would have been sent: [10] SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have used noping if it was a section where my signature was included (like the analysis sections). In the evidence sections, I mostly included userpage links for admins who had already acted or were involved in the interactions just to highlight that they were, but not to ping them. KoA (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea that's how this functionality worked. Quite confusing... ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 18:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of active (= having edited in the last month) users involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, but not yet here, as initially proposed:

• Atsme
• David Tornheim
• Wuerzele
• Jusdafax
• Robert McClenon

--Leyo 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim and Wuerzele are (or were?) tbanned at AE from GMOs. To some extent, this list looks like editors were chosen on the basis of being on the anti-GMO "side" at ARBGMO, except for Robert McClenon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Struck. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I listed all active users from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Involved_parties, except those who have already contributed to the current case (yourself and KoA). Please let me know, if I missed any user. --Leyo 22:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele is indeed still topic-banned. David Tornheim's topic ban was lifted, but he hasn't edited in a month. Robert McClenon is already aware. I suppose there'd be no harm in sending out two or three notifications, although I don't think the effect (in either direction) would be at all proportionate to the amount of energy put into this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a point where if there were important people to include, that should have been done before evidence opened, deciding parties, etc., not a few days before evidence closes.

I do have functional WP:CANVASSING concerns in this though because when both David Tornheim and Jusdafax were sanctioned[11], it was involving harassment/aspersions of me (and others). One of the key issues at play in this case is the GMO aspersions principle violations with Leyo, and regardless of selection method, it is asking to alert editors who have also violated that principle related to me that have nothing to do with Leyo. The same issue came up with Leyo's ping of FeydHuxtable. The key thing here is that Leyo especially shouldn't be gathering editors that were attacking me to the point they had to be addressed at AE, especially since harassment is the issue with Leyo in this case too. KoA (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the cases of David Tornheim and Jusdafax, and I do not currently have the time to read through their history. It may be that they criticized your violations of WP:5P2, but it was considered aspersions (though they may have been right) because the evidence was considered insufficient at the time. However, they may now be able to provide additional evidence. --Leyo 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pass on this list, per EW, above. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EW and Guerillero for agreeing to this list, except Robert McClenon who has been informed and Wuerzele who is topic banned.

Above, also Smartse, WhatamIdoing, Goldsztajn, Dialectric and NatGertler were listed as users who are likely able to provide additional evidence. Smartse is already contributed to this page, but the others are worth to be considered in my view. --Leyo 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was using an English idiom to say no. Apologizes if I was unclear

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing on has multiple meanings. May I ask you that to use clear wording in future?

I am not sure notifying exclusively the users who have provided preliminary statements is the most sensible decision, per jc37 below. --Leyo 22:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also confused here. Also: who/what is EW? ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ SmartSE (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some 100 edits to review concerning the interactions between KoA and me. However, there are probably some 10,000 edits by both KoA and me that could be relevant in terms of actions. While the former can be dealt with by the parties and users who have contributed so far, this is not the case for the latter, especially given the short time period. --Leyo 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify[edit]

What's the issue with whether presumably interested editors are pinged/notified of the discussion?

Unlike canvassing (which can have the potential to disrupt a consensual result), those who comment here aren't doing so in order to come to a consensus.

This is an Arbcom case page where evidence and analysis is shared/provided to Arbcom. Which, I think, is part of why comments on the evidence page are to be addressed to Arbcom members, clerks, or case drafters.

So what's the issue? - jc37 17:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For users who don't have anything to hide that could be brought up in the evidence, there is none in my view. --Leyo 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo - If I've interacted with you in the past, I apologize, but I do not recall it. So please understand that my comments were not intended to support or oppose any "position", or call anyone out on anything.

And to be honest, in my not so humble opinion, taking such a stance, is not helping you. If there's evidence to add - add it. It really doesn't matter much who adds the evidence.

Remember: No matter who comments here - and yes, my understanding is that this page is open to editing by anyone not under sanction preventing it - in the end, the Arbs will interpret what they see here.

So you, or anyone else being accusatory, or from another perspective, anyone trying to prevent editors that may be seen as "supporters", contributing, is really a waste of everyone's time. Editors will edit and the Arbs will assess, and that will be that.

So, pinging the world isn't necessarily going to help you, any more than others preventing you from pinging the world is going to help them.

Just a thought... - jc37 22:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with jc37, I'll add that editors who were in the original GMO case might or might not have subsequently crossed paths with KoA, but unless they observed interactions between KoA and Leyo, they wouldn't have anything useful to provide, given the case scope. What might be more useful would have been any editors who can defend Leyo's block of KoA and/or Leyo's contributions to the AfD and/or Leyo's administratorship in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the scope is both the interactions between and the actions of the parties -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. (For what it's worth, I'll also remember that I said on the case request page that it would be a mistake to "blame the victim".) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One view is that KoA is a victim of me. However, my view is different: Wikipedia's reputation (due to KoA pushing several articles away from NPOV) and a number of users suffering from/resigning due to KoA's highly toxic style of interaction[12] etc. are the real victims. --Leyo 09:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I haven't been asking that the admins involved in Leyo's block, XRV, etc. be alerted, which would be much more focused on the core locus of the scope (interactions) than any other request here. I didn't think alerts were needed for even that though because, in part echoing what jc37 said, people will comment if they want to without us spending more of what little time is left on it. KoA (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also second this question. What is the official answer? Is there a rule against this? Why do we have to rely on editors finding out of this discussion by chance? it doesn't make any sense to me. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 13:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point: Tryptofish (who was almost included as a named party in this case) is extremely motivated, experienced, and active on this case. I have also provided evidence of their close alignment with KoA. Their one-sided commenting on any piece of evidence can obviously skew the analysis of the evidence by the arbs. Tryptofish has so far made a substantial amount of edits and replying/confuting all of them is extremely time consuming (they contributed to 23% of the text on this page so far with 17 edits https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Tryptofish&page=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FIndustrial_agriculture%2FEvidence&max=500&server=enwiki) This is an unfair fight of 1 against many as I have pointed out since the start of this case. The reconstructions being made in the evidence are often substantially misconstrued with very selective evidence choices and I do not have the energy, the time, or the skills to correct them all by myself. Other editors that are aware of the key episodes in the several articles/pages that were being edited must be allowed to review this. I discovered this case by total chance and I cannot read and reply to everything alone. As it stands, this is an unfair process where KoA and Tryptofish are being allowed to Tag Team against an opponent and I (and others) do not see any reason to justify the decisions being made here of limiting who is notified. At this point even notifying them would not be enough as not enough time remains to even read all of this. This is maddeningly unfair and I feel bad for Leyo. We are doing them a grave disservice. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 14:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individually, I've disagreed with several arbitrators on a wide variety of topics, and I've also agreed with individuals on a wide variety of topics.

But we elect Arbitrators as a committee to assess cases. And from that perspective, I have 4 words to respond: I trust the arbs. - jc37 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with such cases. I just know (having seen the situation developing over many months) that the evidence and analysis being provided will be hard to analyse. Since I would estimate that 2/3rds of it was provided by KoA and Tryptofish themselves I worry it won't be easy to really understand what happened. I just don't understand why other experienced editors could not have been given the choice on whether to participate or not in the gathering of evidence. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 20:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't (to my knowledge) "almost included as a named party". Leyo, in his opening statement (in a small-font PS at the end of it), said that he would have liked to have me made a named party. In response, I said that I had no objection to that, but I also did not think that it was necessary. The Arbs knew that, and they decided to have only two named parties. (They didn't even make the filing party a named party, which they very frequently do.) No amount of Gtoffoletto criticizing me will turn me into a named party – and I've addressed those criticisms on the Evidence page. The Arbs are quite capable of deciding who the named parties should be. And, as jc37 said, they are also quite capable of evaluating what is or isn't fair. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@jc37: I guess that arbs have not been fully aware of these circumstances. --Leyo 21:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]