Revision as of 19:23, 12 November 2015

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, 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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

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.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Discretionary Sanctions and 1RR

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

Enacted on 10:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Support:

1. In an attempt to cut down in the problems --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
3. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
4. This is sorely needed. Seraphimblade 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
5. NativeForeigner 03:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Doug Weller (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Salvio 09:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed Principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to right great wrongs; Misplaced Pages can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit Warring

2) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of conduct

3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, positive contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct on arbitration cases

4) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Casting aspersions

5) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company for a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, initially on the user-talk page of the editor they concern followed by the conflict of interest noticeboard per WP:COI.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@NativeForeigner and Guerillero: would you accept an edit being paid by a company forto promote a point of view? Reads slightly better, but wanted to get more eyes in case others felt it changes the meaning. LFaraone 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No problems here --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. NativeForeigner 19:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a battleground

6) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics, with numerous editors engaging in poor conduct and engaging in battleground conduct, including edit warring.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 13:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jytdog

2) Jytdog has engaged in edit warring , has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jytdog & DrChrissy

3) For some time, Jytdog & DrChrissy have been engaged in an oft personalized dispute.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. LFaraone 19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

JzG

4) JzG made chilling remarks during the course of the case relating to another user. , and has engaged in edit warring.

Support:

Euryalus (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Moved to oppose. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1. They were an active participant of the case and the chilling effects are never ok --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not a party. Salvio 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio makes a good point. The FoF is accurate, but there is an unfairness in someone not being made a party to a case and then having findings made against them without the formal invitation to reply. I doubt JzG was entirely unaware that this case existed, but there are reasons why "involved parties" are named up front and one of them is to set expectations around participation and potential sanction. Personally I was leaning towards the sanction of an admonishment only, so the inclusion or otherwise of this FoF and remedy are a little trivial. But for whatever reason, JzG was not included as a party to this case; it would therefore be unreasonable to make these specific findings or remedies. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. LFaraone 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

DrChrissy: Existing restrictions

5) DrChrissy has a community editing restriction which states they are "topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." Editors have voiced concerns that some of their edits within the locus of this case may violate their restriction.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio 13:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
3. factual --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DrChrissy: Edit warring

6) DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Petrarchan47

7) Petrarchan47 has cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Prokaryotes

8) Prokaryotes has cast aspersions and exhibited a battleground mentality.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SageRad

9) SageRad has cast aspersions , added unsourced content , and articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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.

Discretionary Sanctions

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

Support:

1. Removed the Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. clause to put in line with the other topics under DS --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1RR imposed

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

Support:

1. did some work --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jytdog & DrChrissy iban

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
2. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Experience has shown that IBANs very rarely work and, instead, frequently end up creating more disruption. Salvio 13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

JzG desysoped

4) JzG's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not a party. Salvio 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Still thinking about these while keeping the Super Mario problem in mind --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

JzG admonished

5) JzG is admonished for his conduct within the editing area of this case.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not a party. Salvio 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

JzG topic banned

5.1) JzG is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Not a party. Salvio 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Petrarchan47 topic banned

5) Petrarchan47 is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DrChrissy topic banned

6) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jytdog topic banned

6) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jytdog warned

7) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

Support:

1. With the reminder that a continuation of these behaviors after your return to editing may result in a site ban via motion. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Prokaryotes topic banned

8) Prokaryotes is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:

1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SageRad topic banned

9) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

Support:

1. there is an argument for a site ban here, but YMMV --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Indeed. If any arb wishes to propose a siteban that would be reasonable. NativeForeigner 19:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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

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

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 19:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC) by NativeForeigner.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

Principles: All

Findings: All

Remedies: All

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass

Principles: None, yet

Findings: None, yet

Remedies: None, yet

Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Vote

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 needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

Oppose

Comments