Revision as of 04:16, 31 October 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Role of the Arbitration Committee

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single purpose accounts

2) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. True, though this really applies to all accounts. As I argued in the Gamergate case, there's nothing inherently wrong with being a SPA. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Vested contributors

3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances

4) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Misplaced Pages do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Page Protection: Disputes

5) Full page protection is specifically designed to address edit wars, content disputes, and disruption. During such protection, parties to any dispute about the page that is protected are encouraged to discuss the dispute on the talkpage. When protection expires or is reduced parties are expected to maintain discussion until consensus is reached on the talkpage.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sandbox Merging

6) Improving an article on Misplaced Pages is always highly encouraged. The userspace exists so that users can work on an article that is not yet ready for publishing. Making large changes to current articles from the userspace without consensus, especially where the article is under a dispute or scrutiny, can be disruptive.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I understand the context, but I'm not a supporter of the principle. There are many good-faith editing practices which can make it difficult for others to analyse or respond to changes - for example doing dozens of minor edits in a row, not using edit summaries, using shorthand sourcing, etc. Doing a major rewrite in a sandbox and then pasting it into the article can cause the same problem. But its only disruptive if done in bad faith. As a principle, it's just one of the challenges of crowd-sourced editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Evidence not endorsed

7) While the Arbitration Committee may link to sections of evidence presented, the Committee does not necessarily endorse the evidence presented as completely true and factual. Some sections of the evidence may be factual, and is what the Committee is attempting to highlight in their decision. The views presented in evidence are solely those of the person presenting the evidence and do not directly represent the views of the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I added the word necessarily DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to Electronic cigarettes.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General Sanctions: E-cigs

2) On April 1st, 2015, the community imposed General Sanctions on the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Since that time:

• 3 parties to this case and 1 non-party to this case have warned users in the topic area about general sanctions
• Only a single enforcement action has been taken.
• The topic area still remains disruptive after the imposing of General Sanctions

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. LFaraone 01:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

QuackGuru

3) QuackGuru:

• Has exhibited a double standard for sources in the electronic cigarettes topic area 1 2
• Requested unprotection for the Electronic Cigarettes article for a second time less than an hour after reprotection Protection log RFPP Diff
• Made two large changes to the Electronic Cigarettes article in between page protections 1 2
• Edit warred on the Electronic Cigarettes article 1
• Opposes multiple changes 1, and makes edits without further discussion 2

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@Thryduulf and DGG: FYI, modified last bullet for accuracy -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru: Block log

4) QuackGuru has previously been blocked multiple times for disruptive actions, specifically:

• Disruptive editing: April 16, 2015, November 4, 2014, May 29, 2014, August 23, 2009, January 21, 2009, December 16, 2008, February 13, 2008, December 29, 2007
• Arbitration Enforcement - Topic Ban violation: November 13, 2009
• Harassment: August 23, 2009, December 16, 2008
• Edit warring: August 23, 2009, December 16, 2008, September 9, 2008, March 5, 2008, September 1, 2007
• Canvassing: February 13, 2008

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. As a statement of fact. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

QuackGuru: Topic bans and restrictions in alternative medicine

5) QuackGuru was restricted to 0RR in the acupuncture topic area and 1RR in alternative medicine topic area on May 24, 2015. On October 6th, 2015, QuackGuru's 0RR in the acupuncture topic area was increased to a topic ban.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. As a statement of fact. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

CFCF: Edit warring

6) CFCF has participated in disruptive edit warring on more than one occasion.

• Electronic cigarette aerosol: 12345678
• Talk:Electronic cigarette: 1

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single Purpose Accounts

7) Single Purpose Accounts have in the past been operating in the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. (CFCF Evidence)

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. True but I don't see this as being of significance, per my comment on the Principles. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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) General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DS Extended: SPAs

2) Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. (see comment) Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I have significantly reworded this to match the style of other remedies without (hopefully) changing the meaning. If I've erred please feel free to revert or tweak. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

DS: Administrators Encouraged

3) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
3. Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Euryalus (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

QuackGuru Topic banned

4) QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from the electronic cigarette topic area, broadly construed. They may appeal the topic ban after one year. The discretionary sanctions in the alternative medicine topic area remain, unaffected by this remedy.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

not yet sure DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards supporting this but haven't finally decided. I presume the final sentence means that existing discretionary sanctions imposted on QG remain in force, whether or not this remedy passes? Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

DQ has confirmed by email that this is what he means, I'm still thinking about this though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru Warned

5) QuackGuru is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Misplaced Pages will result in further sanctions.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

CFCF: 1RR Restriction

6) CFCF is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Is this intended to be one revert, total, across all articles in the topic area per 72 hours, or one revert per article per 72 hours? I'll definitely support the latter but need to think a bit more before deciding on the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification received by email and so I've inserted "per article" in to the remedy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Warned

7) CFCF is warned that arbitration remedies are not required for sanctions against them for edit warring. Furthermore, they are reminded to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting.

Support:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

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 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC) by AmandaNP.

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