This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Tornheim (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 7 June 2016 (→Statement by David Tornheim: cutting down word count). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

• WP:ARCA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by Tryptofish at 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification of The Wordsmith
• diff of notification of Laser brain
• diff of notification of Coffee
• diff of notification of SlimVirgin

Statement by Tryptofish

At an amendment request that I made earlier this year: , there was discussion of whether there might be a community RfC about some contentious GMO-related content. Subsequently, The Wordsmith and Laser brain began to work with members of the community, under authorization from the Discretionary Sanctions issued in the GMO case, to develop such an RfC. After Laser brain withdrew for reasons that have (if I understand correctly) been privately communicated to ArbCom, Coffee stepped in as his replacement. At the time that I write this, the RfC page can be found in draft form at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC.

Since January, editors who were parties to the GMO case have been lobbying SlimVirgin at her talk page, for her to intervene in the content dispute: . A few days ago, just as the RfC plans were being completed, SlimVirgin raised questions about whether The Wordsmith and Coffee really have the authority under DS to conduct an RfC in the manner planned. You can see these discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins requested for moderated RfC. It appears that the community is divided as to exactly what ArbCom did and did not authorize under the DS of the GMO case. Therefore, I want to ask you a direct question to clarify that point:

• Is the RfC planned at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC an allowable option, under the Discretionary Sanctions that ArbCom issued in the GMO case?

I think the answer is "yes", but I hope that a clear reply from the Committee will allow the community to go forward with a definite understanding of whatever may actually be the case. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

About what David Tornheim said, I already tried to explain to him: , , but in any case I think the Arbs should speak for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is probably obvious, but the diffs of evidence presented by Petrarchan47 simply link to her own statements of opinion, and Jusdafax bases what he said on what David and Petra presented. Anyway, the accusers should notify the other editors who are being accused. And if the RfC goes down in flames, Boris' plan works for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me to clarify another point. Although I originally proposed a 3-year time period as was done with Jerusalem, consensus was against that, and what The Wordsmith is preparing has no such time period. Changes could be made anytime either by a new RfC, an AE consensus, or by permission from ArbCom. Just not ad hoc or by edit war. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arbs: I'm noticing that many of you are commenting about the issue of how the community could eventually alter the outcome of the RfC, and are commenting about your own personal preferences. That's OK, and it's fine to discuss it. But the question that I asked isn't really about each of you backseat driving for the administrators who have taken on the thankless task of enforcing the DS that you issued – and indeed, you previously said quite clearly that ArbCom should not run the RfC. So – it would be very helpful if you could make it clear whether you feel that The Wordsmith's existing plan is, as I put it in my question to you, "an allowable option" under DS. If it's allowable, then ArbCom really ought to say to the skeptics in the community that it's allowable. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

Eurgh, I was hoping to avoid this. At the previous ARCA, Arbs seemed to think that the community holding an RfC to decide this issue was preferable to having Arbcom make a content decision. The decision to use DS was, I believe, my suggestion. It is certainly the most creative use of DS I've seen in 8 years or so, but seems to be allowed. Page sanctions are explicitly allowed; this covers the imposition of a restricted format on the RfC. It also covers imposing whatever the result is by sanction on the resulting page. Contrary to whatever others suggest, it can be overturned at any time with another RfC or, since it is imposed as an Arbcom Discretionary Sanction, through AE or Arbcom directly. Scientific consensus can change, but not quickly, and there is no deadline. Editor-sanctions give admins broad discretion to remove editors from pages they disrupt on (including the RfC, which now has an editnotice that it falls within ACDS) or to impose interaction bans. My hope, however, is that my role is purely symbolic and that I will be more of a mediator and facilitator.

Several times over the last few months there have been requests to open it, and each time other editors came and requested more time. I have been more than accommodating whenever asked, but it gets to the point where the RfC will become pointless through attrition. We have already had one admin bullied out. Unless any Arbitrator opines that these actions do not fall within the bounds of DS and the community's own authority, I plan on publishing it at 1400 EDT as planned. The Wordsmith 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Note regarding "uneven" enforcement: It should be noted that I have a lot on my plate and thus don't see every comment (and there have been volumes and volumes of text produced on what I think is a rather boring topic), plus I have a very thick skin and don't necessarily notice personal attacks where others do. I have asked SlimVirgin to ping me or drop a note on my talkpage if she sees something she thinks violates NPA (others are welcome to do the same). Given SlimVirgin's recent postings (and extensive history on Misplaced Pages), she is far more of an expert on personal attacks than I.The Wordsmith 14:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note that since no arbitrator has objected, I have initiated the RfC according to the schedule stated on Friday. And in response to GorillaWarfare, since it is being imposed as a DS it can also be overturned by the usual means. The Wordsmith 18:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain

I encourage ArbCom to clarify that this moderated RFC (accepting it as a "creative" use of DS) is allowable and its resulting consensus enforceable, to settle the content dispute in the lead that has led to many accompanying behavior problems. The original hope was that if one key contentious content dispute was laid to rest, some of the behavioral issues might go with it. I don't think anyone has clean hands, and maybe an Arb case needs to settle behavioral problems. But the RFC should go forward, if for no other reason than to get wider input and an enforceable consensus from more outside editors.

A lot of behavioral issues emerged while this RFC was being planned, and I encourage anyone making allegations on this page to provide diffs. @David Tornheim: Many of your summaries of events that transpired are inaccurate. I don't recall anyone ever telling you to "shut up" (I'll await your diff). You are correct that I warned you that I would apply DS if you suggested that any other editors have a COI without evidence here. My message is neutral and professional, so I object to your statement that you were "severely threatened with DS". I do recall assisting you in expressing your concerns about the RFC wording (here and here); in fact you even characterized my statements as being in support of your position on changing the RFC questions (). So I find the following statement utterly dishonest: "I got zero assistance from the moderators, despite complaints from numerous editors that the RfC questions would create problems. Despite numerous pleas, the moderators made no effort to address the issue." --Laser brain (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

Statement by SlimVirgin

Statement by Alanscottwalker (uninvolved)

I commented the last time this came here (on the utility of RfC's) and at the AN but have no interest or history in the GMO article(s) or the prior GMO case. At the AN I linked to a principle of this committee, which should be helpful, so I will quote it here in full:

If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

— 

In the most recent AN, a concern has again been raised that an RfC will lock in a consensus - in part sure, maybe (if it has some success), but really, it happens all the time, and if a new consensus in the future can be formed quickly or it takes a month, so what, there is no deadline on that, but what there is a helpful end to (deadline to) is putting things to bed for awhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim

A number of editors have misrepresented you, claiming the RfC is "mandated" by ArbCom :

• Laser brain: "this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case" (also ).

In fact, it was Trytpofish who threatened another full ArbCom case if he didn't get the RfC on his terms: "Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2" .

• Kingofaces43: "this ArbCom mandated RfC" .
• Tryptofish: "the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom."

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in the preparation of this 3rd RfC since inception, and spent hours creating an NPOV proposal for it. I participated in the AE where I was open to Mediation. I participated in good faith, assuming the RfC would be handled fairly.

I am shocked by how I was treated during the rule-making phase. It was not even-handed:

• Originally, the discussion was well hidden here: For the first 18 days, only two editors knew of the discussion besides the moderators. And both happened to be advocates for restoring the Wiki-voice to state a "broad consensus" of scientists find GMOs safe in ~10 articles and hammer it down--for 3 years. When I said that the rule-making discussion should not be one-sided and others should be notified I immediately received a frosty response from a moderator. I had to do the notification.

• When I made comments similar to SlimVirgin's about the money at stake, and asked that closing admins make declarations of no COI financial connection to GMO or PR firms, I was again even more severely threatened with DS by both moderators. ,

• When I asked that a new proposal be rejected because the language was not supported by the cited RS, I was told to shut up. here

• When I objected to moving forward because all revisions of the rules were made exclusively by the proponents of the scientific consensus language, I was accused of filibustering.

• When I tried to work with the other side, I got zero assistance from the moderators, despite complaints from numerous editors that the RfC questions would create problems. Despite numerous pleas, the moderators made no effort to address the issue. The language created by the proponents is still in place. Laserbrain denies this. But look at the edit history of the rules: Tryptofish and King run the show. King forced in Q1 and reverted all attempts to take it out, despite numerous objections to it. (added 02:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC))

Instead, the moderators gave the proponents everything they asked for, never threatened them for their name-calling and behavior. Something is seriously awry at the RfC. I will provide more diffs.

SlimVirgin made a similar observation here that the RfC rule making does not appear even-handed to her. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the above comments and poor treatment during the RfC rule making have been redacted. Where is the transparency? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1. originally posted here. The comments of Arbs were instead these: , , , , ,

I agree with Justdafax and Petrachan47: Enough is enough. I have seen the disruption and wiki-lawyering by these same two editors in their obsession to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" in the ledes of 5-10 GMO articles.

They work together to allow the exclusion of basic incontrovertible facts such as:

(1) that GMOs are banned or require labeling in numerous countries

(2) that the regulation of EU and US of GMOs are completely different

(3) the lack of long-term studies

Tsavage has noted the absence of such basic information many times.

The number of cases and drama they have brought or caused at AE, ARCA, AN/I and attempts to TB editors in their mission to try to force this language and lock it down despite the previous RfC that rejected it is astounding and exhausting for all of us. The best way to avoid the drama and GMO-2 is give them both a 6 month hiatus.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47

The community should be aware that this constant GMO drama could be considered distraction by Tryptofish for the fact that he, KingofAces43 and Aircorn went against the RfC findings and tried to argue for "scientific consensus" even after the community discovered this is an unsupported claim. That activity should be actionable to this day, considering the suite is under DS. I spoke to this: * * *

• Here is Tryptofish reinserting language disallowed by the RfC: *

On the misuse of sources:

According to WP:MEDRS, Domingo and Krimsky, being recent review articles in peer-reviewed journals, are the best sources we have with regard to GMO safety. David elucidates on these sources here.

• KingofAces43 called Domingo and Krimsky "fringe".*

• KingofAces43 incorrectly used an article that spoke to six studies, and claimed that it debunked the entirety of the aforementioned reviews (which looked at over 26 individual studies)*

• Tryptofish buried these same two sources in his RfC Proposal (#1) by using "but see also" so that it's almost impossible to find them.

These diffs show Tryptofish (and KingofAces43) should be topic-banned. I explain to Tryptofish here

these diffs show that you have suppressed the very best review articles we have on GMO safety to a "but see also" in the sources for your "GMOs are safe" proposal. Those articles say that there is lively debate in the scientific community about GMO safety, but this isn't mentioned in your proposal. So you are showing an inability to properly weigh and summarize GMO science. Further, there is a diff showing where you re-entered the term "scientific consensus" months after the RfC mandated a wording change, since this phrase does not have support in current literature. You were aware of that RfC, I have seen you refer to it many times, and you were well aware this suite is under DS.

In general, they fight anything that brings into question the safety of GMOs using bullying, walls of text, obsessive noticeboarding, and misusing sources.

Based on the behavior I have observed and illustrated above, I support JusDaFax' proposal: King and Trypto should be topic banned for being disruptive to the process of writing neutral, informative content.

1. Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
2. Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values 1-32. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381.

Additional comment

Not only is "the other side" of the GMO safety issue being kept from WP's pages, but when I tried to simply add a note about the percentage of Americans who support GMO labeling, and mention of the USDA's new GMO labeling program, I was reverted and 'handled' on the talk page. To this day we don't tell our readers this and other basic information about the GMO issue. WP is loosing good editors due to the refusal to put an end to, or even acknowledge, this idiocy.**

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Arbs, you know you're going to have to turn WP:ARBGMO2 blue eventually. May as well get it over with. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I strongly disagree with the above statement that GMO2 is needed. The solution is simple: topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces from the GMO articles and subpages under the existing discretionary sanctions.

David Tornheim and Petrarchan47 have made an excellent case just above that Trypto and King have misrepresented themselves repeatedly, abused process, and distorted sources. This is arguably bad faith editing. The diffs David and Petrar present are clear, and direct. Their case is strong, and I thank them both.

Slim Virgin aka SarahSV has also shown clearly what is going on at the current AN thread referenced above.

If further confirmation is needed, look at the edit histories of Trypto and King. Clearly these two editors see themselves as heroic defenders of the Wiki, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They are obsessive, and will do or say literally anything to get what they want.

Enough is enough.

Regardless of whether the RfC proceeds, in my view ArbCom should decide here and now to topic ban Tryptofish and Kingofaces and end their ongoing disruption. Im suggesting six months. Thanks.

• Additional comment - David Tornheim's backing of my above-proposed GMO topic ban for Kingofaces and Tryptofish is a seriously telling endorsement, which adds considerable weight to my contention that those two editors need a six month vacation from the subject to stop the waste of editor time. David worked patiently for many weeks with these two, and few are more qualified to testify to their tendentious and abusive editing. I thank him sincerely for his protracted attempts to bring balance to the RfC in question and the overall GMO issue, and his just-posted specific support for the proposed GMO topic ban for King and Trypto, which as I see it is long overdue. I also thank Petrarchan47 for her specific support. Jusdafax 19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

I'm on the road for work with less internet access that I expected, so I won't likely have time to respond here further this week (though I'll say my part at the RfC on Monday). My understanding from the last request was that ArbCom didn't think they should intervene directly in moderating the RfC and leave it up to the community/DS. Once The Wordsmith and Laserbrain said they'd be willing to set up the RfC, arbs let that responsibility fall to those admins as that settled the request without a need for a vote. The request was closed because a solution was found. That far from implies Arbs disapproved of the RfC, especially when specific arb concerns about implementation (not simply having the RfC) were addressed. Regardless, the DS are meant to break the back of disputes in these topics without explicit ArbCom oversight on each action, and that's exactly what is being done with this RfC.

At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with an RfC that forces all editors to focus only on the content for once. That's especially when all parties had ample time to submit whatever proposed content they wanted. I could rail about various behavior issues I've had to deal with, but now isn't the time for that. That's for GMO-2 if it becomes warranted at a later date. There's a lot of absurd stuff there I've kept relatively quiet about for now even though it would likely result in boomerangs. That's because now is the time to focus on content by giving the RfC a chance under discretionary sanctions first to really sort out content to see how much it fixes.

We've got the potential for this RfC to halt the primary dispute to the point editors all sides will have to move on instead of calling for heads to roll as part of the content dispute. We might finally beat this poor horse to the point there isn't any point in editors continuing further battleground behavior. Continued distractions away from the RfC through admin boards won't help the topic right now. I for one am choosing to forgo that to focus on the RfC content, as that's what really matters here. I hope other involved editors do the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• In the March 2016 amendment request, the Arbitration Committee declined Tryptofish's request that the ArbCom hold a moderated RfC to decide on this wording. A number of us, including myself, agreed that an RfC would be a fine way to handle it, but that the ArbCom did not need to be the ones managing it. Myself, kelapstick, and DGG also agreed that we did not like the idea of mandating that a fixed time pass before the wording could be changed (the original proposal by Tryptofish said "ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.").

  I agree with David Tornheim's correction above that ArbCom did not mandate an RfC be held, but I also don't see those comments as deliberate misrepresentations. I am, however, somewhat concerned about the visibility of this RfC during its drafting phase, as it does not appear to have been widely publicized. However, I see that David Tornheim posted to the GMO article talk page (as well as a few other pages such as Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, Talk:Genetically modified organism, etc.)‎ to notify of this discussion on May 2. This was a good call, and I see that a month passed between those notifications and when Wordsmith protected the draft RfC talk page. I think that is probably sufficiently long for outside parties to have stated their opinions, though these parties should really have been notified from the getgo.

  Mandating that the result of this RfC can only be changed by another 30-day RfC is certainly unorthodox. I agree that there should be a high level of agreement to alter the wording, if the outcome of this RfC does result in consensus for a change. I also don't think that kind of agreement will come about in this topic area without a fairly strict discussion, so at the moment I am not opposed to this clause being included in the RfC. However, I'd be curious to hear my colleagues' opinions on the inclusion of this clause, and their opinions on how this jibes with current policy.

  If he is willing, I would urge Laser brain to contact the ArbCom, and perhaps also the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team, regarding the harassment he has endured recently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Any RfC can by consensus mandate some form of moratorium, either in length of time or some form of consensus, as otherwise results could be ignored or tossed aside very quickly by people with enough time, motive and energy. So maybe mandating a 9-month moratorium could bring some stability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse, for the record. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• This is certainly a creative use of discretionary sanctions, but, as far as I'm concerned, I find it entirely cromulent. I also have absolutely no problem with the fact that the results of the RfC will be binding for a specified term, as long as the community has a way to modify them before such term has expired, in the event consensus changes in the meantime – and, again, as far as I'm concerned, another monthlong RfC is perfectly acceptable. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• It seems obvious to me that an RfC like this, with so much expected input and a panel of three judges (Simon Cowell is unavailable, I understand) to bless the result, would need an equally voluminous RfC to overturn it. If that's not obvious, then I'll put my wooden shoes on my head and walk out of the temple. In other words, I do not see a need to quantify or legislate a moratorium. On the other issue, whether we'll run this with DS on it, sure. I have no problem with that; it seems to me that that is the kind of thing DS is also supposed to do, with much of its language pertaining to discussion and disruption of discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages requests