Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk 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 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

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.

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 Wikipedia: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) reply
2. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
4. This is sorely needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Doug Weller ( talk) 04:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia 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) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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 to promote 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, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. Editors are however reminded that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser.

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) I too need to think more about the implications. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) striking my support per the comments below and on talk. This needs more thinking about. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. I had to Google 'shill', and see that it's a North American word. Euryalus, could the readability be improved here (e.g. a wiktionary or guideline link)? AGK [•] 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. With changes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   See my comment. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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. L Faraone 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

 Done L Faraone 19:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Reading Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision#Outside observations of SMcCandlish on several problems in the proposed decision raises some concerns over this principle. First, he's correct that it is mandating a posting order. WP:COI states " raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on his or her talk page, citing this guideline, or create a posting on WP:COIN". The principle mandates starting with the editor's talk page. SMcCandlish also believes that " If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence" is mandating outing. Although I'm sure this isn't the intention, anyone reading this princple might believe that this justifies outing. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

that we shouldn't mandate an inflexible posting order is reasonable enough.

Myself, I also have a slightly different objection. It can be read in just the opposite way, as inhibiting legitimate attempts to detect editing against the principles of WP. I think there in not complete agreement in the community about how far one may go here, or how to do it, and I not altogether sure myself. The principle about anonymity if carried to an extreme will inevitably conflict with other important principles, such as NPOV. I know the consensus has always been that anonymity is more important. I am not sure the consensus is that anonymity is always so absolutely important that it always over-rides all other considerations without exceptions. I am also unsure how far the Foundation will let us interpret this. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ NativeForeigner and Guerillero:, can we change the bit about talk page first, COIN second? User:Kingofaces43 has suggested "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI." I'd add a caveat however about outing, perhaps quoting WP:COI:"Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser." Doug Weller ( talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Go for it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Not a battleground

6) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 12:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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, including battlegrounding and edit warring.

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 13:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I deleted a stray punctuation mark: "engaging in poor conduct, including battlegrounding and edit warring. AGK [•] 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Jytdog

2) Jytdog has engaged in edit warring [1], has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct. [2] [3] [4]

Support:

1. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Euryalus ( talk) 19:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 13:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Jytdog has engaged in uncivil conduct, despite having been warned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   And during this case, he's violated the outing policy and has been blocked for that; I'd like to see this added to the FoF. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

8. +Salvio -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Although noting he expressed regret soon after for the show of temper in the second diff (not that that speaks against the wider pattern evident here). AGK [•] 19:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. The occasional loss of temper is to be expected, but it's a problem when it becomes more than occasional. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Jytdog & DrChrissy

3) For some time, Jytdog & DrChrissy have been engaged in an oft personalized dispute. [5] [6]

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 12:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 13:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. AGK [•] 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. That second diff seems to be a wall of text wasting time. Definitely support this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

JzG

4) JzG made chilling remarks during the course of the case relating to another user. [7], and has engaged in edit warring. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Support:

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

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) reply
2. His comments during the case in effect made him involved. NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   The main reasons for having named parties to a case are to (1) ensure that key players in a dispute are aware of the case, and (2) help define the scope of a case, particularly for interpersonal disputes. JzG has been active throughout these proceedings, commenting on the case request. presenting evidence and making workshop proposals so there can be no argument that he is unaware. This is also not his first experience of arbitration and so he cannot be unaware that conduct during a case is taken into consideration when the committee reaches its conclusions. Finally, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and so we should not let the fact that he is not formally listed as a party get in the way of our resolving the dispute. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. I continue to stand by my belief that JzG's not being a party does not preclude him from finding or sanction if appropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

3. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

:# Doug Weller ( talk) 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not a party. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
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. JzG was not somehow 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) reply
3. L Faraone 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Per Euryalus. He should have been added as a party if we wanted to deal with him as one and given him an opportunity to reply. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Not a party. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. I would want a few days of workshopping re-run for JzG before contemplating this. AGK [•] 19:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. I'm not comfortable seeing FoFs and remedies against someone who was not a case party. That said, the diffs listed aren't examples of stellar conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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." [12] Editors have voiced concerns that some of their edits within the locus of this case may violate their restriction. [13] [14] [15]

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 13:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. factual -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. L Faraone 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DrChrissy: Edit warring

6) DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring. [16] [17] [18] [19]

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 13:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 19:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. AGK [•] 19:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Petrarchan47

7) Petrarchan47 has cast general aspersions against editors who do not share their editorial views, and has assumed bad faith. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Support:

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

   not the worst offender, and probably not rising to the level of sanction but it is worth noting. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Deep hostility is evident in some of these edits. That plainly inflamed the problem. AGK [•] 19:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Constant aspersions, including veiled accusations of other editors being shills, is not a minor issue and is unacceptable conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Too minor to support a FoF. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Euryalus ( talk) 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Petrarchan's conduct has been suboptimal, but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting a FoF. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. per Salvio. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Insufficient for a finding. L Faraone 18:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Not yet convinced by the evidence for this. Appreciate the findings and remedies are a set, designed to cool this topic area and encourage people who haven't worked well together to diversify their editing itnerests, but would have liked a bit more to support this specific inclusion. -- Euryalus ( talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Added more evidence. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Prokaryotes

8) Prokaryotes has cast aspersions and exhibited a battleground mentality. [25] [26] [27]

Support:

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

   Thryduulf ( talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Euryalus ( talk) 05:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. The battleground mentality is evident and warrants attention in our final decision. AGK [•] 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Same as the Petrarchan47 FoF with casting of aspersions and accusations of shilling. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. too minor to support a FoF DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. The evidence provided is insufficient for me to support this FoF; however, I'm seeing evidence of serious POV-pushing on the part of Prokaryotes ( 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. I also find the evidence insufficient, although Prokayotes' behavior has gotten close to warranting a FoF. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I can see the casing aspirations but the battleground mentality is not clear. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Per Salvio. L Faraone 18:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

SageRad

9) SageRad has cast aspersions [28] [29] [30], added unsourced content [31], and articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case [32] [33]

Support:

1. Euryalus ( talk) 13:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 19:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 14:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   Doug Weller ( talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply

4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. I'd simply characterise SageRad's conduct as pugnacious, but I agree with the spirit of the FoF (see also this evidence submission). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Per Salvio. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. This user engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere, e.g. [34], and has plainly inflamed the topic area. It is a pity they have forced our hand here, because they were right to rail against some of the article changes in question. AGK [•] 19:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Having a POV is okay. Very few people, if any, are truly neutral. Getting in fights to push it is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. A little too minor to support a formal FoF. In particular, I do not see how "and articulated a clear POV in regards to the locus of the case" is a violation of anything. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. What was I thinking? Per DGG - having a pov is ok, everyone has one and articulating clearly could be called a good thing to do. The others are relatively minor. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

SageRad (alternate)

9.1) SageRad has cast aspersions [35] [36] [37] and added unsourced content [38].

Support:

1. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wuerzele

10) Wuerzele has displayed a battleground mentality, [39] [40], edit warred [41] [42], and engaged in incivility. [43] [44] [45] [46]

Support:

1. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Euryalus ( talk) 07:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. The fact alone that they referred to this dispute as "a war" means a sanction is worth considering. The other diffs simply confirm that fact. This behaviour has been significantly disruptive, and I question my colleague DGG's conclusion that the conduct exhibited here does not rise to the level of a finding. AGK [•] 19:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. If Wikipedia is a war...then where did I leave my weapons? *scrambles to find them* Surely I would need them being on ArbCom. That aside, my colleague AGK clearly exhibits the reason why this is needed, and I also question my colleague @ DGG:'s opposition. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Per AGK. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. too minor DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) That my colleagues disagree is why we do this by voting, not informal consensus. Someone taking a different view does not interfere with the decision, as it can in practice do at other venues. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   @ DGG: The question was rhetorical – was more wondering if you could expand (in case I am missing something). Sorry to have been unclear on that. AGK [•] 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

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) reply
2. Euryalus ( talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. AGK [•] 19:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply
2. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Euryalus ( talk) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. L Faraone 19:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Yes. We haven't had a dispute with this much textbook edit warring for a couple of years. AGK [•] 19:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Very much needed. The edit warring serves to inflame an already contentious dispute in an already difficult enough area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I wouldn't object to this being treated as a discretionary sanction imposed (assuming the authorisation passes) so that it can be removed or modified without requiring a full ARCA. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This needs to be arround for the consevable future -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

By the look of things, we wouldn't wish to see a blanket 1RR restriction lifted for some time in any case; so requiring an ARCA to lift it is actually best. AGK [•] 19:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. The direct personal animosity makes this appropriate to at least try. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   per DGG. Ibans can work, and given the evidence presented in this case it seems at least worth trying. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. I disagree with Salvio. Interaction bans can help. AGK [•] 19:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Definitely a two way needed here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. These two clearly just can't get along. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Experience has shown that IBANs very rarely work and, instead, frequently end up creating more disruption. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Per Salvio. L Faraone 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Not sufficiently justified. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   JzG has not behaved at all well, and this should not be taken as any sort of endorsement of his conduct, but he has not abused his admin powers. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Euryalus ( talk) 19:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. I'm willing to go along with the FoF above on JzG, but he isn't a party even if he has taken part in the case, no evidence of abuse of his admin powers. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Procedurally improper. AGK [•] 19:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. I wouldn't possibly support this even if Guy were a case party. Some intemperate comments certainly do not rise to this level of sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I do not like his conduct at all, but he isn't a party. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

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

Can I ask what on earth the drafter was thinking when they brought this proposal? We do not sanction individuals who are not named parties. AGK [•] 21:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ask Courcelles, this was included at his request. See arbwiki etc. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

JzG admonished

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

Support:

1. His comments during the case made him in essence involved. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   per my comments on the finding of fact. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page, not because he is not a party. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not a party. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Per Salvio. L Faraone 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Euryalus ( talk) 19:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. not a party. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Procedurally improper. AGK [•] 19:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Not a party to the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I do not like his conduct at all, but he isn't a party. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Per Salvio. L Faraone 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. not justified DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   per DGG, and per my comments on the FoF not per Salvio. This vote is without prejudice to any sanction imposed under DS. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Euryalus ( talk) 02:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Procedurally improper. AGK [•] 19:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Not a case party. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I do not like his conduct at all, but he isn't a party. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Petrarchan47 topic banned

6) 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) reply
2. I disagree with my colleagues: I consider this to be an appropriate remedy, given the conduct in evidence. AGK [•] 19:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not justified at this time, per my comments on the finding of fact, but this is without prejudice to any sanction being imposed under the DS authorisation. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Per Thryduulf. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 18:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Given my opposition to the FoF. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Only given that it appears very unlikely for the relevant FoF to pass and we can't have a remedy without one. If the FoF were passing, I would most certainly support this. Hinting that everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of paid shill, with no evidence whatsoever, is not remotely acceptable conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

DrChrissy topic banned

7) 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) reply
2. L Faraone 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Support Thryduulf ( talk) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Euryalus ( talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. AGK [•] 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. With the previous topic bans, now edit warring in the topic area, and a needed iban, this is needed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Very much needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Jytdog topic banned

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms 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) reply
2. L Faraone 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 20:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

3. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. First choice (see remedy 7 below for second choice). -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   However, in light of the outing which occurred during this case, I'm amenable to considering a full site ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

6. I was previously undecided, but now support this, partly on account of the outing. I think it does indicate a determination to act however he feels necessary to advance his position. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. AGK [•] 19:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. I think Jytdog does mean well, but conduct in this area could at best be described as suboptimal and extremely combative. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Jytdog warned

9) 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) reply
2. L Faraone 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) (in addition to the topic ban, per Guerillero) DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   and echoing Guerillero. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice if Remedy 6 (Jytdog topic ban) doesn't pass. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. In addition to, and not as an alternative to, the topic ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Per Salvio. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Treating this and remedy 8 not as alternatives, so support whether or not the other passes. AGK [•] 19:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. In addition to, not in lieu of, remedy 8. The combative behavior must stop, especially when it involves opposition research and outing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Prokaryotes topic banned

10) Prokaryotes 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) reply

   Thryduulf ( talk) 20:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Euryalus ( talk) 07:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. AGK [•] 19:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Not justified at this time, per my comments on the finding of fact, but this is without prejudice to any sanction being imposed under the DS authorisation (assuming that passes). Thryduulf ( talk) 14:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Confusing editors, apologies to all concerned. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

1. per my vote on the FoF. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. not sufficiently justified. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. With my opposition to the FoF, I'll let DS work and see where that goes. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. The relevant FoF appears unlikely to pass, and we can't pass a remedy not supported by an FoF. If the FoF does pass, please consider this a support for this remedy. It is utterly unacceptable to run around accusing people you disagree with of being shills without evidence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

SageRad topic banned

11) SageRad 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. there is an argument for a site ban here, but YMMV -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. L Faraone 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I don't know whether I would support a site ban, but I would certainly consider it. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

3. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Euryalus ( talk) 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Doug Weller ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. AGK [•] 19:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Again, behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree. I would also consider support for a site ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. On reconsideration, I no longer support this. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Having change my mind on the FoF I obviously can no longer support this. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Moving to abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

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

Wuerzele topic banned

12) Wuerzele 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Euryalus ( talk) 07:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. AGK [•] 19:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. My strongest support in this case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Sorely needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I do not think the evidence is strong enough here . DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Abstain per my post on the talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments:

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:

General

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 09:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC) by User:WOSlinker. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	11	0	0		·
2	Edit Warring	11	0	0		·
3	Standards of conduct	11	0	0		·
4	Conduct on arbitration cases	11	0	0		·
5	Casting aspersions	8	1	0		·
6	Not a battleground	11	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	11	0	0		·
2	Jytdog	10	0	1		·
3	Jytdog & DrChrissy	9	0	1		·
4	JzG	3	7	1		Cannot pass
5	DrChrissy: Existing restrictions	11	0	0		·
6	DrChrissy: Edit warring	10	0	1		·
7	Petrarchan47	4	6	1		Cannot pass
8	Prokaryotes	5	5	1		Cannot pass
9	SageRad	8	2	1		·
9.1	SageRad (alternate)	1	0	0		5
10	Wuerzele	8	1	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	11	0	0		·
2	1RR imposed	11	0	0		·
3	Jytdog & DrChrissy iban	8	2	1		·
4	JzG desysoped	0	9	2		Cannot pass
5	JzG admonished	2	7	2		Cannot pass
5.1	JzG topic banned	0	8	3		Cannot pass
6	Petrarchan47 topic banned	2	7	1		Cannot pass
7	DrChrissy topic banned	10	0	1		·
8	Jytdog topic banned	10	0	1		·
9	Jytdog warned	9	0	1		·	[1]
10	Prokaryotes topic banned	4	3	2		1
11	SageRad topic banned	8	2	1		·
12	Wuerzele topic banned	8	1	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		6	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		6	Passes by default

Notes

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

1. Im normally a fan of making sure every remedy is passed or defeated before closing; in fact I've held up previous closes on precisely these grounds. But this case had gone on so long that the most logical way forward seems to declare the remaining (Prokaryotes) remedy "no consensus" and wind the whole thing up. Hence this vote. -- Euryalus ( talk) 10:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
2. DS can take care of any loose ends -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. I think we're done here now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
6. AGK [•] 17:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Seriphin needs to vote and Roger needs to be placed in the inactive column -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

1. Let's wait a day--per comments at bottom of talk p. about work in progress. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Give me 24 hours, if I haven't posted anything, then go ahead. I'm just looking into the conduct of one last user. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments