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 9 active arbitrators. 5 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
Though, that's true of all editors, SPA or not. It is true that some SPAs edit problematically in the single area of focus. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.
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.
6) Improving an article on Wikipedia 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.
I understand the point made by Euryalus, but we are only saying that this can be disruptive, not that it always is. Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand Euryalus' point, but this can be an especially disruptive practice in contentious areas. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Dot point 1 has some weight. Weak support only for the set - most of these are objectively true but we can overstate their individual impact. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not agreed on any individual point, QuackGuru's editing in this area has been problematic. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. QuackGuru was also topic banned in July 2011 in "pseudoscience and chiropractic, broadly construed, for one year".
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.
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.
There are disruptive SPAs as there are disruptive long-term editors. Standard DS is enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editors can always be sanctioned under DS. I see no reason to open the door to open disputes over what is a "single purpose account" or not. If they're disruptive, sanction them appropriately for it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
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.
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.
Not at this moment, but with the understanding that the disruptive behavior needs to stop, or this will (and should) quickly be the result at AE. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
per Seraphimblade. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not yet sure DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
QuackGuru Warned
5) QuackGuru is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.
This paints something of an AE target on QuackGuru, but some kind of remedy is required and this is as close as we seem likely to get to an appropriate solution. QuackGuru, as a statement of the obvious please tone down the argumentative style. It's not the block log, or the occasional edit warring, it's the relentless insistence on personal rectitude in the face of opposing views. In passing, this is one of the dubious virtues of Arbcom that you get this kind of free character assessment. Please don't take it personally. But be aware that a warning as a remedy is an easy precursor to an AE block for disruption. Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I agree with Euryalus. I hope you'll do this. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With full understanding that if the combative behavior in the area continues, a topic ban should be the result. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Clarification received by email and so I've inserted "per article" in to the remedy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
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 L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC) (replace after each update); the last edit to this page was on 11:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by User:WOSlinkerBot.[reply]
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.
